Parliamentary Inquiries

CHAPTER 31

Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries

A. Points of Order (p. 1) § 1. In General; Effect § 2. Manner of Making Point of Order § 3. Reserving Points of Order § 4. Timeliness § 5. Timeliness as Against Bills or Provisions Therein § 6. Timeliness as Against Amendments § 7. Debate § 8. Burden of Proof on Points of Order § 9. Waiver § 10. Role of Committee on Rules in Waiving Points of Order § 11. As Related to Other Business § 12. Relationship of Quorum Requirements to Points of Order § 13. Appeals

B. Parliamentary Inquiries (p. 493) § 14. In General § 15. When in Order

Index to Precedents (p. 571)

Commentary and editing by William Holmes Brown, J.D., and John Theo- dore Fee, J.D. Manuscript editing by Joan Deschler Bamel.

11937

Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries

A. Points of order § 1. In General; Effect decide points of order, subject to a right of appeal by any Member. A point of order is in effect an Apart from this rule, the disposi- objection that the pending matter tion of points of order is largely or proceeding is in violation of governed by the discretion of the some rule or practice of the Chair and by precedent.(5) The House. It may also constitute a Chair, without prompting from a demand for an immediate return Member, sometimes assumes an ( ) to the regular order. 1 A point of affirmative obligation to protect order is not a vehicle for obtaining the rights of Members.(6) In the debate time or for injecting com- exercise of its discretion, the ments about a pending amend- Chair may, for example, decide ment or matter under consider- whether to entertain more than ation.(2) one point of order at the same Rule I clause 4 (3) provides that time; (7) whether to decide one it is the duty of the Speaker (4) to point or another first; (8) or wheth- 1. For general discussion of the subject er to rule on points of order simul- of points of order prior to 1936, see taneously.(9) On rare occasions, 5 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 6863–6957; 8 Cannon’s Precedents §§ 3427–3458. and generally acts with the powers Points of order consume less time of the Speaker, as provided by Rule today than formerly. Mr. Clarence XXIII clause 1, House Rules and Cannon (Mo.), who was parliamen- Manual § 861 (1997). See 5 Hinds’ tary clerk at the Speaker’s table be- Precedents § § 6828, 6927. fore becoming a Member, once esti- 5. See § 1.1, infra, as to the importance mated that discussion of points of of precedents, generally. order occupied a third of the time of 6. See § 1.3, infra. the House in the early 20th century. 7. See § 1.8, infra. See 101 CONG. REC. 10609, 84th 8. See § 1.9, infra. Cong. 1st Sess., July 14, 1955. 9. See § 1.13, infra. 2. See § 1.42, infra. The Chair’s discretion in this re- 3. House Rules and Manual § 624 gard is guided by his understanding (1997). of the relative effects resulting from 4. In the Committee of the Whole, the the sustaining of the various points Chairman decides questions of order of order.

11939 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS the Chair will anticipate a par- fore the House. For example, a liamentary situation and—as with point of order against a portion of a question of privilege—rule with- an amendment may cause the out a point of order from the whole amendment to fall; (19) and floor.(10) a point of order against a con- At the beginning of a Congress, ference report, if sustained, may before rules are adopted, the vitiate the report and leave the Chair enforces ‘‘order’’ based on House with the amendments in precedents and long-established disagreement before it for disposi- customs—principles of general tion.(20) parliamentary law—which con- The enforcement of committee stitute and define proper decorum rules—those which are not ex- in debate.(11) plicit rules of the House but are The Chair may refuse to rule on internal to a committee—is the re- matters that are related to but sponsibility of the pertinent com- not expressly raised in the point mittees. Normally, the Speaker is of order; (12) and points of order do not compelled to rule on a point of not lie against the Chair’s exercise order relating to the interpreta- of discretionary authority granted tion of such a committee rule.(1) ( ) by the standing rules. 13 More- However, violations of certain over, the Chair does not rule on committee rules are cognizable in ( ) constitutional questions, 14 hypo- the House under Rule XI clause (15) thetical questions, or the effect 2.(2) (16) of a bill’s provisions. Similarly, There are special procedures the Chair does not pass upon the prescribed by standing rule (3) re- consistency of proposed amend- lating to words uttered in debate. (17) ments or resolve ambiguities in The proper procedure is to de- amendments.(18) mand that ‘‘words be taken down.’’ The effect of sustaining a point But such demands must be time- of order depends on the matter be- 19. See § 1.25, infra. 10. See § 1.51, infra. 20. See § 1.27, infra. 11. See § 1.2, infra. 1. See § 1.47, infra. 12. See § 1.28, infra. 2. See, e.g., Rule XI clause 2(g)(5), 13. See § 1.29, infra. House Rules and Manual § 708, and 14. See § § 1.37–1.39, infra. clause 2(l), § 713 (1997). See also 15. See § 1.40, infra. § § 1.47, 1.48, 1.49, infra. 16. See § 1.36, infra. 3. See Rule XIV, clauses 1, 4, and 5, 17. See § 1.36, infra House Rules and Manual § § 749, 760 18. See § 1.41, infra. (1997).

11940 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 ly, before other debate inter- . . . Not only is this subcommittee, venes.(4) in my judgment, not doing the job that needs to be done, it has brought the institution again, in my judgment, into disrepute by disregarding the rules of Importance of Precedents the House and permitting a committee of the House to be used as a forum in § 1.1 The Speaker follows the this fashion. precedents of the House in MR. [OREN] HARRIS [of Arkansas]: deciding points of order. Mr. Speaker, I must object again and ask that those words be deleted. (5) On June 24, 1958, Mr. Thom- MR. CURTIS of Missouri: I would like as B. Curtis, of Missouri, chal- to ask the gentleman before he does, lenged a practice of the House just what language is he objecting to? with which he disagreed and MR. HARRIS: To the charge that this sought to have Speaker Sam Ray- committee is violating the rules of the burn, of Texas, overrule certain House. precedents which prevented dis- MR. CURTIS of Missouri: Well, I certainly do charge that and I think it is cussion on the floor of the House proper to charge such a thing if I have of matters occurring in commit- presented the evidence. How else are tees, unless the committees in we going to present the case to the question took action. The fol- House? lowing exchange, emphasizing the THE SPEAKER: There is a long line of importance of precedent in the decisions holding that attention cannot Speaker’s rulings, took place: be called on the floor of the House to proceedings in committees without ac- SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE tion by the committee. The Chair has OVERSIGHT just been reading a decision by Mr. Speaker Gillett and the decision is THE SPEAKER: Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Mis- very positive on that point. souri [Mr. Curtis], is recognized for 60 MR. CURTIS of Missouri: Mr. Speak- minutes. er, in addressing myself to that, may I MR. CURTIS of Missouri: . . . Mr. say I am unaware of such a rule and Speaker, I am very disturbed about the I would argue, if I may, in all pro- manner in which one of our House sub- priety, that that rule, if it does exist, committees has been conducting itself should be changed because how else in the past few days. I refer to the sub- will the House ever go into the func- committee of the Interstate and For- tioning and actions of its committees? eign Commerce Committee on Legisla- THE SPEAKER: That is not a question tive Oversight.... for the Chair to determine. That is a question for the House to change the 4. See § 1.50, infra. rule. 5. 104 CONG. REC. 12121, 12122, 85th MR. CURTIS of Missouri: Mr. Speak- Cong. 2d Sess. er, is it a rule or is it a ruling? If it is

11941 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

a ruling of the Chair, then it is appro- the resolution. At the conclusion priate for the Chair to consider it. of her time, she refused to relin- THE SPEAKER: The precedents of the quish the floor and persisted in House are what the Chair goes by in most instances. There are many prece- debate despite repeated admoni- dents and this Chair finds that the tions from the Chair and the use precedents of the House usually make of the Speaker’s gavel. The rather mighty good sense. raucous proceedings were as fol- MR. CURTIS of Missouri: But the lows: Chair can change a precedent. That is ( ) why I am trying to present this mat- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 7 The ter. gentleman from New York [Mr. Sol- THE SPEAKER: If the Chair did not omon] has 1 minute remaining. believe in the precedents of the House, MR. [GERALD B. H.] SOLOMON [of then the Chair might be ready to do New York]: Mr. Speaker, I yield such that, but this Chair is not disposed to time as she may consume to the gen- overturn the precedents of the House tlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. which the Chair thinks are very Johnson]. clear.... MRS. JOHNSON of Connecticut: Mr. THE SPEAKER: The Chair has made Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his ruling, and the Chair thinks it is yielding me this time. correct. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the substance of this proposal, § 1.2 At the beginning of a new and with deep concern for the subver- Congress, before rules are sion of the legislative process contained in this package. adopted, the Chair will en- The substance strikes at the heart of tertain a point of order that the budget agreement. The process proper decorum is not being strikes at the heart of democracy, and followed and will enforce so I am going to use such time as I those rules relating to the may consume, and I am not going to Chair’s power of recognition recognize the authority of the Speak- er’s gavel, because I want to make very which embody long estab- clear the implications of what is hap- lished custom. pening here. On Jan. 3, 1991,(6) during de- First of all, this House is operating bate on House Resolution 5, estab- under precedent, not under rule. Prece- dent is something that we honor be- lishing rules for the 102d Con- cause we hold ourselves to a standard gress, Mrs. Nancy L. Johnson, of of ethical conduct that requires hon- Connecticut, was yielded time oring our rules. under the hour taken to debate If we do not hold ourselves to that standard of ethical conduct, then the 6. 137 CONG. REC. 58, 59, 102d Cong. 1st Sess. 7. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).

11942 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 line between self-government and THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The chaos disintegrates. If we cannot oper- gentlewoman will remove herself from ate ethically, we cannot govern our- the well within 30 seconds. selves as a free nation. So, honor is everything; word is bond. POINT OF ORDER I choose not to be governed by the MR. [HENRY B.] GONZALEZ [of gavel, because I want to demonstrate Texas]: that where word is not bond, democ- Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of racy cannot survive. order. I rise to a point of order, Mr. If we were doing that here today, de- Speaker. mocracy in its gut and at the level of MRS. JOHNSON of Connecticut: As I trust that it demands would not be at said, I am not going to talk at length risk; but the majority party is not pro- but only for the very few minutes nec- posing a statutory change for which essary to make clear my concern with they could be held accountable. the substance and process violations in THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The this rules proposal. time of the gentlewoman has expired. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MRS. JOHNSON of Connecticut: The gentleman will state his point of order. majority party is proposing a rules MR. GONZALEZ: The gentlewoman is change. out of order and is defying the Chair’s THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ruling and, therefore, I am imploring Chair would state to the gentlewoman the Chair to exercise its authority to that whatever point she is trying to enforce the rules of the House by sum- make that the Chair is going to make moning the Sergeant at Arms and pre- a point. senting the mace. MRS. JOHNSON of Connecticut: It THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The does not change the law. Chair may do that. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The House will operate under proper deco- Speaker Protects Parliamen- rum. tary Rights of Members MRS. JOHNSON of Connecticut: . . . What is happening here is that indi- § 1.3 The Speaker may on his vidual desire for spending programs is own initiative take action to overriding the public interest in deficit protect the right of Members reduction. to raise appropriate points of MR. [GERRY] SIKORSKI [of Min- nesota]: Mr. Speaker, regular order. order. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Until the 104th Congress adopted its gentlewoman is out of order. The gen- rules on Jan. 4, 1995, points of order tlewoman is making the point of not had to be ‘‘reserved’’ on general appro- following the rules. priation bills when they were reported. MRS. JOHNSON of Connecticut: Mr. Failure to take this step deprived the Speaker, I am sorry. I know this is un- Chairman of the Committee of the pleasant. Whole of the right to ‘‘rule out,’’ in re-

11943 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

sponse to a point of order, a portion of ity is aware of it, and we have no ob- the bill as being legislative or unau- jection on this side of the aisle. thorized in law as required by Rule Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva- XXI clause 2.(8) Rule XXI clause 8 (9) tion of objection. was added in 1995 and provides: ‘‘At THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there the time any appropriation bill is re- objection to the request of the gen- ported, all points of order shall be con- tleman from Wisconsin? sidered as reserved.’’. The following in- There was no objection. ( ) cident, on May 23, 1994, 10 showed the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: All willingness of the Chair to protect the points of order are reserved. prerogatives of Members. Priority of Committee Members PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON AP- PROPRIATIONS TO FILE A PRIVILEGED in Recognition for Point of REPORT ON FOREIGN OPERATIONS AP- Order PROPRIATIONS BILL, 1995 § 1.4 Members of the com- MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent mittee reporting a bill have that the Committee on Appropriations priority of recognition to may have until midnight tonight, May make points of order against 23, 1994, to file a privileged report to proposed amendments to accompany a bill providing appropria- bills. tions for Foreign Operations for fiscal ( ) year 1995, and for other purposes. On Mar. 30, 1949, 12 in the Com- mittee of the Whole, Chairman Jere THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (11) Is Cooper, of Tennessee, confronted with there objection to the request of the points of order offered simultaneously gentleman from Wisconsin? by two Members, recognized the com- MR. [GERALD B. H.] SOLOMON [of mittee member. New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of South Da- right to object, we would like to know kota: Mr. Chairman, I offer my amend- if the minority has been informed. We ment at this time and ask that it be are told that they have not been. read. MR. OBEY: If the gentleman will The Clerk read as follows:... yield, I do not think that is correct. MR. [HENRY M.] JACKSON of Wash- MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Speaker, I stand ington: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. corrected. I understand that the minor- MR. [CARL T.] CURTIS [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. 8. House Rules and Manual § 834 THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- (1997). nizes the gentleman from Washington, 9. House Rules and Manual § 848a (1997). 12. 95 CONG. REC. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st 10. 140 CONG. REC. p. , 103d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. Cong. 2d Sess. 3838, the Interior Department gen- 11. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.). eral appropriation bill for 1950.

11944 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

a member of the committee, to state a the consideration of a bill for point of order. amendment and on rare oc- MR. JACKSON of Washington: Mr. casions does so when addi- Chairman, I make the point of order that this particular amendment is leg- tional information on the islation on an appropriation bill and point of order is presented to imposes additional duties on the Bu- him. reau of Reclamation. The Committee on Appropria- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from South Dakota desire to be heard tions has the burden of proving on the point of order? the authorization for projects car- MR. CASE of South Dakota: Yes, Mr. ried in a general bill and has Chairman. sometimes cited an ‘‘organic law’’ THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear as the legal basis for a particular the gentleman on the point of item of appropriation. order.... While the Organic Act creating Does the gentleman from Nebraska an agency can be cited to support desire to be heard on the point of an item of appropriation, on one order? occasion when such a law was MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear cited and the Chair relied upon it the gentleman briefly. to overrule a point of order, he MR. CURTIS: I rose to make the same later reversed his ruling when it point of order.... was determined that the Organic THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- Act had been amended to remove pared to rule. the portion thereof relied upon in The gentleman from South Dakota the ruling. [Mr. Case] offers an amendment which On June 8, 1983,(13) Chairman has been reported, against which the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Jack- Gerry E. Studds, of Massachu- son] makes a point of order on the setts, entertained argument ground it is legislation on an appro- against an appropriation for ‘‘Sal- priation bill.... aries and Expenses, Bureau of the The Chair sustains the point of Mint.’’ The point of order was order. brought by a member of the Com- mittee on Banking, Finance and Authority of the Chair To Re- Urban Affairs, Frank Annunzio, of verse an Earlier Decision Illinois, who argued that the annual authorization for the Bureau § 1.5 The Chairman of the had not been enacted into law. Committee of the Whole has the authority to reverse his 13. 129 CONG. REC. 14854, 14855, 98th ruling made earlier during Cong. 1st Sess. 11945 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The chairman of the Sub- tion and under its control all mints for the manufacture of coin and all committee on Treasury, Post Of- assay offices for the stamping of bars fice Appropriations, Edward R. which has been or which may be au- Roybal, of California, cited the thorized by law. provisions of law carried in title Section 253 states: 31 of the United States Code, The Director of the Mint shall which established the Bureau of have the general supervision of all mints and assay offices and shall the Mint. The Chair relied upon make an annual report to the Sec- these citations in holding that the retary of the Treasury of their oper- appropriation was in fact author- ations at the close of each fiscal year, and from time to time such addi- ized by law. tional reports setting forth the oper- ational conditions of such institu- THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will read. tions as the Secretary shall require, The Clerk read as follows: and shall lay before him the annual estimates for their support; and the BUREAU OF THE MINT Secretary of the Treasury shall appoint the number of clerks classified SALARIES AND EXPENSES according to law necessary to dis- For necessary expenses of the Bu- charge the duties of said Bureau. reau of the Mint: $49,558,000. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point MR. ANNUNZIO: Mr. Chairman, I out that in addition to the sections I make a point of order that the appro- have just read, sections 261 through priations for the Bureau of the Mint, 463 of title 31 set forth in detail the salaries and expenses, contained in duties of the Bureau of the Mint, and title I are not authorized by law. those sections are replete with require- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman ments that the mint must accomplish from California (Mr. Roybal) wish to be certain acts. heard on the point of order? I would like to cite Deschler’s and MR. ROYBAL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I Brown’s Procedure of the House, chap- wish to be heard on the point of order. ter 25, section 5.7, which states in The Bureau of the Mint has been op- part, as follows. Section 5.7 reads as erating under one form or another follows: since this country was first founded. The failure of Congress to enact The Mint has been minting and into law separate legislation specifi- issuing coins pursuant to authority cally authorizing appropriations for existing programs does not nec- found in title 31 of the United States essarily render appropriations for Code. Section 251 of title 31 estab- those programs subject to a point of lishes the Bureau and I would just like order, where more general existing to read to the Chairman the first part law authorizes appropriations for of section 251. It reads as follows: such programs. Thus, a paragraph in a general appropriation bill purport- There shall be established in the edly containing some funds not yet Treasury Department a Bureau of specifically authorized by separate the Mint embracing as an organiza- legislation was held not to violate

11946 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

Rule XXI clause 2, where it was MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massa- shown that all of the funds in the chusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in op- paragraph were authorized by more position to the point of order. general provisions of law currently applicable to the programs in ques- The chairman of the subcommittee tion. has cited a number of general authorizations, which taken together con- It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that stitute authorization within the mean- the general existing law which I have ing and the application of rule XXI, just cited authorizes the appropriation. clause 2. The United States Code specifically establishes the Bureau of the Mint, and THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- because the Code requires the Mint to pared to rule. accomplish certain functions, there is The gentleman from Illinois makes implicit in law the authority for the the point of order that there is no au- Congress to appropriate funds to ac- thorization for the expenses contained complish those objectives which Con- in the line in question. gress set forth in law. The gentleman from California cites Mr. Chairman, I ask that the point an organic statute creating the office in of order be overruled. question, namely, the Bureau of the MR. ANNUNZIO: Mr. Chairman, may Mint. I be heard on the point of order? The Chair is aware of the bill, H.R. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rec- 2628, passed by the House earlier this ognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. year, but not yet law. That bill, if and Annunzio) but the Chair would ask when it becomes law, will authorize him to address himself to the neces- some Bureau of Mint appropriations sity, as he claims in his point of order, for fiscal 1984 and provide other per- for an annual authorization for these manent authorizations for salaries and funds. expenses. Absent citation to such a MR. ANNUNZIO: Mr. Chairman, I lis- statute requiring annual authorization, tened closely to the explanation of the however, the Chair believes that the distinguished chairman of the sub- gentleman from California may rely on committee of the Committee on Appro- priations. an organic act creating the office and authorizing it as a standing authoriza- If the Chair were to sustain the point of order, there would not be any tion in law for the purposes of the Bu- need for authorizing committees to reau and, therefore, overrules the point present their authorizations. The Ap- of order. propriations Committee would be doing Later in the consideration of the the job. bill,(14) more recent citations of I would also like to cite that in clause 2, rule XXI of the rules of the law were called to the attention of House, it states that funds cannot be the Chair which showed that the appropriated with an authorization. Organic Act had been supple- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) wish 14. H.R. 3132 (Treasury, Postal Service to be heard on the point of order? appropriation, 1984).

11947 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS mented by a requirement in law MR. ANNUNZIO: Mr. Chairman, for for annual authorizations. The the benefit of my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, Chair then reversed his earlier de- I am renewing my point of order that cision. The proceedings were as the appropriation violates clause 2 of follows: (15) rule XXI, on page 5, line 14, of the rules of the House, in that they appro- MR. ROYBAL: Mr. Chairman, I ask priate funds without an authorization. that the Chair return to page 5, lines A misunderstanding concerning the 14 through 17, only for the purpose of point of order has occurred because of hearing further arguments on the a change in the law that took place in point of order raised by the gentleman 1981, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act. from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio). Prior to the passage of the act, the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear mint operated under a permanent au- the gentleman. thorization and needed only to come MR. [BILL] FRENZEL [of Minnesota]: before the Appropriations Committee Reserving the right to object, Mr. to obtain its funds. Chairman— In 1981, however, the Congress THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman did changed that law so that the mint had not propound a unanimous consent re- to first obtain a yearly authorization quest. before obtaining an appropriation. MR. FRENZEL: A point of information, The report of the House Banking Mr. Chairman. Can the Chair restate Committee on this legislation makes what the gentleman from California that point very clear, that each year a propounded? new authorization is needed. The re- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from port in part says: California requested the Chair to en- It is the intent of the Committee tertain a return to a point of order ear- to repeal the permanent authoriza- lier overruled. tion of the salaries and expenses of The Chair in rare circumstances may the Bureau of the Mint. agree to such a request and has recog- Further, the statement of the man- nized the gentleman to be heard. agers in the conference report of the MR. FRENZEL: Can the Chair tell us committee on the legislation makes the what position in the bill the point of point even more clear, that it is to be order occurs? a yearly authorization. In part the re- MR. CHAIRMAN: will hear the gen- port states: tleman from California and will recog- The House bill terminated the per- nize him for that purpose, and the gen- manent authorization for appropria- tleman will point that out. tions for salaries and expenses for MR. ROYBAL: Mr. Chairman, I yield the Bureau of the Mint. The Senate receded to the House. to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. An- nunzio). THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair desires to make a statement. The Chair apolo- 15. 129 CONG. REC. 14876, 14877, 98th gizes in advance to the Members for Cong. 1st Sess. the length of the statement.

11948 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

Earlier, during consideration of the minated the permanent authorization bill in the Committee of the Whole, the for appropriations for salaries and ex- Chair overruled a point of order penses of the Bureau of the Mint (page against the paragraph appropriating 717). The Omnibus Reconciliation Act funds for the Bureau of the Mint, sala- of 1982, Public Law 97–253, in section ries and expenses, on page 5, lines 14 202, changed the 1982 authorization through 17. In argument on the point into a fiscal year 1983 authorization. of order, the manager of the bill cited Public Law 97–258 codified in its en- provisions of law establishing and dele- tirety title 31 of the United States gating functions to the Bureau of the Code, and carried the 1982 authoriza- Mint, as sufficient authority to author- tion in section 5132 of title 31; all the ize appropriations for annual expenses old provisions of title 31 dealing with and salaries. The Chair has since be- the mint, previously cited in argument come aware that those provisions of on the point of order, have been re- law have been repealed, and that the pealed. Public Law 97–452 modified statutes relating to the mint have been the codification to reflect the 1983 au- amended, first by the Omnibus Rec- thorization carried in the 1982 Rec- onciliation Act of 1981, then by the onciliation Act. There remains no stat- Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1982, utory language relating to the mint and then by a complete recodification which may be construed as a perma- of title 31 of the United States Code. nent authorization. No specific authorization of appropria- The Chair recognizes that it is un- tions for fiscal year 1984 has yet been usual for the Chair to reverse a deci- enacted, but one has passed the House sion or ruling previously made, and it (H.R. 2628). is the opinion of the Chair that he The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of should undertake such a course of ac- 1981, Public Law 97–35, provided in tion only where new and substantial section 382 that the sentence in the facts or circumstances, which were not Code (31 U.S.C. 369) which had been evident or stated in argument on a construed to provide a permanent au- point of order, are subsequently thorization of appropriations for the brought to his attention. Bureau of the Mint be repealed, and In rare instances, the Chair has re- replaced that language with an author- versed a decision on his own initiative; ization of appropriations for fiscal year for example, the Chairman of the Com- 1982 only. The report on that measure mittee of the Whole in 1927, as cited in in the House stated, on page 129, that volume 8 of Cannon’s Precedents sec- by repealing the existing statutory pro- tion 3435, held that a provision in a vision and by limiting the authoriza- general appropriation bill constituted tion to fiscal year 1982 only, it is the legislation after reviewing a statute he intent of the committee to repeal the was not previously aware of when he permanent authorization for the sala- had rendered a contrary decision. ries and expenses of the Bureau of the For the reasons stated, and in view Mint. The joint explanatory statement of the unique and compelling cir- of the conferees on the Reconciliation cumstances, the Chair holds that the Act reiterated that the House bill ter- language in the bill on page 5, lines 14

11949 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

through 17, appropriating funds for the proponent of the amendment Bureau of the Mint, is unauthorized asked that it be withdrawn. and, therefore, rules the paragraph out of order. MR. EDGAR: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Chair’s Duty To Rule on Point Amendment offered by Mr. Edgar: of Order On page 8, after line 2, add the following new section: § 1.6 The Chair only rules on a ‘‘SEC. 104. Within funds available point of order when required in the construction general account, including but not limited to funds to do so, and will permit deferred, the Corps of Engineers is withdrawal of an amendment directed to complete the navigation (by unanimous consent in and related features of the Ten- nessee-Tombigbee Waterway at a Committee of the Whole) total additional Federal cost of prior to ruling on a point of $202,000,000. Section 206 of the In- land Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 order raised against the is amended by adding at the end amendment. thereof the following: ‘(27) Ten- ( ) nessee-Tombigbee Waterway: From On June 7, 1983, 16 the energy the Pickwick Pool on the Tennessee and water development appropria- River at RM 215 to Demopolis, Ala- bama, on the Tombigbee River at tion for fiscal 1984 (H.R. 3132), RM 215.4.’ ’’. was under consideration in Com- MR. [TOM] BEVILL [of Alabama]: Mr. mittee of the Whole. An amend- Chairman, I reserve a point of order on ment, offered by Mr. Robert W. this amendment. Edgar, of Pennsylvania, was sub- THE CHAIRMAN: (17) The gentleman ject to at least two possible points from Alabama (Mr. Bevill) reserves a of order: it was ‘‘legislation’’ in point of order against the amendment. MR. [RONNIE G.] FLIPPO [of Ala- violation of Rule XXI clause 2; bama]: Mr. Chairman, I also make a and it affected the level of excise point of order against the gentleman’s tax and was thus a violation of amendment on the grounds that it vio- Rule XXI clause 5(b), which pro- lates paragraph (b), clause 5, rule XXI of the rules of the House. hibits tax or tariff measures from THE CHAIRMAN: Would the gen- being in order to a measure not tleman suspend. reported by the Committee on MR. FLIPPO: Mr. Chairman, I reserve Ways and Means. Points of order a point of order. were reserved against the amend- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman reserves a point of order.... ment, and, after discussion, the MR. EDGAR: Mr. Chairman, with those assurances, I would like to ask 16. 129 CONG. REC. 14656, 14657, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 17. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).

11950 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

unanimous consent to withdraw my mitted for the information of amendment at this time. the Speaker in advance of THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from raising the point of order. Pennsylvania? On July 12, 1935,(18) Mr. Thom- MR. FLIPPO: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object to the unanimous- as L. Blanton, of Texas, informed consent request. the Speaker of arguments that he I wish to make a point of order intended to use to support antici- against the amendment because the pated points of order, thus ena- amendment violates paragraph (b), clause 5, rule XXI of the Rules of the bling Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of House of Representatives. Tennessee, to research the appli- THE CHAIRMAN: If the gentleman cable precedents and authorities would suspend a moment, proper pro- ahead of time. cedure is for the gentleman to object to the unanimous-consent request of the MR. BLANTON: Mr. Speaker, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to with- permission of the Chair, I should like draw his amendment and then to to make a point of order with respect make a point of order. to certain bills that will come up next MR. FLIPPO: I do object to the unani- Tuesday, and then let the point of mous-consent request. order be pending, so that the Speaker MR. EDGAR: Will the gentleman re- in the meantime may examine the au- serve the right to object? thorities which may be presented by MR. FLIPPO: I yield to the gentleman myself or by the Parliamentarian. from Pennsylvania. THE SPEAKER: The Chair will be glad MR. EDGAR: Before the gentleman makes his objection, the gentleman to hear the gentleman. from Pennsylvania is attempting to re- Parliamentarian’s Note: The move the impediment that the gentleman wants to call a point of order Speaker would have discretion against, simply because the gentleman whether to recognize for such an- has made the assurances. ticipatory argument and could re- MR. FLIPPO: Mr. Chairman, I do not quest its informal submission in object to the gentleman’s request and I withdraw my reservation of objection. writing, in lieu of using the time THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to of the House. the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to withdraw the amend- Discretion of Chair ment? There was no objection. § 1.8 It is within the discretion of the Chair whether to en- Preliminary Argument on Point of Order 18. 79 CONG. REC. 11113, 11114, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. The discussion per- § 1.7 Arguments in support of tained to the provisions of the Pri- a point of order may be sub- vate Calendar rule.

11951 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

tertain more than one point MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, I make a of order to a paragraph at point of order against the language appearing on line 12 . . . to the words the same time. ‘‘any fiscal year,’’ on the grounds that On Mar. 29, 1966,(19) in the it is legislation on an appropriation bill Committee of the Whole, the which binds the appropriations for all Chair entertained and overruled future times.... two points of order made against MR. LAIRD: Mr. Chairman, I accept separate language in the same the inclusion of the point of order by the gentleman from Illinois, and under paragraph of a general appropria- the terms of Hinds’ Precedents, my tion bill simultaneously. point of order is raised against the en- MR. [MELVIN R.] LAIRD [of Wis- tire section and I would include the consin]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point point made by the gentleman from Illi- of order against lines 6 through 22 on nois against the entire section. page 4 of the pending legislation, and THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will pass desire to be heard on the point of on both points of order at this moment, order. and the Chair is prepared to rule. THE CHAIRMAN: (20) The gentleman The Chair finds that the decision of will state his point of order. the Chair on H.R. 11588, a bill pro- MR. LAIRD: Mr. Chairman, the lan- viding for supplemental appropria- guage contained in lines 15 through 22 tions, on the 14th of October 1965, did [is] a clear violation of rule XXI of the include language identical to that sub- Rules of the House of Representatives, ject to the point of order made by the wherein clause 2 states:... gentleman from Wisconsin and iden- MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: tical to that subject to the point of Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary in- order made by the gentleman from Illi- quiry. nois. At that time both points of order THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will were ruled upon by the Chairman of state his parliamentary inquiry. the Committee of the Whole House, MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, I have a Mr. Harris, of Arkansas. He ruled that point of order on line 12, which reads the proviso constituted a limitation ‘‘in any fiscal year.’’ Is it in order to negative in nature that did not impose make that point now, or should it be additional duties upon the administra- made at the conclusion of the Chair’s tion and overruled the point of order ruling? on both points. THE CHAIRMAN: It can be made now. The Chair, on the basis of the ruling The Chair will rule on both points of of the Chairman on the 14th of Octo- order. ber 1965, referred to, overrules the point of order of the gentleman from 19. 112 CONG. REC. 7103, 7104, 89th Wisconsin and the point of order of the Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration gentleman from Illinois. was H.R. 14012, the second supplemental appropriation for fiscal 1966. Parliamentarian’s Note: Since 20. James G. O’Hara (Mich.). Mr. Laird incorporated Mr. Yates’

11952 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 point of order into his own as hear all points of order at the same against the entire paragraph, it time that relate to germaneness, and was proper for the Chair to rule also in the discretion of the Chair as to which one he will rule upon in the first simultaneously on both. instance.... The Chair feels it would be in the § 1.9 It is within the discretion best interest of orderly conduct if the of the Chair as to which of procedure indicated by the Chair is fol- several points of order he lowed. will hear or decide first. Parliamentarian’s Note: Al- On Dec. 15, 1937, in the Com- though several points of order mittee of the Whole, the following against a proposition may be proceedings took place: (1) pending at the same time, the

MR. [BERTRAND H.] SNELL [of New Chair may choose any one of them York]: Mr. Chairman, will the gen- as a basis for ruling out the prop- tleman yield to me to make a par- osition without citing the remain- liamentary inquiry? ing points of order. The Chair MR. [JERE] COOPER [of Tennessee]: would normally follow the prin- Mr. Chairman, I yield. ciple that he should avoid making MR. SNELL: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that one point of order ought to an unnecessary ruling, if possible, be disposed of before we start on an- by ruling first on points of order other point of order, that that would be which he would sustain, thereby the better procedure and more orderly rendering moot the remaining than to have all of these points of order made at one time, because they points of order. are all entirely different. When the gentleman from Tennessee began to Multiple Points of Order state his point of order I thought it Against Paragraph, Chair was along the same lines as my own. May Be Selective in Ruling MR. COOPER: Of course, my point of order was raised at this time at the in- § 1.10 Every argument raised vitation of the Chair. against a paragraph in an MR. SNELL: I think one point of order should be considered at a time, appropriation bill need not Mr. Chairman. be addressed when the Chair MR. COOPER: From my viewpoint I responds to a point of order; think they should all be presented. and if the language is subject THE CHAIRMAN: (2) The Chair feels it to one point of order, since it is within the discretion of the Chair to is unauthorized by law, he

1. 82 CONG. REC. 1579, 75th Cong. 2d need not refute other asser- Sess. tions not necessary to reach 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.). this decision. 11953 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

On Sept. 23, 1993,(3) the De- There was no objection. partment of Transportation appro- THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee will priation bill for fiscal 1994 was return to line 1 on page 21. being read for amendment. By The Clerk will read. unanimous consent, the Com- The Clerk read as follows: mittee permitted a return to a KENTUCKY BRIDGE PROJECT paragraph already passed in the reading. A point of order was (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND) raised against the paragraph and For up to 80 percent of the expenses necessary for continuing con- the proceedings were as shown. struction to replace the Glover Cary THE CHAIRMAN: (4) The Chair would Bridge in Owensboro, Kentucky, $12,000,000, to be derived from the advise the gentleman that the Clerk Highway Trust Fund and to remain was beginning to read the paragraph available until September 30, beginning on line 16, page 21, but had 1997.... not commenced the reading of that paragraph. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any points MR. [NORMAN Y.] MINETA [of Cali- of order to be raised to that language? fornia]: Let me ask about page 21, lines 1 through 7. POINT OF ORDER THE CHAIRMAN: That section has MR. MINETA: Mr. Chairman, I rise to been read. a point of order. MR. MINETA: Mr. Chairman, I did THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will not hear that portion being read, and I state his point of order. have a point of order on that provision. MR. MINETA: Mr. Chairman, I raise THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would ad- a point of order against page 21, lines vise the gentleman that that section of 1 through 7, on the basis that this pro- the bill has been passed in the reading vision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. and would ask the gentleman if he de- First of all, this project is unauthor- sires to make a unanimous-consent re- ized. And while there have been pre- quest that the Committee return to vious appropriations, the project has that section. never been authorized by law. MR. MINETA: Since I did not, and I believe other Members have not heard In addition, the period of funding that portion read, Mr. Chairman, I availability until September 30, 1997, would ask unanimous consent that is not authorized. that portion be read for consideration Also, this provision appropriates at this point. money out of the highway trust fund, THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to contrary to section 9503(C)(1) of the the request of the gentleman from Internal Revenue Code. That section California?... provides that the highway trust fund may only be used to fund programs au- 3. 139 CONG. REC. 22172, 22173, 103d thorized in the Highway Acts of 1956, Cong. 1st Sess. 1982, 1987, and 1991. Thus, because 4. Rick Boucher (Va.). this provision provides funding from

11954 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 the highway trust fund for a project allows unauthorized appropriations to not authorized by one of these laws, it continue funding public works and ob- has the effect of changing existing law, jects which are already in progress, re- and, therefore, is in violation of rule ferred to as the ‘‘works-in-progress ex- XXI. ception.’’ The Chair need not rule on Finally, this provision does not come whether this project is exclusively a within the exception to rule XXI, federally-owned project. clause 2(A), for continuation of appro- The legal authority for expending priations for public works and objects highway trust funds is outlined in sec- which are already in progress. tion 9503(c) of the Internal Revenue It is clear from the precedents that Code. That section states in positive the exception is narrowly construed terms that highway trust fund moneys and has been applied only to Federal shall be available where authorized by projects. As applied specifically to specific enumerated acts. The para- highways, the precedents have re- graph in question circumvents that required that the United States actually quirement. Deschler’s Precedents, vol- hold title to the road. The project in ume 8, chapter 26, section 8.9, stands this paragraph does not meet this test. for the proposition that the works-in- Thus, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons progress exception may not be invoked enumerated above, lines 1 through 7 to circumvent existing law. Therefore, on page 21 are in violation of rule XXI the Chair sustains the point of order. and subject to a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman Multiple Reasons for Sus- from Michigan [Mr. Carr] desire to be taining a Point of Order heard? MR. [BOB] CARR of Michigan: Mr. § 1.11 Any number of reasons Chairman, I do. This falls within the may be advanced at one time exceptions in rule XXI for works in to determine whether a mat- progress, and we would ask the Chair to rule. ter is subject to a point of THE CHAIRMAN: Do other Members order. desire to be heard on the point of On Apr. 5, 1946,(5) Mr. Adam C. order? Powell, Jr., of New York, offered The Chair is prepared to rule. an amendment to a general appro- The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] makes the point of order that priation bill prohibiting the use of the funds appropriated in the para- the funds therein provided to any graph entitled ‘‘Kentucky Bridge office, agency, or department of Project’’ are unauthorized and thus in the District of Columbia which violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The gentleman from Michigan has argued 5. 92 CONG. REC. 3227, 79th Cong. 2d that although the funds are indeed un- Sess. Under consideration was H.R. authorized they are in order under the 5990, a District of Columbia appro- exception to clause 2 of rule XXI which priation bill for fiscal 1947.

11955 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS segregated the citizens of the Dis- MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of New trict on the basis of race, color, York]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. creed, or place of national origin. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will Several points of order based upon state it. the germaneness rule [Rule XVI MR. MARCANTONIO: Then there will clause 7, House Rules and Manual be two points of order pending at the § 794 (1997)] and upon the rule same time. precluding legislation on a general THE CHAIRMAN: Any number of reasons can be given for the point of appropriation bill [Rule XXI order. clause 2(b), House Rules and Manual § 834b (1997)] were im- Chair’s Obligation in Case of mediately raised against the Multiple Points of Order amendment. § 1.12 If several points of order MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mis- sissippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a are made against an amend- point of order against the amendment. ment and the Chair sustains THE CHAIRMAN: (6) The gentleman one of them, it is not nec- will state the point of order. essary that he rule on the re- MR. RANKIN: Mr. Chairman, I make mainder as the amendment the point of order that the amendment is no longer pending. is not germane, and that it is legislation on an appropriation bill, in that it When the State, Justice, Com- attempts to change the fundamental merce, and Judiciary appropria- laws of the District of Columbia.... tion bill for fiscal 1979 was under MR. [JOHN M.] COFFEE [of Wash- consideration in the Committee of ington]: Mr. Chairman, I make the the Whole on June 14, 1978,(7) an point of order that the amendment proposes to incorporate a legislative provi- amendment, phrased as a restric- sion in an appropriation bill that does tion of all funds in the bill for cer- not come within the purview of the tain types of advertising of unsafe Holman rule and that it sets up an af- products, was offered by Mr. Mark firmative agency in the law. Andrews, of North Dakota. Mr. MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia: Bob Eckhardt, of Texas, raised Mr. Chairman, I desire to add further two points of order against the points of order upon which I should amendment. The proceedings were like to be heard at a later time in the discussion. as indicated: These points of order led to the fol- MR. ANDREWS of North Dakota: Mr. lowing exchange, which is illustrative Chairman, I offer an amendment. of the rule: 7. 124 CONG. REC. 17644, 17646, 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.). 17647, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.

11956 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

The Clerk read as follows: ties on officers of the government or implicitly requires them to make Amendment offered by Mr. An- new investigations, compile evidence, drews of North Dakota: on page 51 or make judgments and determina- after line 16, insert the following: tions not otherwise required of them SEC. 605. Except for funds appro- by law, then it assumes the char- priated to the Judiciary in title IV of acter of legislation and is subject to this act, no part of any appropriation a point of order. contained in this act may be used to pay the salary or expenses of any That is the main thrust of my point person to limit the advertising of: (1) of order but I also believe that in the any food product that contains ingre- colloquy it becomes rather apparent dients that have been determined to be safe for human consumption by that this amendment was directed at the Food and Drug Administration the Federal Trade Commission section or are considered to be ‘‘Generally of the bill which has come out. There- Recognized as Safe’’ (GRAS) and fore, I would also offer alternatively, or does not contain ingredients that additionally, the point of order that have been determined to be unsafe for human consumption by the FDA; this is not germane to the bill as it is (2) any toy which has not been de- now before us. clared hazardous or unsafe by the On that latter objection, which I will Consumer Product Safety Commis- speak to only very briefly, the argu- sion. ment and the thrust of the amendment MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, I re- clearly goes toward rulemaking author- serve a point of order on the amend- ity. But I should primarily like to ment. speak on the point of order based on THE CHAIRMAN: (8) The gentleman the proposition that I just read, that is, from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) reserves a that this constitutes legislation on an point of order.... appropriations bill and gives to officers Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. of the Government very, very large ad- Eckhardt) desire to press his point of ditional duties as the result of the pas- order? sage of this amendment, should it be MR. ECKHARDT: I do, Mr. Chairman. passed. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will I point primarily to the case which I state his point of order. believe is directly in point. On June 21, MR. ECKHARDT: The amendment is 1974, there was a point of order made legislation on an appropriation bill, by the gentleman from California (Mr. and as such is subject to a point of Moss) to a provision in the appropria- order under rule XXI, clause 2. tions bill at that time, section 511. The Mr. Chairman, it is provided in the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss), very first section of Deschler on this asserted that the language would im- particular point that: pose additional duties on every agency subject to the bill and was legislation When an amendment, while cur- tailing certain uses of funds carried on an appropriation. The language of in the bill, explicitly places new du- the section was as follows: Except as provided in existing law, 8. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.). funds provided in this act shall be

11957 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

available only for the purposes for them. But I do want to say and show which they are appropriated. on that point of order if its facts should Mr. Moss correctly pointed out that be sustained, then our contention that if that provision was sustained, it there is an additional burden on administrators is demonstrated in spades would be necessary in the use of any in this amendment. This amendment funds by an agency involved to go back says that none of the funds appro- and show that the Appropriations priated ‘‘in this act may be used to pay Committee had addressed the specific the salary or expenses of any person to object of the use of those funds. The limit the advertising of: First, any food gentleman from California (Mr. Moss), product that contains ingredients that pressed that point very strongly. The have been determined to be safe for gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whit- human consumption by the Food and ten) then contended that he considered Drug Administration or are considered this only as limiting the legislation to to be ‘generally recognized as safe.’.’’ existing law, and the present speaker The Food and Drug Administration joined in supporting the Moss point of does not list food products as safe or order. unsafe. The Food and Drug Adminis- I said at that time that as I under- tration only determines whether or not stood the gentleman from Mississippi, ingredients in food products are safe or Mr. Whitten’s, position on the provi- unsafe. Therefore, if this restriction sion, it meant that each of the specific were placed in law, it would be nec- appropriations would have to be con- essary for an agency like the Federal sidered with respect to the process Communications Commission, when it brought forth in that committee’s hear- is determining whether or not funds ings. might be used in order to take some The Chair ruled as follows: action respecting unsafe foods, to look The Chair is prepared to rule on to see what ingredients were included the point of order. If the language in the particular food involved. In means what the gentleman from other words, the Federal Communica- Mississippi now says it does, then tions Commission would have to exer- the language is a nullity because it cise the same type of expertise, the just repeats existing law. The Chair is of the opinion, though, that there same type of technical research that is a possibility, as earlier indicated the other agency has had to go during general debate and as sug- through. In addition to this, the gested by the gentleman from Cali- amendment says that none of these fornia, that the amendment imposes funds can be used with regard to any an additional burden, and the Chair, toy which has not been declared haz- therefore, sustains the point of order. ardous or unsafe by the Consumer There are a number of cases, of Product Safety Commission. The Con- course, in Deschler around this area sumer Product Safety Commission does that I have cited that bear out the not list specific toys as unsafe. point that I have made, but I know The Consumer Product Safety Com- that the Chair is familiar with the gen- mission determines what minimum de- eral proposition and I shall not recite sign or what minimum standards, per-

11958 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 formance standards, are necessary in following are two examples of such an order for a toy to be permitted to go on amendment: the market. For instance, a toy that On June 21, 1974, the House held in melts lead to make toy soldiers might order an amendment by Representa- be unsafe because of the method in tive Whitten of Mississippi to limit which it melts the lead and exposes funds used by the FTC to collect line of persons to heat. business data. The point, though, is that the Com- On October 9, 1974, the House held mission does not establish that this in order an amendment to prohibit particular toy is unsafe. If we pass this EPA from using funds to tax, limit or restriction, we would place the burden regulate parking facilities. on the FTC to go in and look at every Mr. Chairman, addressing the ques- toy and then apply the standards of tion of germaneness, the House Man- the Consumer Product Agency to those ual, section 795, states that an amend- toys to find out whether they could be ment in the form of a new paragraph advertised. must be germane to the bill as a So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a whole. classic example of placing on every It certainly is, because the bill con- agency to whom this restriction would tains funding for the Federal Commu- apply very extensive duties beyond nications Commission, which is the that which they are now called upon to only agency which has so far put in de- exercise. tail an investigation of this type of ac- In addition, it would place the same tion. burden on other agencies, like the Con- Second, addressing the issue of legis- sumer Product Safety Commission, to lation on an appropriation bill, to im- change their rules to make different plement the limitation the agency only modes of establishing and identifying need examine information which it unsafe toys. now receives under existing laws; so Mr. Chairman, I urge that the point there are no additional substantive du- of order be sustained. ties, judgments or determinations. Therefore, since this amendment is THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Andrews) de- based on a clearly discernible standard sire to be heard on the point of order? and since chapter 25, section 10.4 says: MR. ANDREWS of North Dakota: I do, Where the manifest intent of a Mr. Chairman. proposed amendment is to impose a limitation on the use of funds appro- Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the priated in the bill, the fact that the House of Representatives has accepted administration of the limitation will as ‘‘in order’’ amendments to appro- impose certain incidental but addi- priations bills which are negative pro- tional burdens on executive officers hibitions, descriptive of employment does not destroy the character of the not mandated by law which may not be limitation. undertaken if those individuals are to Mr. Chairman, based on this, I feel be compensated by funds in the bill. that the amendment is in order. I This type of amendment is clearly would hope the Chair would rule ac- described in Deschler’s Procedure. The cordingly.

11959 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman The amendment would prohibit use from Washington (Mr. Dicks) desire to of any funds in the bill to limit adver- be heard on the point of order? tising of food products and toys in rela- MR. [NORMAN D.] DICKS [of Wash- tion to which determinations have ington]: I do, Mr. Chairman. been made by the Food and Drug Ad- Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate on ministration and the Consumer Prod- this point, this amendment was aimed uct Safety Commission. As indicated at limiting the Federal Trade Commis- by the arguments made on the point of sion. Now that that section has been order, this bill now contains no funds stricken, the only way it can apply is for the Federal Trade Commission but to the FCC. The FCC does not have to does contain funds for the Federal regulate itself for advertising. That ju- Communications Commission. The risdiction falls within the jurisdiction Chair feels it is necessary to lay that of the Federal Trade Commission. basis in order to determine whether the amendment requires new duties or Therefore, it creates new legal duties determinations of a particular agency for the FCC, which are beyond the which are not now required by law. scope of an appropriation bill, which makes it legislation within an appro- The Federal Communications Com- priation bill and, therefore, subject to mission has the authority under the law to regulate interstate and foreign rule XXI, clause 2. communications and transmissions in Also the ruling made by the Con- wire and radio, but existing law consumer Product Safety Commission is tains no mandate that the Commission accurate. The language does not go to consider whether food and toy products unsafe toys, and they would have addi- are safe or unsafe in regulating broad- tional duties created by this amend- casts within its jurisdiction. The ment. amendment would disallow funds for Mr. Chairman, I also believe that the Commission to limit advertising of clause 2, rule XXI, applies in this case. certain products, even if the purpose THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- for such regulatory limitations was to- pared to rule. tally unrelated to the safety of the The gentleman from Texas (Mr. product in question. In considering any Eckhardt) makes the point of order proposal to limit advertising of food or that the amendment offered by the toy products, the Commission would be gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. required to first determine the scope Andrews) constitutes legislation on an and extent of determinations of other appropriation bill. In addition, he agencies on the safety of those prod- makes the point that because it was ucts, and it is far from clear whether drafted originally to be applicable to such determinations are readily avail- the Federal Trade Commission and able or sufficiently certain to deter- that section of the bill has been strick- mine whether the limitation would en, it is no longer germane to the bill. apply in a particular case. The Chair does not find it necessary Furthermore, in relation to food to rule, however, on the point of ger- products, the Commission would have maneness. to determine whether the finished food

11960 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

product contained ingredients which ered en bloc in the Committee of have been declared safe if the Food the Whole, Chairman Chet and Drug Administration had made no Holifield, of California, ruled si- determination on the safety of such a finished product. multaneously on points of order The Chair would also note that the against two amendments con- amendment would prohibit advertising taining identical language. of food products containing ingredients MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachu- considered to be generally recognized setts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer amend- as safe, without specifically indicating ments and I ask unanimous consent whether that determination is to be that the amendments be considered en made by the FDA or by the Federal bloc. Communications Commission. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to For the reasons stated, the Chair the request of the gentleman from finds that the amendment would im- Massachusetts? pose substantial new duties and re- There was no objection.... quirements on the Federal Commu- MR. [ROBERT L. F.] SIKES [of Flor- nications Commission beyond its au- ida]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a thorities under existing law and, there- point of order against the amendment. fore, sustains the point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear the gentleman. Points of Order Against En MR. SIKES: Mr. Chairman, it appears Bloc Amendments to me that the rulings of the Chair heretofore on this bill this afternoon § 1.13 Where amendments to show clearly that this is legislation on the pending paragraph of an an appropriation bill.... appropriation bill and to the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- following section were, by pared to rule. The Chair recognizes unanimous consent, consid- that this is a very difficult matter. The proposed amendment for section 408 is ered en bloc, a point of order different from section 408 of the bill in was lodged against both that it has added the words ‘‘in order amendments based on iden- to overcome racial imbalance.’’. . . tical legislative language MR. CONTE: Mr. Chairman, may I be therein and was sustained by heard for a minute? the Chair. MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, regular On July 31, 1969,(9) where order. amendments to a bill were consid- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will please desist until the Chair has fin- 9. 115 CONG. REC. 21675, 91st Cong. ished his ruling on the second amend- 1st Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 13111, the Departments of Welfare appropriations for fiscal Labor and Health, Education, and 1970.

11961 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

ment because they are being consid- THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any points ered en bloc. of order against the bill? The Chair The additional words in the amend- hears none.... ment to section 409 are ‘‘in order to MR. [M. CALDWELL] BUTLER [of Vir- overcome racial imbalance’’ and this ginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer amend- clearly requires additional duties on ments, and I ask unanimous consent the part of the officials. Therefore, it is that these amendments be considered not negative in nature and is legisla- en bloc. tion on an appropriation bill. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to The Chair, therefore, sustains the the request of the gentleman from Vir- point of order. ginia? There was no objection.... § 1.14 If a point of order is sus- Amendments offered by Mr. But- tained against any portion of ler: Page 2, line 11, strike out ‘‘$1,029,519,000’’ and insert in lieu a package of amendments thereof ‘‘$1,009,276,400’’. being considered ‘‘en bloc’’ Page 3, line 6, strike out on a general appropriation ‘‘$1,404,883,000’’ and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘$1,354,096,100’’ . . . bill, all the amendments are Page 6, line 16, strike out ruled out and those not sub- ‘‘$36,000,000’’ and insert in lieu ject to a point of order must thereof ‘‘$34,345,000’’. Page 6, line 22, strike out be reoffered separately. ‘‘$37,400,000’’ and insert in lieu On Sept. 16, 1981,(10) the House thereof ‘‘$35,855,000’’. Page 14, after line 13, insert the had under consideration the mili- following new section: tary construction appropriations SEC. 123. The provisions of the Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 276a- for fiscal 1982. Amendments were 276a-5; 46 Stat. 1494), commonly reoffered, and by unanimous conferred to as the Davis-Bacon Act, sent, were considered en bloc. The shall not apply to the wages paid to laborers and mechanics for any work proceedings are carried below. or services performed under any contract entered into on or after the MR. [RONALD B. (BO)] GINN [of Geor- date of enactment of this Act for the gia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous construction of any project funds for consent that the bill be considered as which are appropriated by this Act. read and open to amendment at any point. POINT OF ORDER (11) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection MR. GINN: Mr. Chairman, I make a to the request of the gentleman from point of order against the amend- Georgia? ments. There was no objection. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state his point of order. 10. 127 CONG. REC. 20735–38, 97th MR. GINN: Mr. Chairman, I make a Cong. 1st Sess. point of order against the amendments 11. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.). because they constitute legislation in

11962 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 an appropriations bill, which is in vio- or any portion thereof, under the lation of clause 2, rule XXI. precedent the remaining amendments The amendments proposed constitute will have to be reoffered, at which a change in existing law, which under point the gentleman from Virginia will again have to ask permission to have House rules is not allowed through an them offered en bloc. If that is denied, appropriations bill. then the amendments would have to be The amendments are legislative in offered individually. nature and are in violation of clause 2, MR. HARTNETT: Mr. Chairman, what rule XXI. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I you are telling me is, in order for the ask for a ruling from the Chair.... gentleman from Virginia to offer a series of amendments like that, the gen- MR. [THOMAS F.] HARTNETT [of tleman has to obtain unanimous con- South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I have sent prior to doing that or, in fact, he a parliamentary inquiry. would have to offer each one of them THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will individually? state his parliamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is MR. HARTNETT: We do not have a correct. The very first action the gen- whole lot of on-the-job training for new tleman from Virginia engaged in was Members who just arrived in the 97th to ask for such unanimous consent. Congress. In the event I would want to MR. HARTNETT: I thank the Chair. raise a point of order, as did the distinguished chairman from Georgia, that Multiple Points of Order the amendment is what I would call Against Paragraph in Gen- double or triple barreled, that I, as a eral Appropriation Bill Member, although I may want to vote for some of the changes that are pro- § 1.15 Where two points of posed by the gentleman from Virginia order are made against a (Mr. Butler) in his amendment to the paragraph in a general ap- bill, I may not want to vote for others. propriation bill which has My inquiry is: Is this amendment being offered as one amendment, and if just been read, one against a it is, would the point of order be in proviso in the paragraph and order that the amendment was not the other against the totality properly drawn and that I was being of the paragraph, it is the precluded from voting for—I would broader point of order which have to vote for or against all of them the Chair must address and where, in fact, I may want to vote for one or the other? upon which he must rule. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will re- During the reading for amend- spond to the gentleman’s inquiry by ment of the supplemental appro- stating that the gentleman from Vir- priation bill, fiscal 1978, on Oct. ginia has already gotten unanimous 19, 1977,(12) a paragraph dealing consent to offer his amendments en bloc. However, if a point of order is 12. 123 CONG. REC. 34245, 34246, 95th sustained against those amendments Cong. 1st Sess.

11963 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS with the Federal Energy Adminis- not to exceed $6,000,000, shall remain available until expended for a tration was read by the Clerk. Mr. reserve to cover any defaults from Frank Horton, of New York, made loan guarantees issued to develop a point of order against a proviso underground coal mines as authorized by Public Law 94–163: Provided in the paragraph which contained further, That the indebtedness guar- a waiver of existing law. Mr. Rob- anteed or committed to be guaranteed under said law shall not exceed ert L. Ottinger, of New York, then the aggregate of $62,000,000: Pro- raised a point of order against the vided further, That notwithstanding entire paragraph, addressing not 31 U.S.C. 638a(c)(2) government- owned vehicles may be used to ini- only the change in law high- tiate vanpool demonstration projects. lighted by Mr. Horton, but the un- MR. HORTON: Mr. Chairman, a point authorized items funded in the of order. paragraph. Chairman Sam Gib- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will bons, of Florida, ultimately ruled state it. out the entire paragraph. MR. HORTON: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the portion of THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will read. this chapter which appropriates funds The Clerk read as follows: for a Federal vanpooling program. The RELATED AGENCIES appropriation is contained in lines 15 and 16 of page 8—in the words ‘‘; and FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION for a Federal vanpooling program, SALARIES AND EXPENSES $3,415,000’’. Related language, to which my point of order should also For an additional amount for ‘‘Sal- aries and expenses’’, $293,611,000, of apply since these words have no mean- which $266,145,000 shall become ing in the bill except as they pertain to available only upon enactment of au- the vanpooling appropriation, is con- thorizing legislation as follows: (1) tained in lines 23 and 24 of page 8 and for conservation grants for schools lines 1 and 2 of page 9: and health care facilities, $200,000,000; for conservation Provided further, That notwith- grants for local government build- standing 31 U.S.C. 638a(c)(2) gov- ings, $25,000,000; for grants for fi- ernment-owned vehicles may be used nancial assistance to utility regu- to initiate vanpool demonstration latory commissions, $11,250,000; for projects. solar heating and cooling installa- tions in federal buildings, Mr. Chairman, these provisions vio- $25,000,000; to remain available for late rule XXI, clause 2, of the Rules of obligation until September 30, 1979; the House. This rule states, in perti- and (2) for administration of grants nent part: for schools and health care facilities, local government buildings, and util- No appropriation shall be reported ity rate reform, $1,480,000; and for a in any general appropriation bill, or federal vanpooling program, be in order as an amendment there- $3,415,000: Provided That of the to, for any expenditure not pre- total amount of this appropriation, viously authorized by law, unless in

11964 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

continuation of appropriations for Conservation grants for schools and such public works and objects as are health care facilities, $200 million; already in progress. Conservation grants for local govern- A Federal vanpooling program has ment buildings, $25 million; never been authorized and is not now Grants for financial assistance to in progress. In fact, the House has re- utility regulatory commissions, jected such a program twice, the sec- $11,250,000; ond time by an even larger margin Solar heating and cooling installa- than the first. We considered van- tions in Federal buildings, $25 million; pooling as section 701 of H.R. 8444, Administration of grants for schools the National Energy Act, in August of and health care facilities, local govern- this year. I moved to strike that sec- ment buildings, and utility rate reform, tion from the bill, and my amendment $1,480,000; and carried with strong bipartisan support, Federal vanpooling programs, 232 to 184. When the bill was reported $3,415,000. back to the House by the Committee of Mr. Chairman, rule XXI, clause 2, the Whole, a separate vote was de- provides that no appropriations shall manded on my amendment. In the sep- be reported in any general appropria- arate vote, the amendment was agreed tion bill for any expenditure not pre- to by a vote of 239 to 180. viously authorized by law. All of the Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the above provisions are unauthorized. House creating by a few words in an They are now a part of the versions of appropriation bill a program which it the National Energy Act legislation has twice explicitly rejected in the pending in the House and the Senate. past. That is why I have raised this The vanpooling provision was soundly point of order against H.R. 9375’s ap- rejected by the House last August in propriation of funds for a Federal van- connection with H.R. 8444. The prece- pooling program. dents show that an authorization must MR. OTTINGER: Mr. Chairman, a be enacted before the appropriation point of order. may be included in an appropriation THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will bill. Thus, delaying the availability of state it. an appropriation pending enactment of MR. OTTINGER: Mr. Chairman, I the authorization, as is done in H.R. make a point of order against the por- 9375, does not protect the item of ap- tion of the bill H.R. 9375 appropriating propriation against the point of order salaries and expenses for the Federal under rule XXI, clause 2. See, Congres- Energy Administration. sional Record, April 26, 1972, page The particular provision appro- 14455. See also, 114 Congressional priates $266,145,000 for several pur- Record, 15354, 90th Congress, second poses all of which are prefaced by the session, May 28, 1968, where it was phrase that such appropriation is sub- ruled that an appropriation for a mari- ject to ‘‘enactment of authorizing legis- time ship construction operation and lation.’’ research not yet authorized by law for The purposes are: the fiscal year of the appropriation was

11965 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

conceded to be unauthorized and was ger) wishes to be stricken on the point ruled in violation of rule XXI, clause of order is the language beginning on 2.... page 8, line 2, going through page 9, THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other line 2. All of that language, which in- Member desire to be heard? cludes the part the gentleman from MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: New York (Mr. Horton) has raised his Mr. Chairman, I think I should re- point of order against. spond to the point of order. The gen- MR. HORTON: Mr. Chairman, I thank tleman is correct insofar as the point of the Chair. order is concerned. The purpose of the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- subcommittee in placing these appro- pared to rule. priations in this bill was in order to ex- The point of order has been con- pedite the activities of the Federal En- ceded, and the point of order is sus- ergy Administration at a critical time. tained. The language on page 8, line 2, It is my understanding that the con- through page 9, line 2, is stricken. ferees for both the House and the Sen- ate have very nearly reached agreement on the bill. Effect of Sustaining Point of The action of the gentleman in offer- Order Against Part of Para- ing the point of order, in my judgment, graph in Appropriation Bill will slow down the activities of the Federal Energy Administration. How- § 1.16 When part of a pending ever, let me say that as far as the paragraph in a general appoint of order itself is concerned, we propriation bill is subject to are constrained to concede it.... be stricken on a point of MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- land]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary order as being legislation, inquiry. the entire paragraph is also THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will subject to a point of order. state it. On Apr. 15, 1957,(13) in the MR. BAUMAN: Exactly what lines were stricken by the point of order? Committee of the Whole, Chair- THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order man Howard W. Smith, of Vir- requests the striking of the language ginia, found it necessary to sus- on page 8, line 2, through page 9, line tain a point of order against an 2; the entire section. entire paragraph after sustaining MR. YATES: Up to the line, ‘‘strategic petroleum reserve.’’ one against language in part of it. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else de- MR. [ROBERT E.] JONES [Jr.] of Ala- sire to be heard on the point of order? bama: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. MR. HORTON: Mr. Chairman, I did not understand what the Chair said as 13. 103 CONG. REC. 5684–86, 85th Cong. to the language that is to be stricken. 1st Sess. Under consideration was THE CHAIRMAN: The language the H.R. 6870, the Second Urgent Defi- gentleman from New York (Mr. Ottin- ciency Appropriations Act of 1957.

11966 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will bill is subject to a point of state it. order, it is sufficient for the MR. JONES of Alabama: Mr. Chair- rejection of the entire para- man, I make a point of order against the language commencing on page 2, graph. line 23, after the words, ‘‘as amended’’ On Mar. 15, 1945,(14) after it and reading: ‘‘And to be made avail- was conceded, in the Committee of able from the loan authorization contained in section 606(a) of the act of the Whole, that certain lines in a August 7, 1956 (Public Law 1020).’’. . . paragraph were subject to a point I submit that this is legislation on of order, the Chair sustained a an appropriation bill and is subject to point of order against the entire a point of order.... paragraph. MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr. ( ) Chairman, I make a point of order THE CHAIRMAN: 15 Does the gen- against the entire paragraph on loan tleman from Michigan [Mr. Rabaut] authorizations.... desire to be heard? MR. JONES of Alabama: I insist on MR. [LOUIS C.] RABAUT: Mr. Chair- the point of order, Mr. Chairman. man, I think the point of order might MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis- apply to the language appearing in souri]: Mr. Chairman, we concede the lines 20 and 21. That is because of the point of order. excesses. MR. BOW: I insist on my point of THE CHAIRMAN: Permit the Chair to order, Mr. Chairman. understand the gentleman. The gen- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- tleman concedes that the language in pared to rule. lines 20 and 21 is bad and subject to a The point of order made by the gen- point of order? tleman from Alabama on line 23, page MR. RABAUT: Yes. 2, is against the three lines beginning THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman with the word ‘‘and’’ as being legisla- from Kansas [Mr. Rees] insist on his tion upon an appropriation bill, which point of order against the entire para- it obviously is. graph?... Now, the gentleman from Ohio, how- MR. [EDWARD H.] REES of Kansas: I ever, offers a point of order against the insist on the point of order to the en- entire paragraph. As the language tire paragraph, Mr. Chairman. which is sought to be stricken by the THE CHAIRMAN: In view of the fact gentleman from Alabama is subject to that certain language in the paragraph a point of order and is part of the para- is conceded to be subject to a point of graph, then the whole paragraph is subject to a point of order, and the 14. 91 CONG. REC. 2305, 79th Cong. 1st Chair is constrained to sustain both Sess. Under consideration was H.R. points of order. 2603, a State, Justice, Commerce, Judiciary, and Federal Loan Agency § 1.17 If any part of a para- appropriation for 1946. graph of an appropriation 15. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.). 11967 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

order, the entire paragraph is subject pelled to concede the point of order and to a point of order. I submit an amendment to replace The Chair sustains the point of it.... order. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair sustains the point of order. § 1.18 A point of order may be MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mis- made against a part of a sissippi]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamen- paragraph in a general ap- tary inquiry. propriation bill and, if sus- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state it. tained, will not affect the re- MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Chairman, is it mainder of such paragraph if possible to make a point of order to one no point of order is made part of a paragraph and have it limited against it. to that particular part? (16) THE CHAIRMAN: A Member may On Mar. 30, 1954, in the make a point of order to any objection- Committee of the Whole, Mr. able language in the paragraph. Jacob K. Javits, of New York, MR. WHITTEN: Separating it from the raised a point of order against remainder of the paragraph? only part of a paragraph, but de- THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. clined to make his point of order against the remainder of the para- Effect of Sustaining Point of graph. Chairman Louis E. Order Against Portion of Graham, of Pennsylvania, then Amendment ruled that only the affected language was out of order and the § 1.19 A point of order against balance of the paragraph would a portion of an amendment remain. to a general appropriation The Clerk read as follows:... bill is sufficient, if sustained, MR. JAVITS: Mr. Chairman, I make a to rule out the entire amend- point of order against the proviso ap- ment. pearing on page 28, lines 13 to 18, on ( ) the ground it is legislation on an ap- On June 25, 1976, 17 during propriation bill. consideration of the Interior ap- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman propriation bill, fiscal 1977, an from California desire to be heard on amendment of two parts was of- the point of order? fered to the pending paragraph MR. [JOHN] PHILLIPS [of California]: No, Mr. Chairman. I think we are com- and one following. The amendments were, by general consent, 16. 100 CONG. REC. 4108, 4109, 83d considered en bloc. A point of Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 8583, the independent of- 17. 122 CONG. REC. 20551, 94th Cong. fices appropriations bill of 1955. 2d Sess.

11968 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 order was directed specifically MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, I make a against one portion of the amend- point of order against the amendment ments. offered by the gentleman from Mary- land (Mr. Gude), as it violates clause 2, MR. [GILBERT] GUDE [of Maryland]: rule XXI, which states in part that: Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments. No appropriation shall be reported The Clerk read as follows: in any general appropriation bill, or Amendments offered by Mr. Gude: be in order as an amendment there- Amendment No. 1: Page 10, line 2, to, for any expenditure not pre- strike out ‘‘$272,635,000.’’ and insert viously authorized by law. in lieu thereof ‘‘$284,399,871, except Mr. Chairman, the amendment of- that $856,000 of this appropriation shall be available for obligation only fered by the gentleman from Maryland upon the enactment into law of au- (Mr. Gude) specifically provides for the thorizing legislation providing for allocation of funds for the Valley Forge the establishment of the Valley National Historical Park. There is no Forge National Historical Park in authorization for the Valley Forge Na- the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- tional Historical Park. vania.’’ Amendment No. 2: Page 10, begin- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman ning on line 19, strike out from Maryland wish to be recognized ‘‘$37,228,000’’ and insert in lieu on the point of order? thereof ‘‘$44,228,000’’. MR. GUDE: I do, Mr. Chairman. MR. GUDE (during the reading): Mr. Mr. Chairman, the amendment Chairman, I ask unanimous consent reads that the money will be allocated that the amendments be considered as to the Park Service. The fact that a read and printed in the Record, and part of it would be available for the that they be considered en bloc. Valley Forge Park I do not feel works THE CHAIRMAN: (18) Is there objection to the entire amendment being out of to the request of the gentleman from order. Maryland? MR. [ROY A.] TAYLOR of North Caro- MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: lina: Mr. Chairman, will the gen- Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to tleman yield? object, I want to make a point of order MR. GUDE: I yield to the gentleman against the amendments, and I do not from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor). know whether my rights are protected MR. TAYLOR of North Carolina: I if I consent to the unanimous-consent thank the gentleman for yielding. request. So I object. Mr. Chairman, I think the gen- THE CHAIRMAN: Objection is heard. tleman is correct in stating that the The Chair will protect the gentleman authorization for Valley Forge Na- on his point of order. tional Historical Park has not yet be- The Clerk will read. come law. It has passed the House. In The Clerk concluded reading the all probability, it shall become law. amendments. The act provides for the transfer to take place as of the beginning of the 18. Walter Flowers (Ala.). fiscal year 1977. We wanted the State

11969 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

of Pennsylvania to operate it under On Aug. 7, 1978,(19) Chairman this law. The fact is that we are going Dan Rostenkowski, of Illinois, to have to have more personnel in ruled out an amendment, the first order to have this park. Are we just going to have to take them away from part of which might have qualified other parks and spread the existing as a proper limitation but which personnel more thin? They are too thin was tainted by language in the now. amendment restricting discretion MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the part of federal officials. The upon my point of order. amendment, the point of order, I cite, additionally, the following lan- and the ruling are set forth here- guage: in. Delaying the availability of an appropriation pending enactment of an MR. JOHN T. MYERS [of Indiana]: Mr. authorization does not protect the Chairman, I offer an amendment. item of appropriation against a point The Clerk read as follows: of order under this clause. Amendment offered by Mr. John T. THE CHAIRMAN: A point of order has Myers: On page 8, after line 10, add been interposed against the amend- the following new section: ment offered by the gentleman from None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act Maryland (Mr. Gude). shall be obligated or expended for The amendment offered by the gen- salaries or expenses during the cur- tleman from Maryland contemplates in rent fiscal year in connection with its own language that there has been the demilitarization of any arms as no authorization which has become law advertised by the Department of De- fense, Defense Logistics Agency sale and, inasmuch as the point of order number 31–8118 issued January 24, must be sustained to that part of it, 1978, and listed as ‘‘no longer needed under Deschler’s chapter 26, section by the Federal Government’’ and 8.1, it would apply to the entire that such arms shall not be withheld from distribution to purchasers who amendment. The Chair must sustain qualify for purchase of said arms the point of order raised by the gen- pursuant to title 10, United States tleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). Code, section 4308....

MR. [ABNER J.] MIKVA [of Illinois]: If Part of Amendment Is Legis- Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order lative, the Whole Can Be on the amendment. Ruled Out THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state his point of order. § 1.20 If any portion of an MR. MIKVA: Mr. Chairman, I make a amendment on a general appoint of order on the amendment on propriation bill constitutes the ground that I believe that it is leg- legislation, the entire amend- 19. 124 CONG. REC. 24707, 24708, 95th ment is out of order. Cong. 2d Sess.

11970 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 islation within a general appropriation arms by the Defense Logistics Agency, bill and, therefore, violates the rules of it is not exclusively an Army of civilian the House. marksmanship amendment, so should THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman not be placed elsewhere in the bill. The from Indiana (Mr. John T. Myers) wish overall Defense Department allocates to be heard on the point of order? sale and distribution to various mili- MR. JOHN T. MYERS: Yes, I do, Mr. tary components (foreign sales, Navy, Chairman. ROTC, Air Force, Division of Civilian THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- Marksmanship, et cetera). It is there- nizes the gentleman from Indiana. fore proper to place the amendment in MR. JOHN T. MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the general Defense Department sec- this is a simple limitation amendment. tion of the bill: ‘‘Operation and mainte- It merely limits the Secretary of the nance, Defense Agencies.’’ Treasury to continue to carry out exist- Second. It is negative in nature. It ing law. It does not provide any new limits expenditure of funds by the De- law. It simply says that the Secretary fense Department by prohibiting the of the Treasury shall carry out the pre- destruction and scrapping of arms vailing, existing law. which qualify for sale through the ci- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman vilian marksmanship program, which from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) wish to be is a division of the executive created by heard on the point of order? statute. MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: Third. It shows retrenchment on its I do, Mr. Chairman. face. Retrenchment is demonstrated in that the Department of Defense if pro- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio. hibited from expending funds to destroy surplus military arms, and that MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Chairman, rule the arms previously earmarked for de- 21, clause 2, of the Rules of the House struction will be made available in ac- (House Rules and Manual pages 426– cordance with existing statute. Actual 427) specifies that an amendment to cost savings is not a necessary element an appropriation bill is in order if it in satisfying the retrenchment test meets certain tests, such as: under rule 21. However, the Defense First. It must be germane; Department has attempted destruction Second. It must be negative in na- of 290,000 M-1 rifles, leading to the ture; waste by scrapping of a valuable stock Third. It must show retrenchment on of arms. The House, in adding this its face; amendment, will secure additional Fourth. It must impose no additional funds for the Treasury which the Gen- or affirmative duties or amend existing eral Accounting Office has determined law. is adequate to pay costs of handling the arms. For example, the M-1 rifles WHY THE AMENDMENT COMPLIES WITH are to be sold at a cost of $110 each. RULE 21 These are the arms most utilized by First. It is germane. As the amend- the civilian marksmanship program. ment applies to the distribution of The Defense Department will not be

11971 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

required to spend additional funds to shall then submit sale orders for the process the sale of additional arms. Armament Readiness Military Com- Fourth. Does not impose additional mand (ARMCOM) to fill the requests or affirmative duties or amend existing of these qualified civilians. Thus, the law. Title 10, United States Code, sec- amendment simply requires the per- tion 4308 provides in part: formance of duties already imposed by the Army’s own regulation. (a) The secretary of the Army, under regulations approved by him Minor administrative ministerial du- upon the recommendation of the Na- ties required by this amendment will tional Board for the Promotion of not mandate such affirmative action, Rifle Practice, shall provide for . . . so as to exceed the responsibilities al- (5) the sale to members of the Na- ready imposed by statute. Assessing tional Rifle Association, at cost, and the issue to clubs organized for prac- needs and communicating the needs by tice with rifled arms, ammunition, the Board would not cross the thresh- targets, and other supplies and ap- old so as to raise to the level of a pliances necessary for target practice newly created positive duty. ... PRECEDENTS SUPPORTING THE OVER- In fact, the Army regulations relating to issuance of these arms contain RULING OF POINT OF ORDER TO MY no caveat that distribution shall be MOTION limited to any quantity. (AR 725–1 and There is ample precedent for lan- AR 920–20.) By passing this amend- guage of this nature. A similar motion ment, we will see that additional funds was offered by Mr. Myers of Indiana in are placed in the Treasury—certainly connection with the curtailment of more than by scrapping the arms. funds for implementation of an execu- Thus, by statute and regulation, such tive order pardoning draft evaders. Mr. arms must be sold to qualified civil- Myers’ amendment provided that the ians. This amendment specifies that executive could not expend funds to 290,800 of an available pool of 760,000 pardon the evaders. This was an after- arms shall not be destroyed, and shall the-fact amendment following Presi- be available for use by this program. If dent Carter’s Executive order. My my amendment prevails, the test as to amendment does nothing more than to whether these arms will be distributed track the same form of executive limi- will be: tation as did the Myers amendment of First. Does the applicant qualify March 16, 1977, when the parliamen- under the law? tarian ruled that amendment in order. Second. Are sufficient arms in this This precedent will be found in the pool of 290,800 available for distribu- Congressional Record, pages 7706– tion? 7754, on H.R. 4877, a supplemental Regulations issued (see tab M) AR appropriations bill. 725–1 and AR 920–20 provide for the THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman issuance of arms by application and from Illinois (Mr. Mikva) wish to be qualification through the Director of heard further on the point of order? Civilian Marksmanship. The DCM MR. MIKVA: I do, Mr. Chairman.

11972 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- is of the opinion that it does not re- nizes the gentleman from Illinois. quire that all firearms be distributed MR. MIKVA: Mr. Chairman, I particu- to qualified purchasers. The Chair fur- larly call attention of the Chair to the ther feels that while the first part of second half of the amendment, which the amendment is a limitation, the last imposes an affirmative duty on the part of the amendment is a curtail- Secretary, saying that such arms shall ment of Executive discretion, and the not be withheld from distribution to Chair sustains the point of order. purchasers who qualify for purchase of The Clerk will read. said arms pursuant to title 10, United States Code, section 4308. Effect of Point of Order Sus- Under the general existing law, there are all kinds of discretions that tained Against a Portion of a are allowed to the Secretary to decide Paragraph in a General Ap- whether or not such arms shall be dis- propriation Bill tributed. Under this amendment, the existing law is to be changed and those § 1.21 A point of order, if sus- arms may not be withheld. The prac- tained against a proviso con- tical purpose is to turn lose 400,000 to taining legislation in a para- 500,000 rifles into the body politic. graph in a general appro- But the parliamentary effect is clearly to change the existing law under priation bill, is sufficient to which the Secretary can exercise all cause the whole paragraph kinds of discretion in deciding whether to be stricken, even if the re- or not those arms will be distributed. mainder of the paragraph is Under this amendment it not only lim- authorized. its the fact that the funds may be obli- (20) gated but it specifically goes on to af- On June 8, 1977, while a firmatively direct the Secretary to dis- general appropriation bill was tribute such arms under title X, which being read for amendment under is an affirmative obligation, which is the five-minute rule in Committee exactly the kind of obligation the rules of the Whole, a paragraph was prohibit, and I renew my point of order. read pertaining to the care and MR. JOHN T. MYERS: Mr. Chairman, maintenance of the official resi- section 4307 provides for the sale of dence of the Vice President. A these surplus weapons. This amend- point of order was directed at the ment does nothing more than provide proviso carried in the paragraph. that, in this title of section X. Proceedings were as indicated. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready to rule. The Clerk read as follows: The Chair has read the section to which the gentleman refers, title 10, 20. 123 CONG. REC. 17922, 17923, 95th United States Code, section 4308, and Cong. 1st Sess.

11973 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

OFFICIAL RESIDENCE OF THE VICE cific lines of the paragraph he directs PRESIDENT his point of order?

OPERATING EXPENSES MR. STEED: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard, I believe the gentleman from For the care, maintenance, repair Virginia (Mr. Harris) made the point of and alteration, furnishing, improve- order against the entire item. ment, heating and lighting, including electric power and fixtures, of the of- MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, this is ficial residence of the Vice President, the item on the Official Executive Resi- $61,000: Provided That advances or dence of the Vice President, Operating repayments or transfers from this Expenses. appropriation may be made to any THE HAIRMAN department or agency for expenses of C : Let the Chair state carrying out such activities. to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris) that there is authorization for MR. [HERBERT E.] HARRIS [II, of Vir- appropriations for the official residence ginia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of the Vice President, if that is the of order against this portion of the bill point the gentleman is attempting to on the basis previously stated. address in this matter. Therefore, that THE CHAIRMAN: (1) Does the gen- portion of the paragraph would not be tleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Steed) de- subject to a point of order. sire to be heard on the point of order? MR. HARRIS: I thank the Chair. MR. [TOM] STEED [of Oklahoma]: I THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair, there- do, Mr. Chairman. fore, overrules the point of order. Mr. Chairman, in this case there is MR. [EDWARD J.] DERWINSKI [of Illi- authorization for the item. In the 93d nois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 202, point of order. passed July 12, 1974, provides for the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from inclusion of this item in the bill. It is Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) will state his Public Law 93–346. point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Chair direct MR. DERWINSKI: Mr. Chairman, let a question to the gentleman from Vir- me read this to be sure we are speak- ginia (Mr. Harris) so that the gen- ing of the same item. tleman may clarify his point. I make a point of order against the Against what portion of this para- language of the bill on page 8, lines 20 graph does the gentleman make his through 25, and on page 9, lines 1 and point of order? 2. That item is entitled ‘‘Official Resi- MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, we are dence of the Vice President—Operating dealing with official entertaining ex- Expenses,’’ and this language violates penses in this item, and that is not au- rule XXI, clause 2, of the Rules of the thorized under law. House. That is the basis for the point THE CHAIRMAN: To what line is the of order. gentleman referring? Will the gen- Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard fur- tleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris) ex- ther, we have had previous points of plain it so we will know to what spe- order sustained against this item, and, in fact, in last year’s appropriation bill 1. B. F. Sisk (Calif.). a similar point of order was sustained.

11974 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Chair state as being in violation of clause 2, rule that the present occupant of the chair XXI. was the occupant of the chair last year Therefore, on the basis of the pro- and considered the proviso starting on viso, the point of order is sustained line 25 of page 8 and continuing against the entire paragraph. through line 26 and lines 1 and 2 on page 9. On that basis the point of Reinserting Language Stricken order was sustained. However, the ear- by Point of Order lier designation, as the Chair understood the statement of the gentleman § 1.22 Where a point of order is from Virginia (Mr. Harris), would not sustained against a para- follow, because basically there is au- graph in a general appro- thority for the Vice President’s residence. priation bill because a por- That is the reason the Chair is giv- tion thereof is unauthorized ing ample opportunity to the Members and contains legislation, and to clarify the point of order. A point of the entire paragraph is order was in fact sustained on the pro- therefore stricken, the au- viso mentioned last year. I understand thorized portion may then be the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. reinserted by amendment. Derwinski) is making a point of order based on that proviso. When the legislative branch ap- MR. STEED: Mr. Chairman, if I may propriations bill for fiscal 1978 be heard on the point of order, if we was read for amendment in Com- read section 3 of this act, it says that mittee of the Whole on June 29, the Secretary of the Navy shall, subject 1977,(2) a point of order was made to the supervision and control of the against the paragraph carrying Vice President, provide for the staffing, upkeep, alteration, and furnishing of appropriations for ‘‘Capitol an official residence and grounds for Grounds’’. The paragraph con- the Vice President. tained a proviso amendment a Mr. Chairman, I do not know what prior appropriation law,(3) was more authority we need. conceded to be legislative. After THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state that in line with the like ruling last 2. 123 CONG. REC. 21402, 95th Cong. year, a paragraph in a general appro- 1st Sess. priation bill containing funds for the 3. The proviso in existing law amended official residence of the President and by the paragraph was a provision in of the Vice President and providing for the Supplemental Appropriations advances repayments or transfers of Act, 1973, authorizing the Architect those funds to other departments or to use certain lands as a park area agencies—not just to General Services pending development of a con- Administration—was conceded to templated Residential Page School, change existing law and was ruled out project which never materialized.

11975 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS the paragraph was stricken by the paragraph starting on page 19, line 16, Chair, the chairman of the Sub- through line 7 on page 20, on the committee on Legislative Branch ground that in two respects it violates Appropriations offered an amend- rule XXI, clause 2. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision for ment, deleting not only the legis- the creation of a parking lot at the old lative provision but with a lump Providence Hospital site about which sum appropriation figure which the Chairman of the Committee on deleted funding for a Capitol House Administration, the gentleman parking facility which was not au- from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson) and thorized by law. I have had colloquy. There is no authorization in law for the development THE CHAIRMAN: (4) The Clerk will of this parking lot provided for in lines read. 23 to 25 on page 19. The Clerk read as follows: MR. [GEORGE E.] SHIPLEY [of Illi- CAPITOL GROUNDS nois]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? For care and improvement of grounds surrounding the Capitol, the MR. COUGHLIN: I yield to the gen- Senate and House Office Buildings, tleman from Illinois. and the Capitol Power Plant; per- MR. SHIPLEY: I thank the gentleman sonal and other services; care of for yielding. trees; planting; fertilizer; repairs to pavements, walks, and roadways; The committee understands that this waterproof wearing apparel; mainte- is subject to a point of order, as the nance of signal lights; and for snow Chairman of the Committee on House removal by hire of men and equip- Administration, Mr. Thompson, men- ment or under contract without re- tioned earlier. The committee will con- gard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, $2,402,500, cede the point of order. including $483,000 to develop MR. COUGHLIN: I thank the gen- Square 764 into a temporary parking tleman. facility for the House of Representa- THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is tives: Provided That chapter V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, conceded and sustained against the en- 1973 (Public Law 92–607, approved tire paragraph. October 31, 1972, 86 Stat. 1513), is MR. SHIPLEY: Mr. Chairman, I offer hereby amended by striking the an amendment. words ‘‘green park area’’ in the third further proviso of the paragraph en- The Clerk read as follows: titled ‘‘Acquisition of Property as an Amendment offered by Mr. Ship- Addition to the Capitol Grounds’’, ley: On page 19, after line 15, insert and inserting in lieu thereof, the fol- the following: lowing: ‘‘temporary parking facility’’. For care and improvement of grounds surrounding the Capitol, the MR. [R. LAWRENCE] COUGHLIN [of Senate and House Office Buildings, Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make and the Capitol Power Plant; per- a point of order against the entire sonal and other services; care of trees; planting; fertilizer; repairs to 4. John M. Murphy (N.Y.). pavements, walks, and roadways;

11976 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

waterproof wearing apparel; mainte- On Nov. 4, 1971,(6) in the Com- nance of signal lights; and for snow removal by hire of men and equip- mittee of the Whole, Mr. David N. ment or under contract without re- Henderson, of North Carolina, gard to section 3709 of the Revised raised a point of order relating to Statutes, as amended, $1,919,500. the jurisdiction of the Committee MR. SHIPLEY: Mr. Chairman, this on Post Office and Civil Service amendment simply restores the appro- with respect to legislation pre- priation language for the Capitol pared by the Committee on Edu- grounds at the lower figure, reflecting cation and Labor. the reduction of the $483,000 for the MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I temporary parking facility, which was was on my feet seeking recognition. I eliminated by the point of order. raise a point of order against section 1085 of this title. Special Rule Creating Juris- THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: (7) The dictional Point of Order Chair will hear the gentleman. Against Portion of Text MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 1805 of title XVIII. § 1.23 Pursuant to a special Section 1805 authorizes the Sec- ( ) rule 5 permitting points of retary of Health, Education, and Wel- order against any ‘‘title, part fare to establish a Council on Higher or section’’ of a committee Education Relief Assistance, and in- substitute within the juris- cludes provisions that the Secretary may appoint not more than 10 individ- diction of another com- uals, without regard to the civil service mittee, the Chair sustained a or classification laws, as members of point of order against a sec- the staff of the Council. tion which contained a sub- An exemption to the civil service or section outside that commit- classification laws is a matter clearly tee’s jurisdiction (although within the Federal civil service generally. Under clause 15 of rule XI of the section as a whole was the Rules of the House of Representa- within that jurisdiction) tives, a matter relating to the Federal under the principle that if a civil service generally is a matter point of order is sustained clearly within the jurisdiction of the against a portion of a pend- Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. ing section the entire section may be ruled out of order. 6. 117 CONG. REC. 39287, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 5. H. Res. 661, agreed to Oct. 27, 1971. 7248, amending and extending the 117 CONG. REC. 37765–69, 92d Cong. Higher Education Act of 1965. 1st Sess. 7. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).

11977 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Mr. Chairman, I urge that the point Chairman invoked the general of order be sustained on the basis that principle that a point of order section 1805 includes matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Post Of- against a part of an amendment fice and Civil Service Committee.... renders the whole amendment THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The subject to a point of order. Chair is ready to rule.... MR. [WILBUR D.] MILLS [of Arkan- Clause 15(f), rule XI, gives the Com- sas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point mittee on Post Office and Civil Service of order against the amendment, of jurisdiction over the status of officers course, that it is not germane to the and employees of the United States, including their compensation, classifica- bill. ( ) tion, and retirement. Section 1805 in- THE CHAIRMAN: 9 Does the gen- cludes a portion which, if considered tleman from South Carolina desire to separately, contains subject matter be heard? within the jurisdiction of the Com- MR. [JAMES P.] RICHARDS [of South mittee on Post Office and Civil Service. Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, may I ask if Under the precedents of the House, if the gentleman raises the point of order a point of order is sustained against a in both instances? portion of a pending section or para- MR. MILLS: I base the point of order graph, the entire section or paragraph on the language of the amendment on may be ruled out of order. page 19, lines 1 through 6. I am not The Chair, therefore, sustains the advised as to the remainder of the point of order against section 1805, amendment, but I do know that the and the language of the section is language referred to is not germane to stricken from the committee amend- this bill.... ment. MR. RICHARDS: I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman. Effect of Sustaining Point of THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is Order Against Part of conceded and the point of order is sus- Amendment in Legislative tained. A point of order to a part of an Bill amendment makes the whole amendment subject to a point of order, so the § 1.24 If a point of order is whole amendment goes out on the point of order. made against an amendment, the entire amendment is § 1.25 A point of order against ruled out, although only a any part of an amendment, if portion of such amendment sustained, has the effect of is objectionable. invalidating the entire On June 30, 1955,(8) in the amendment. Committee of the Whole, the 2090, amending the Mutual Security 8. 101 CONG. REC. 9662, 84th Cong. 1st Act of 1954. Sess. Under consideration was S. 9. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

11978 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

On June 15, 1970,(10) Speaker tion which would otherwise Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Okla- have been in order. homa, answered a parliamentary On July 13, 1939,(11) Mr. John inquiry, as follows: Taber, of New York, made a point MR. [H. ALLEN] SMITH of California: of order against part of a bill as Mr. Speaker . . . I make a parliamen- being an appropriation of funds by tary inquiry. a committee not having such ju- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The risdiction, which point of order gentleman will state it. Chairman John W. Boehne, Jr., of MR. SMITH of California: Mr. Speak- er, on H.R. 17966, the so-called Udall Indiana, sustained. substitute, that is in my understanding Sec. 205. (a) A Board to be known as one amendment in the nature of a sub- the Trustees of the Franklin D. Roo- stitute. If any part of that bill is not sevelt Library is hereby estab- germane or subject to a point of order, lished.... would not the entire H.R. 17966 be MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, I make a subject to a point of order if points of point of order against the section on order are not waived against it? That the ground that it contains an appro- was my understanding of the situation. priation of public funds and that it is THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The reported by a committee not having ju- gentleman has correctly stated the risdiction to bring into the House an rule. Should points of order not be appropriation bill. waived, then if any part of the amend- Mr. Taber called attention to ment is not in order, the entire amendment is not in order. specific language that he deemed improper.

Reinserting Remainder of Sec- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman tion Where Part Is Subject to from New York limit his point of order Point of Order to the sentence which he read? MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, I made § 1.26 Where a portion of a sec- the point of order against the section of a legislative bill is out tion.... of order, the entire section is THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready to rule. rejected, but it is in order to The Chair is of the opinion that the offer an amendment re- point of order made by the gentleman inserting that part of the sec- from New York against the section is

10. 116 CONG. REC. 19841, 91st Cong. 2d 11. 84 CONG. REC. 9060, 9061, 76th Sess. Being discussed was H. Res. Cong. 1st Sess. S.J. Res. 118, to pro- 1077, providing for consideration of vide for the establishment and main- H.R. 17070, the Postal Reform Act of tenance of the Franklin D. Roosevelt 1970. Library.

11979 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

well taken, and therefore sustains the Brock Adams, of Washington, point of order. chairman of the House Committee Subsequently, Mr. Sam Ray- on the Budget. The proceedings of burn, of Texas, offered an amend- Sept. 27, 1976,(12) were as follows: ment, whose purpose he explained CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5546, as follows: HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATIONAL The amendment I offer leaves out ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1976 the language objected to by the gen- MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West tleman from New York in lines 7, 8, 9, Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the and 10 on page 6.... conference report on the bill (H.R. The amendment was agreed to. 5546), to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the programs of assistance under title VII Where Point of Order Sus- for training in the health and allied tained Against Conference health professions, to revise the Na- Report tional Health Service Corps program, and the National Health Service Corps § 1.27 A conference report con- scholarship training program, and for taining new spending au- other purposes, and ask unanimous thority not subject to ad- consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report. vance appropriations having The Clerk read the title of the bill. been ruled out as in violation MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I make a of the Congressional Budget point of order on the conference report. Act, the manager of the bill THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (13) The moved to recede and concur gentleman from Washington will state in the Senate amendment his point of order. containing the offending lan- MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement on H.R. 5546, the guage with an amendment Health Professions Assistance Act of rendering the new spending 1976, contains a provision which ap- authority subject to amounts pears to provide borrowing authority specified in advance in ap- which is not subject to advance appro- propriation acts. priations. Consequently, it would be subject to a point of order under sec- When the conference report on tion 401(a) of the Congressional Budg- the Health Professional Education et Act. Assistance Act of 1976 was called Section 401(a) provides: up by the chairman of the Com- 12. 122 CONG. REC. 32655, 32656, mittee on Interstate and Foreign 32679, 32685, 32703, 94th Cong. 2d Commerce, a point of order was Sess. lodged against the report by Mr. 13. John J. McFall (Calif.). 11980 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

It shall not be in order in either ject to advance appropriation, the de- the House of Representatives or the fault payment made pursuant to the Senate to consider any bill or resolu- provision in question does not con- tion which provides new spending authority described in subsection stitute a loan guarantee and it is fully (c)(2)(A) or (B) (or any amendment subject to the requirements of section which provides such new spending 401. authority), unless that bill, resolu- MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, will the tion, or amendment also provides gentleman yield? that such new spending authority is to be effective for any fiscal year MR. ADAMS: I yield to the gentleman only to such extent or in such from West Virginia, the chairman of amounts as are provided in appro- the committee. priation acts. MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I con- Section 401(c)(2)(B) of the Budget cede the point of order. Act defines spending authority as au- Mr. Speaker, I have a motion. thority ‘‘to incur indebtedness-other THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The than indebtedness incurred under the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. second Liberty Bond Act-for the repay- Staggers) concedes the point of order. ment of which the United States is lia- Therefore, the point of order is sus- ble, the budget authority for which is tained. not provided in advance by appropria- The Clerk will report the Senate tion acts.’’ This form of spending au- amendment in disagreement. thority is commonly known as bor- MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- rowing authority. land]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- The conference report accompanying liamentary inquiry. H.R. 5546 contains a provision creating THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The a student loan insurance fund under gentleman will state his parliamentary section 734 of the Public Health Serv- inquiry. ice Act. MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, it was Clearly, the requirement that the my understanding that the gentleman Secretary of the Treasury purchase from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) these obligations constitutes borrowing called up a conference report, and a authority. point of order was made against that And since the provision contains no conference report, which was sus- requirement that the authority be lim- tained. ited to amounts provided in advance in Is the conference report still before appropriation acts, it appears to give the House, Mr. Speaker? rise to a section 401(A) point of order. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The The fact that the provision relates to conference report is not, but the Sen- default payments which might arise ate amendment in disagreement is; pursuant to a loan guarantee program and a motion will be offered, the Chair does not bring the provision within the will state to the gentleman from Mary- ‘‘loan guarantee’’ exception to section land, that could cure the point of order. 401 of the Budget Act. Although the Therefore, if the gentleman will bear loan guarantee itself may not be sub- with us for the sake of orderly proce-

11981 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

dure, we will have this matter properly the conference report, is the motion before the House.... that is being made to agree with the [Reading of the amendment in dis- Senate amendment to the amendment agreement was dispensed with.] of the House deleting the offending MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I offer phrase? a motion. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: When a The Clerk read as follows: conference report is ruled out of order, as this one was, then the Senate Mr. Staggers moves that the amendment in disagreement is before House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the House. This motion, if passed, the bill H.R. 5546, and agree to the would remedy the point of order that same with an amendment as follows: was made. In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amend- Rulings on Matters Not Raised ment insert the following: in Point of Order SHORT TITLE: REFERENCE TO ACT § 1.28 The Chair does not rule SECTION 1. (a) This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Health Professions Edu- on statutory interpretations cational Assistance Act of not presented in a point of 1976’’.... order or comment upon le- ‘‘STUDENT LOAN INSURANCE FUND gal questions which might ‘‘SEC. 734. (a) There is hereby es- collaterally result from an in- tablished a student loan insurance terpretation of the chal- fund (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘fund’) which shall be lenged language. available without fiscal year limita- (14) tion to the Secretary for making pay- On June 28, 1949, in the ments in connection with the default Committee of the Whole, Chair- of loans insured by him under this man Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, de- subpart...... but only in such amounts as clined to rule on more than was may be specified from time to time necessary to resolve a point of in appropriations Acts.... order.

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of South Da- objection to the request of the gen- kota: Mr. Chairman, the point of order tleman from West Virginia? I make is that subparagraphs (e) and MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I reserve (f) of section 102 in title I constitute the right to object to the unanimous the appropriation of funds from the consent request made by the gen- Federal Treasury, and that the Com- tleman from West Virginia (Mr. Stag- mittee on Banking and Currency is gers). without jurisdiction to report a bill car- My inquiry of the Chair is the same as I made before, and that is that in 14. 95 CONG. REC. 8536–38, 81st Cong. view of the fact that a point of order 1st Sess. Under consideration was has been made to any consideration of H.R. 4009, the Housing Act of 1949.

11982 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 rying appropriations under clause 4, purpose is authorized to use as a rule 21, which says that no bill or joint public debt transaction the proceeds resolution carrying appropriations from the sale of any securities issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, shall be reported by any committee not as amended— having jurisdiction to report appropriations.... And so forth. The way in which this . . . I make this point of order be- particular language extends this device cause this proposes to expand and de- of giving the Secretary authority to velop a device or mechanism for get- subscribe for notes by some authority ting funds out of the Federal Treasury is this: It includes the words ‘‘and di- in an unprecedented degree. rected.’’ The Constitution has said that no In other words, the Secretary of the money shall be drawn from the Treas- Treasury has no alternative when the ury but in consequence of appropria- Administrator presents to him some of tions made by law. It must follow that these securities for purchase but to the mechanism which gets the money purchase them. The Secretary of the out of the Treasury is an appropria- Treasury is not limited to purchasing tion. them by proceeds from the sale of I invite the attention of the Chair- bonds or securities. He is directed to man to the fact that subparagraph (e) purchase these notes and obligations states: issued by the Administrator. That means he might use funds obtained To obtain funds for loans under from taxes, that he might use funds this title, the Administrator may issue and have outstanding at any obtained through the assignment of one time notes and obligations for miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury, purchase by the Secretary of the that he might use funds obtained Treasury in an amount not to exceed through the proceeds of bonds. $25,000,000, which limit on such This proposal will give to the Com- outstanding amount shall be increased by $225,000,000 on July 1, mittee on Banking and Currency, if it 1950, and by further amounts of should be permitted, authority which $250,000,000 on July 1 in each of the the Committee on Appropriations does years 1951, 1952, and 1953, not have, for in the reporting of an ap- respectively— propriation bill for a fiscal year, any Within the total authorization of appropriation beyond the fiscal year $1,000,000,000. would be held out of order. Here this Further that subparagraph (f) pro- committee is reporting a bill which vides that— proposes to make mandatory extrac- tions from the Treasury during a pe- The Secretary of the Treasury is riod of 4 years.... authorized and directed— Mr. Chairman, this is not, as I said And I call particular attention to the earlier, a casual point of order; we are use of the words ‘‘and directed’’— here dealing with the fundamental to purchase any notes and other power of the Congress to control appro- obligations of the Administrator priations. No such device has ever be- issued under this title and for such fore, so far as I can find out, been pre-

11983 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

sented to the Congress for getting thorized’’ in this sense means ‘‘di- money in the guise of a legislative bill rected.’’ It could not mean anything without its having been considered by else, otherwise you would be dele- the Committee on Appropriations. It is gating to an officer of the Government a mandatory extraction of funds from entire discretion as to whether or not the Public Treasury, and, con- great national acts should be carried out and the purposes of Congress sequently, constitutes an appropriation should be subserved. and is beyond the authority or the ju- MR. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. risdiction of the Committee on Banking Chairman, in most of the acts which and Currency to report in this the gentleman has suggested, points of bill.... order were waived, and I refer to MR. [BRENT] SPENCE [of Kentucky]: Bretton Woods and some of the other Mr. Chairman, the raising of funds by bills. But as to the particular point public debt transaction has been fre- here in issue, the question whether the quently authorized by the Congress: words ‘‘and directed’’ have any mean- The Export-Import Bank raises funds ing, if they do not have any meaning by that method; the Bretton Woods why are they there? The present hous- Agreement, in my recollection, is car- ing act merely authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase. It does ried out by that method; the British not say ‘‘and directed.’’ The very inclu- loan was financed by that method, and sion of the words ‘‘and directed’’ is evi- the Federal Deposit Insurance Cor- dence of the fact they have a special poration was also financed by that meaning. They create a mandatory ex- method. It does not seem to me that traction of funds from the Public this is a seasonable objection. This has Treasury.... been the policy of the Congress for MR. [JOHN W.] MCCORMACK [of Mas- years. sachusetts]: . . . The gentleman from Mr. Chairman, this is not raising South Dakota has referred to the Con- money to be appropriated for the pur- stitution. The Constitution says: poses that ordinary appropriation bills No money shall be drawn from the carry. All of this money is to be used Treasury but in consequence of ap- as loans. propriations made by law. The gentleman says that in other The word ‘‘appropriations’’ is used. acts the Secretary of the Treasury is The rule referred to, clause 4, rule ‘‘authorized’’ but not ‘‘directed.’’ I con- 21, says: tend that the meaning of ‘‘authorized’’ No bill or resolution carrying ap- and ‘‘directed’’ in this act is absolutely propriations shall be reported by any the same. committee not having jurisdiction to Do you think when you authorize the report appropriations. Secretary of the Treasury to raise You will note the word ‘‘appropria- funds to carry out a great public pur- tions’’ is used. Now, let us see what pose it is in his discretion whether he ‘‘appropriations’’ means. shall raise those funds and that that I have before me Funk & Wagnalls shall depend on the discretion of the Standard Dictionary and ‘‘appropria- Secretary of the Treasury? I say ‘‘au- tions’’ is defined as follows:

11984 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

To set apart for a particular use. I respectfully submit that it must To take for one’s own use. call for an appropriation out of the The provisions of this bill are not general funds of the Treasury in order taking for one’s own use, because this to violate the rules of the House. This is a loan designed purely for loan pur- permits the use of money raised by the poses. It is not a definite appropria- sale of bonds under the Second Liberty tion. It is giving authority to utilize for Bond Act for loans to these public loan purposes and the money comes agencies, such loans to be repaid with back into the Treasury of the United interest.... States with interest.... THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- The provision in paragraph (f) that pared to rule. my friend has raised a point of order The Chair agrees with the gen- against relates entirely to loans. As we tleman from South Dakota that the read section 102 of title I it starts out point which has been raised is not a with loans. Throughout the bill, a casual point of order. As a matter of number of times, there is reference to fact, as far as the Chair has been able loans.... to ascertain, this is the first time a . . . Certainly, the word ‘‘appropria- point of order has been raised on this tions’’ is used in the Constitution. And, issue as violative of clause 4 of rule I think it is the rule of the House that XXI. must govern, and that is what the As the Chair sees the point of order, Chair has to pass upon, because the the issue involved turns on the mean- Congress could determine by proper ing of the word ‘‘appropriation.’’ ‘‘Ap- legislation what the word ‘‘appropria- propriation,’’ in its usual and cus- tion’’ means as contained in the Con- tomary interpretation, means taking stitution itself. . . . Now, if the House money out of the Treasury by appro- intended that it should apply to provi- priate legislative language for the sup- sions of this kind, instead of saying, port of the general functions of Govern- ‘‘No bill or joint resolution carrying ap- ment. The language before us does not propriations shall be reported’’ the do that. This language authorizes the House might have said, ‘‘No bill or Secretary of the Treasury to use pro- joint resolution carrying appropriations ceeds of public-debt issues for the pur- or having directly or indirectly the ef- pose of making loans. Under the lan- fect.’’ There is a difference between guage, the Treasury of the United cause and effect. Certainly, it applies States makes advances which will be to this case. The House, in its wisdom, repaid in full with interest over a pe- in adopting this rule, confined it to ap- riod of years without cost to the tax- propriations made to an agency of Gov- payers. ernment for use by that agency in car- Therefore, the Chair rules that this rying out what the Congress consid- language does not constitute an appro- ered to be essentially the function of priation, and overrules the point of the Government during the coming fis- order. cal year or during the period for which MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr. the appropriation has been made. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

11985 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will tion to make the determination in state it. appointing conferees who gen- MR. CASE of South Dakota: Would erally supported the House posi- the Chair hold then that that language restricts the Secretary of the Treasury tion. Other provisions of the to using the proceeds of the securities clause are mandatory on the issued under the second Liberty Bond Speaker: he must name Members Act and prevents him from using the who are primarily responsible for proceeds from miscellaneous receipts the legislation, for example. or tax revenues? Speaker O’Neill’s response to the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not Erlenborn point of order as ex- have authority to draw that distinc- cerpted from the proceedings of tion. The Chair is passing on the par- (15) ticular point which has been raised. Oct. 12, 1977, is carried below. MR. CASE of South Dakota: However, THE SPEAKER: (16) The Chair appoints Mr. Chairman, it would seem implicit the following conferees: Messrs. Per- in the ruling of the Chair and I kins, Dent, Phillip Burton, Gaydos, thought perhaps it could be decided as Clay, Biaggi, Zeferetti, Quie, Erlen- a part of the parliamentary history. It born, and Ashbrook; and an additional might help some courts later on. Member, Mr. Pickle, solely for the con- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair can make sideration of section 12 of the House a distinction between the general bill and modifications thereof com- funds of the Treasury and money mitted to conference. raised for a specific purpose by the MR. [JOHN N.] ERLENBORN [of Illi- issuance of securities. That is the point nois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of involved here. order against the naming of the conferees as not being in compliance with Point of Order Against Speak- the provisions of section 701(e), rule X er’s Appointment of Conferees of the Rules of the House. THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman § 1.29 A point of order does not from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) wish to be heard on his point of order? lie against the Speaker’s ex- MR. ERLENBORN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. ercise of his discretionary Mr. Speaker, rule X, section 701(e) authority under Rule X provides in part: clause 6(e) in appointing con- In appointing members to conferees who ‘‘generally sup- ference committees the Speaker shall appoint no less than a majority of ported the House position, as members who generally supported determined by the Speaker.’’ the House position as determined by The portion of Rule X clause 6(f) the Speaker. involved in the following point of 15. 123 CONG. REC. 33434, 33435, 95th order raised by Mr. Erlenborn ex- Cong. 1st Sess. plicitly gives the Speaker discre- 16. Thomas P. O’Neill (Mass.). 11986 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in de- But notwithstanding that, the Mem- bate earlier today, the three items in bers who have been suggested to the contention between this body and the Speaker by myself as chairman of the other body are the rate structure, the Committee on Education and Labor, tip credit, and the small business the seven ranking members of the Sub- amendment. Every one of the majority committee on Labor Standards, headed Members, with the exception of the by the gentleman from Pennsylvania gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. (Mr. Dent), voted for the majority of Gaydos), did not support the House po- the amendments that were offered to sition during the consideration of the the bill on the floor of the House. By bill on the floor. and large, all the conferees suggested I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that all of to the Speaker generally supported the the Members who were present did legislation, and that is the rule. vote for the passage of the bill. The We must look at this picture as a passage of the bill is not in contention. whole and not pick out one or two se- Those items that are in contention be- lect amendments that the gentleman tween this body and the other body are from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) is pri- the three items that I have mentioned, marily interested in and overlook all and the majority of the conferees the other amendments that the other named by the Speaker are not among members supported and that the sug- those Members who supported the ma- gested conferees supported. jority position in the House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my con- THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman tention that the point of order raised from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) wish to by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Er- be heard on the point of order? lenborn) is without merit and should MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Ken- be overruled. tucky]: I do, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to Mr. Speaker, there were numerous rule. amendments offered to the minimum This is the judgment of the Chair wage bill. Perhaps the major amend- concerning the following language: ment that was adopted was the one in- ‘‘The Speaker shall appoint no less creasing the exceptions from $250,000 than a majority of Members who gen- to $500,000 for small businesses. The erally supported the House position as Speaker has taken care of that situa- determined by the Speaker, and the tion by appointing the gentleman from Speaker shall name Members who are Texas (Mr. Pickle). primarily responsible for the legisla- If we were to follow the argument of tion and shall, to the fullest extent fea- the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlen- sible, include the principal proponents born), as it might apply to a situation of the major provisions of the bill as it in which some 30 or 40 Members out- passed the House.’’ side the committee had offered amend- That language is found in clause 6(e) ments, I would think that it would set of rule X of the Rules of the House. a precedent that this House could not In the opinion of the Chair, after live with. looking over the list of conferees, and

11987 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

in view of the fact that the Chair has recognition to challenge this exer- only had one additional request to cise of the Speaker’s power of rec- name a conferee—and that is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle), whom ognition. Attempts to state opposi- the Chair has named as a limited con- tion to this policy by raising ques- feree—the Members that the Chair has tions of the privilege of the House named as conferees meet the qualifica- were unsuccessful. The Chair’s tion of being ‘‘primarily responsible for announcement and the events the legislation.’’ which followed are carried herein. The Chair’s appointment under the remaining provisions of the rule is ulti- ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO mately a matter within his discretion, TEMPORE which the Chair feels he has properly exercised, and there is nothing in the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The rule requiring the Chair to consider Chair desires to make an announce- the conferees’ positions solely on the ment. matter in dispute. As the Chair announced yesterday, The Chair overruled the point of requests to address the House for 1 order. minute will be entertained at the conclusion of the legislative business Chair’s Recognition Not Sub- today, rather than at the beginning. ject to Point of Order This should not deprive any Member of the privilege of being heard on any § 1.30 Recognition for unani- subject of his choice, so long as the Member is willing to await the conclu- mous-consent requests to ad- sion of the business of the House. dress the House for one The Chair believes there is genuine minute before legislative value in the 1-minute rule in the exer- business is within the discre- cise of free expression on subjects, the tion of the Chair, and the variety of which is limited only by the Chair’s refusal to entertain individual imaginations of the Mem- bers. The Chair would not desire to such requests is not subject deny any Member this privilege. For to a point of order. all its value, however, the Chair does When the House convened on not believe that the 1-minute rule July 25, 1980,(17) Speaker Pro must necessarily precede, nor be permitted to postpone, the business of the Tempore James C. Wright, Jr., of House. On several occasions this year, Texas, announced that the con- the exercise of the 1-minute rule has duct of legislative business should delayed a beginning on the business of precede recognition for one-minute the day by periods extending from 45 speeches. Several Members sought minutes to 1 hour. Only 38 legislative days remain, in- 17. 126 CONG. REC. 19762–64, 96th cluding Mondays and Fridays, between Cong. 2d Sess. now and October 4, the date of our re-

11988 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 cess or adjournment sine die. Nine that the Chair was not announcing a major appropriations bills remain to be policy for the remainder of the session, acted upon by the House. No major ap- but only for Thursday and Friday. propriations bill at this time has com- Do I take the Chair’s announcement pleted the legislative process. this morning to mean that this will be In addition to those very basic and the policy for the remainder of this ses- indispensable legislative priorities, sion? there are other bills, including the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: No; as budget reconciliation legislation, the the Chair stated yesterday in response second budget resolution for fiscal year to a question from the gentleman from 1981, and a considerable number of Maryland, the present occupant of the important legislative initiatives, which, chair is not in a position to announce in the public interest, must be com- a policy for the remainder of the ses- pleted before the Congress can ad- sion, and so stated. journ. The policy for the remainder of the Under those circumstances, the session would be more appropriately Chair requests the understanding and determined and stated by Speaker cooperation of all the Members in expe- O’Neill. At this present time, that is all diting the necessary legislative busi- the Chair has to say, or all that he ness of the House, which is of course properly should or could say. our first duty to the American people. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE The Chair assures all Members, to the extent that any such reassurance may MR. [E. G. (BUD)] SHUSTER [of Penn- be desired, that their rights under the sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a rules will be fully respected and as- point of privilege. siduously protected. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his privilege. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY MR. SHUSTER: Mr. Speaker, I offer a MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- privileged resolution. land]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The inquiry. Clerk will report the resolution. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The The Clerk read as follows: gentleman from Maryland asks a par- Whereas the custom of allowing liamentary inquiry. The gentleman one-minute speeches is a long- will state it. standing tradition of the House, begun by Speaker Sam Rayburn in MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, yester- the 1940’s; day the gentleman from Maryland Whereas the ability of the Minor- heard the Chair answer a question re- ity to be heard rests to a large de- garding 1-minute speeches. The gen- gree on the one-minute speeches; tleman from Maryland asked the Chair permitted in a timely fashion; and whether or not limits on such speeches Whereas the integrity of the proceedings of the House is impugned is to be a policy to be followed for the where all Members are not accorded remainder of the session, and the a full opportunity to speak; Now, Chair, as recorded on page H6404, said therefore, be it

11989 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Resolved, That the Speaker exer- MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. cise his prerogative and reinstitute BRADEMAS the custom of allowing one-minute speeches at the beginning of the ses- MR. [JOHN] BRADEMAS [of Indiana]: sion. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair must declare that a question of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The the privileges of the House under rule question is on the motion to table offered by the gentleman from Indiana IX cannot impinge upon the Speaker’s (Mr. Brademas). right of recognition. The gentleman’s The question was taken; and the proposal is not, under rule IX, a privi- Speaker pro tempore announced that leged resolution, and the Chair will so the ayes appeared to have it. rule. The Chair does not entertain the MR. SHUSTER: Mr. Speaker, I object resolution at this time. to the vote on the ground that a MR. SHUSTER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to quorum is not present and make the a point of privilege. point of order that a quorum is not THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The present. gentleman will state his point of privi- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evi- lege. dently a quorum is not present. MR. SHUSTER: Mr. Speaker, I reluc- The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- tantly send a second privileged resolu- sent Members. tion to the desk. The Chair will state that the vote is THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The on the motion offered by the gentleman Clerk will report the second resolution. from Indiana (Mr. Brademas) to table The Clerk read as follows: the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). H. RES. 753 The vote was taken by electronic de- Whereas the structural defi- vice, and there were—yeas 222, nays ciencies of the West Front of the 137, not voting 74, as follows:... Capitol include walls that are So the motion to table was agreed to. ‘‘cracked, the stones are misaligned, the ties have rusted away, and the The result of the vote was an- walls are held in place by a system nounced as above recorded. of shores and braces;’’ and Whereas the portico ceiling at the POINT OF ORDER West Capitol Front is composed of ‘‘stone joints that have failed;’’ and MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, a point Whereas ‘‘the exterior walls of the of order.... west central portion of the Capitol Mr. Speaker, prior to the privileged are distorted and cracked, and re- or nonprivileged motions just offered quire corrective action for safety and by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, durability;’’ now, therefore, be it the Chair unilaterally issued a ruling Resolved, That an independent investigation be immediately initiated regarding the 1-minute speeches and into the safety of the Members of the stated in essence, if I recall, that these House. speeches would not be permitted today

11990 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 or during his tenure as Speaker pro tions and, therefore, has exceeded his tempore because of the press of legisla- discretion in regard to 1-minutes as tive business in the remainder of the supported by the traditions of the session. I believe that was the import House. of his remarks. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point Chair would correct the gentleman, if of order, unless other Members insist the gentleman would permit. on being heard. The Chair is prepared The Chair did not exactly say that, to rule. but the gentleman will state his point The gentleman’s point of order in the of order. first place comes too late. But the MR. BAUMAN: I make a point of Chair is prepared to state that in any order against the ruling of the Chair. I event it is not a sustainable point of make a point of order that the Chair order. cannot in fact deny the 1-minute The gentleman from Maryland is speeches on the ground which he stat- aware, because he is a scholar of the ed, and as authority for that, I cite rules of the House, and he is aware of chapter 21, section 7 of Deschler’s, the great thrust of the very section to wherein there are several instances, which he made reference, paragraph 7 including those referring to July 22, of chapter 21 of Deschler’s Procedure. 1968; June 17, 1970; and October 19, The Chair would simply recite one or 1966, where the Chair declined to rec- two of the precedents therein reported. ognize Members for 1-minute speeches Recognition for 1-minute speeches is because of the press of business, a within the discretion of the Speaker, heavy legislative schedule, which is and his evaluation of the time con- Deschler’s phrase, and proceeding to sumed is a matter for the Chair and is unfinished business. not subject to challenge or question by Mr. Speaker, my point of order is parliamentary inquiry. that the traditions of the House, as Now that was May 9, 1972. evidenced in these precedents, indicate the Chair has the discretion to deny 1- On December 16, 1971, the Speaker minute speeches on those grounds, but pro tempore announced that he would that the ruling of the gentleman from recognize Members to address the Texas (Mr. Wright), the Speaker pro House for longer than 1 minute for tempore, has, in fact, allowed an arbi- reasons that he felt desirable. On a trary ground to be used at a time when number of occasions, July 22, 1968; there is no press of heavy legislative June 17, 1970; October 19, 1966, the business manifested by the fact that same rule was applied. Recognition for the Speaker and others have an- 1-minute speeches is within the discre- nounced that we will adjourn today at tion of the Speaker, and when the 3 o’clock when we can easily stay here House has a heavy legislative sched- and deal with any pressing legislative ule, he sometimes refuses to recognize business if that exists. Members for that purpose. Further my point of order is that the So the traditions of the House are Speaker has departed from past tradi- clear, and the customs have not been

11991 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

broken; and the Chair has tried to 139, answered ‘‘present’’ 1, not voting state to the gentleman his intention 60, as follows:... and his firm determination assiduously to protect the rights of all Members, Chair’s Recognition Not Sub- minority as well as majority. ject to Appeal The Chair has had a conversation with the gentleman from Pennsyl- § 1.31 The decision of the vania, and with the Chairman who will preside in the Committee of the Whole Chair on a matter of recogni- House and has asked that Chairman tion is not subject to a point as a favor to the Chair and as an exer- of order, since recognition is cise in abundant fairness to be ex- largely within the discretion tremely tolerant of the rules of rel- of the Chair. evance so as to permit the gentleman from Pennsylvania to speak his mind On July 7, 1980,(18) there was a con- on an amendment that he will be offer- test for recognition in the Committee ing. of the Whole when it had under consid- Now, the Chair has bent over back- eration H.R. 7235, the Rail Act of ward in an effort to be fair with the 1980. The proceedings were as indi- minority, and the Chair believes the cated. gentleman from Maryland is aware of MR. [JAMES J.] FLORIO [of New Jer- that fact; and so the point of order is sey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend- overruled. ment. MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I appeal The Clerk read as follows: the ruling of the Chair. Amendment offered by Mr. Florio: THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Page 103, line 14, insert ‘‘or (c)’’ im- gentleman from Maryland appeals mediately after ‘‘subsection (b)’’. from the ruling of the Chair. Page 104, line 20, strike out the The Chair recognizes the gentleman closing quotation marks and the following period. from Indiana (Mr. Brademas). Page 104, after line 20, insert the MR. BRADEMAS: Mr. Speaker, I move following new subsection:... to lay the appeal on the table. MR. [EDWARD R.] MADIGAN [of Il- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by linois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. amendment as a substitute for the Brademas). amendment. The question was taken; and the The Clerk read as follows: Speaker pro tempore announced that Amendment offered by Mr. Mad- the ayes appeared to have it. igan as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Florio: MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, on that I Page 103, line 14, insert ‘‘or (c)’’ demand the yeas and nays. immediately after ‘‘subsection (b)’’. The yeas and nays were ordered. The vote was taken by electronic de- 18. 126 CONG. REC. 18285, 18290–92, vice, and there were—yeas 233, nays 96th Cong. 2d Sess.

11992 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

Page 104, line 20, strike out the offered as a substitute for the amend- closing quotation marks and the fol- ment. lowing period. THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will re- Page 104, after line 20, insert the port the amendment to the substitute following new subsection:... amendment. MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Chairman, this amendment includes a number of pro- POINT OF ORDER visions designed to resolve problems MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Chairman, a which had been expressed by agricul- point of order. tural groups since the bill was reported from committee.... THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will MR. [ROBERT C.] ECKHARDT [of state his point of order. Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a par- MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Chairman, I un- liamentary inquiry. derstand that the procedure is that the THE CHAIRMAN: (19) The gentleman members of the subcommittee would be will state his inquiry. recognized for amendments first, and MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, I was that the gentleman from Texas sought not aware at the time that this amend- recognition for the purpose of making a ment was offered that it would purport parliamentary inquiry and was recog- to deal with a number of very different nized for that purpose, and was not subjects. I assume that it would not be recognized for the purpose of offering in order to raise a point of order con- an amendment. cerning germaneness at this late time, I further understand that the gentle- not having reserved it, but I would like woman from Maryland, a member of to ask if the question may be divided. the subcommittee, was on her feet There are several subjects that are seeking recognition for the purpose of quite divisible in the amendment offered here, and that deal with different offering an amendment, as well as the matters. gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill). THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas that he MS. [BARBARA A.] MIKULSKI [of is correct, it is too late to raise a point Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, that is cor- of order on the question of germane- rect. ness. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will re- The Chair will further advise the spond to the gentleman by saying to gentleman from Texas that a sub- him that the normal procedure is to stitute is not divisible. recognize members of the full committee by seniority, alternating from AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. side to side, which the Chair has been ECKHARDT TO THE AMENDMENT OF- doing. The gentleman was recognized FERED BY MR. MADIGAN AS A SUB- under that procedure, and the Chair’s STITUTE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF- recognition is not in any event subject FERED BY MR. FLORIO to challenge. MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, I Therefore, the gentleman is recog- offer an amendment to the amendment nized, and any point of order that the gentleman from Illinois would make on 19. Les AuCoin (Oreg.). that point would not be sustained.

11993 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. MADIGAN: Further pursuing my Order of Amendments, Chair’s point of order, and with all due respect Discretion to the Chair, am I incorrect in assuming that the gentleman from Texas was § 1.32 Recognition to offer recognized for the point of raising a amendments in the Com- parliamentary inquiry? mittee of the Whole is within THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is the discretion of the Chair, correct. He was recognized for that and no point of order lies purpose; then separately for the purpose of the amendment that he is offer- against the Chair’s recogni- ing, which the Clerk will now report. tion of one Member over an- The Clerk read as follows: other, absent a special rule Amendment offered by Mr. which gives one amendment Eckhardt to the amendment offered a special priority. by Mr. Madigan as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. During consideration of the Florio: page 3, strike out lines 14 Panama Canal Act of 1979, which through 20. had been considered by several Page 3, line 5, strike out ‘‘(i)’’. Page 3, line 13, strike out ‘‘; or’’ committees of the House and was and insert in lieu thereof a period. being debated under the provi- Pages 4 and 5, strike out ‘‘20,000’’ sions of a rather complicated spe- and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘5,000’’. cial order, a dispute arose about MR. FLORIO: Mr. Chairman, I re- the order of recognition to offer serve a point of order. the next amendment. The perti- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from nent proceedings of June 21, New Jersey reserves a point of order. 1979,(20) were as follows: MR. FLORIO: We have not got a copy of the amendment, and what was just MR. [JOHN M.] MURPHY of New shown does not comply with what was York: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike just read. the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- with so many Members in the well and vise the gentleman from New Jersey on the floor to ask as many Members that the amendment that has been as possible to try to stay on the floor read is the amendment that is pend- throughout the next hour and 50 mining. The fact that the gentleman does utes.... not have a copy of the amendment MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- does not give rise to a point of order. land]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend- MR. FLORIO: I would like to reserve ment. a point of order until we have an op- The Clerk read as follows: portunity to see the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman re- 20. 125 CONG. REC. 15999, 16000, 96th serves a point of order. Cong. 1st Sess.

11994 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

Amendment offered by Mr. in fact on page 3 of House Resolution Bauman: Page 187, strike out line 19 274. I want to ask the Chair whether and all that follows through line 20 I am entitled to be recognized or was on page 189 and insert in lieu thereof the following: entitled to be recognized to make first a motion, which was a motion to strike Chapter 2—IMMIGRATION the entire section before amendments SEC. 1611. SPECIAL IMMIGRANTS.— were made to the text of the bill. (a) Section 101(a)(27) of the Immi- THE CHAIRMAN: Unless an amend- gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. ment having priority of consideration 1101(a)(27)), relating to the def- under the rule is offered, it is the inition of special immigrants, is amended— . . . Chair’s practice to alternate recognition of members of the several commit- MS. [ELIZABETH] HOLTZMAN [of New tees that are listed in the rule, taking York] (during the reading): Mr. Chair- amendments from the majority and mi- man, I want to raise a point of order. nority side in general turn, while giv- My point of order is that under the ing priority of recognition to those com- rule the Committee on the Judiciary mittees that are mentioned in the rule. was given the right to offer an amend- The gentlewoman from New York ment to strike section 1611, and I be- (Ms. Holtzman) is a member of such a lieve that is the import of the amend- committee, but following the adoption ment offered. The gentleman’s amend- of the last amendment the gentleman ment goes to that section, and I was on from New York (Mr. Murphy), the my feet. chairman of the Committee on Mer- THE CHAIRMAN: (1) First the amend- chant Marine and Fisheries, sought ment should be read, and then the recognition to strike the last word. Ac- Chair will recognize the gentlewoman. cordingly, the Chair then recognized The Clerk will read. the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. The Clerk continued the reading of Bauman) to offer a floor amendment, the amendment. which is a perfecting amendment to MS. HOLTZMAN: Mr. Chairman, I section 1611 of the bill. renew the point of order that I tried to The rule mentions that it shall be in state at an earlier time. order to consider an amendment as THE CHAIRMAN: The gentlewoman recommended by the Committee on the will state the point of order. Judiciary, to strike out section 1611, if MS. HOLTZMAN: Mr. Chairman, at offered, but the rule does not give any the time that the last amendment was special priority to the Committee on voted on, I was on my feet seeking to the Judiciary to offer such amend- offer an amendment on behalf of the ments, over perfecting amendments to Committee on the Judiciary with re- that section. spect to striking in its entirety section MS. HOLTZMAN: Mr. Chairman, may 1611 of the bill. The right to offer that I be heard further? The gentleman said amendment is granted under the rule, that he was going to recognize members of the committees that had a right 1. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.). to offer amendments under the rule al-

11995 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

ternately. I would suggest to the Chair was once based upon the as- that no member of the Committee on sertion that integrity of the Judiciary has been recognized thus far in the debate with respect to offer- House proceedings would be ing such an amendment and, therefore, violated if the House could the Chair’s principle, as I understood not determine as a question he stated it, was not being observed in of privilege the vote required connection with recognition. to extend the time for ratifi- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would ob- cation of a constitutional serve that the Chair is attempting to be fair in recognizing Members alter- amendment already sub- nately when they are members of committed to the states. mittees with priority and that the rule The Equal Rights Amendment permits but does not give the Com- was proposed to the states for mittee on the Judiciary special priority ratification in the 92d Congress. of recognition over other floor amendments, which under the precedents In the text of that joint resolution, would take priority over a motion to there was a provision stating that strike. ratification should be completed Second, the Chair would like to ad- within seven years of its submis- vise the gentlewoman from New York sion to the states. In the 95th that recognition is discretionary with Congress, the House Committee the Chair and is not subject to a point on the Judiciary reported another of order. Does the gentlewoman have joint resolution (H.J. Res. 638) any further comment to make on the proposing to extend the time for point of order? ratification. The difficult question The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the gentleman in presented was the vote needed to the well. pass this joint resolution. After the House had adopted a Addressing Rules of Procedure special rule making consideration Through Question of Privi- of H.J. Res. 638 in order, Mr. lege of House Quillen, of the Committee on Rules, offered H. Res. 1315 as a § 1.33 While ordinary ques- question of privilege under Rule tions of procedure or inter- IX. This resolution declared that a pretations of the House rules two-thirds vote was required to cannot be raised by a ques- pass the joint resolution extending tion of privilege under Rule the ratification period. The proceedings of Aug. 15, 1978,(2) are IX, since it is the duty of the carried in full. Speaker under Rule I clause 4 to rule on all questions of 2. 124 CONG. REC. 26203, 26204, 95th order, a question of privilege Cong. 2d Sess. 11996 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

PROVIDING FOR A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF presents a question of the privileges of MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING ON the House and may be considered FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE JOINT under rule IX of the rules of the RESOLUTION 638 House. The Clerk will report the resolution. (Mr. Quillen asked and was given The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- permission to address the House for 1 lows: minute.) H. RES. 1315 MR. [JAMES H.] QUILLEN [of Ten- nessee]: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion Whereas H.J. Res. 638 of this Con- of my remarks I shall offer a resolution gress amends H.J. Res. 208 of the involving a question of the privileges of 92nd Congress, proposing an amendment to the Constitution; the House and ask for its immediate Whereas H.J. Res. 208 of the 92nd consideration. Congress was passed by an affirma- Mr. Speaker, the ‘‘Resolved’’ clause tive vote of two-thirds of the Mem- of my resolution demands a two-thirds bers present and voting, as required vote on final passage of the constitu- by Article V of the Constitution, and tional resolution extending the ERA. submitted for ratification on March 22, 1972; At the appropriate time I will offer my Whereas the integrity of the proc- privileged resolution. ess by which the House considers THE SPEAKER: (3) The Chair will state changes to H.J. Res. 208 of the 92nd to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Congress would be violated if H.J. Quillen) that now is the time for the Res. 638 were passed by a simple gentleman to offer his resolution. majority of the Members present and voting; and PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE—PROVIDING Whereas the constitutional prerogatives of the House to propose FOR A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF MEM- amendments to the Constitution and BERS PRESENT AND VOTING ON FINAL to impose necessary conditions there- PASSAGE OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLU- to in accordance with Article V of the TION 638 Constitution would be abrogated if H.J. Res. 638 were passed by a sim- MR. QUILLEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ple majority of the Members present a question of the privileges of the and voting; House and offer a privileged resolution Resolved, That an affirmative vote (H. Res. 1315) involving a question of of two-thirds of the Members present and voting, a quorum being present, the privileges of the House, and I ask shall be required on final passage of for its immediate consideration. H.J. Res. 638. THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report MR. [DON] EDWARDS of California: the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the reso- First, the Chair will state that he lution. has had an opportunity to examine the THE SPEAKER: The question is on the resolution as offered by the gentleman motion offered by the gentleman from from Tennessee (Mr. Quillen), and in California (Mr. Edwards). the opinion of the Chair the resolution The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes ap- 3. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.). peared to have it.

11997 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. QUILLEN: Mr. Speaker, on that I of the privileges of the House under demand the yeas and nays. rule IX, believed it essential that the The yeas and nays were ordered. question of the vote required to pass The vote was taken by electronic de- House Joint Resolution 638 be decided vice, and there were—yeas 230, nays by the House itself. The House now 183, not voting 19, as follows:... having laid that resolution on the So the motion to table was agreed to. table, the Chair feels that the result of The result of the vote was an- such a vote, combined with the guid- nounced as above recorded. ance on this question furnished by the THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Committee on the Judiciary on page 6 the gentleman from California (Mr. of its report, justifies the Chair in re- Edwards) to offer a motion.... sponding that, following the expression MR. [CHARLES E.] WIGGINS [of Cali- of the House, House Joint Resolution fornia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- 638 will be messaged to the Senate if liamentary inquiry. a majority of those present and voting, THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will a quorum being present, vote for pas- state his parliamentary inquiry. sage. MR. WIGGINS: Mr. Speaker, upon the MR. WIGGINS: I have a further par- conclusion of our consideration of liamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. House Joint Resolution 638, including THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will the adoption of any amendments to it, state it. when the question is put on the final MR. WIGGINS: Do I understand the passage of that resolution, must the ruling of the Chair correctly to be that vote of the House to adopt the joint a vote not to consider a privileged reso- resolution be by a simple majority of lution is equivalent to a rejection of the those present and voting or by two- text of the resolution itself? thirds of those present and voting? THE SPEAKER: The vote was not on THE SPEAKER: In response to the the question of consideration. The parliamentary inquiry raised by the Chair will state that he believes he has gentleman from California, the Chair answered the question raised in the feels that the action of the House in gentleman’s original inquiry. The laying on the table House Resolution Chair has stated that a motion to table 315 was an indication by the House is an adverse disposition. that a majority of the Members feel a MR. WIGGINS: Mr. Speaker, I under- majority vote is required for the final stood the answer, then, to be ‘‘Yes?’’ passage of House Joint Resolution 638. THE SPEAKER: The answer is ‘‘Yes.’’ The Chair would cite the precedent contained in Cannon’s VIII, section Parliamentarian’s Note: The 2660, that affirmative action on a mo- question of the vote required, a tion to lay on the table, while not a majority or two-thirds, was technical rejection, is in effect an ad- unique. Section 508, Jefferson’s verse disposition equivalent to rejection. Manual, states that ‘‘The voice of The Chair, by ruling that House Res- the majority decides; for the lex olution 1315 properly raised a question majoris partis is the law of all

11998 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 councils, elections, etc. where not solete because of court reorganiza- otherwise expressly provided.’’ tion.

A supermajority is required in MR. POWELL: Mr. Speaker, a par- the Constitution, Article V: ‘‘The liamentary inquiry. Congress, whenever two-thirds of THE SPEAKER: (5) The gentleman will both Houses shall deem it nec- state it. essary, shall propose Amendments MR. POWELL: If this bill uses lan- to this Constitution. . . .’’ guage which is no longer in keeping with our laws, I raise the point of Since 1917, Congress has, when order that it is incorrectly drawn. On proposing a constitutional amend- page 53, line 13, this bill uses the lan- ment for ratification, provided in guage, ‘‘to review by the appropriate the joint resolution a time limit circuit court of appeals.’’ I make the within which the requisite num- point of order that there is no longer any circuit court of appeals. ber of states must ratify; in four THE SPEAKER: There might be 203 cases since that date the time Members take the same position that limit has appeared in the text of the gentleman from New York does, the constitutional amendment, but but that does not alter the situation. since the 23d amendment the The question is on the engrossment time limit has appeared independ- and third reading of the bill. ently in the proposing clause. Chair Does Not Rule on Con- Chair Does Not Rule on Con- sistency of Amendments sistency of Pending Bill § 1.35 The Chair does not rule § 1.34 The Speaker does not on the consistency of a pro- rule on a point of order alleg- posed amendment with an- ing that a pending bill is not other amendment already consistent with existing law. adopted to a different portion of the bill. On May 3, 1949,(4) Mr. Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York, pointed When the Committee of the out the apparent incongruity of Whole had under consideration language in proposed legislation the bill H.R. 3744, the Fair Labor that referred to federal courts Standards Act of 1977, an amend- under nomenclature that was ob- ment was offered and agreed to which established the minimum 4. 95 CONG. REC. 5543, 5544, 81st wage levels for three years. Later Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration during the consideration of the was H.R. 2032, the National Labor Relations Act of 1949. 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

11999 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS measure, another amendment re- Amendment offered by Mr. Phillip Burton: Page 9, insert after line 5 of lating to minimum wage levels the following: was offered by Mr. Burton. The (b) Section 6 (29 U.S.C. 206) is proceedings of Sept. 15, 1977,(6) amended by adding at the end the following: were as follows: ‘‘(9)(1) Every employer shall pay to MR. [JOHN N.] ERLENBORN [of Illi- each of his employees who in any nois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend- workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for comment. merce, or is employed in an enter- The Clerk read as follows: prise engaged in commerce or in the Amendment offered by Mr. Erlen- production of goods for commerce, born: Page 4, strike out lines 16 and wages at the following rates: during 17 and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘IN- the period ending December 31, CREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE’’. 1977, not less [than] $2.30 an hour, during the year beginning January Page 4, line 18, redesignate ‘‘SEC. 1, 1978, not less than $2.65 an hour, 2.(a)(1)’’ as ‘‘SEC. 2.(a)’’, and begin- during the year beginning January ning with line 20 strike out every- 1, 1979, not less than 52 per centum thing through line 21 on page 5 and of the average hourly earnings ex- insert in lieu thereof: cluding overtime, during the twelve- ‘‘(1) not less than $2.65 an hour month period ending in June 1978, during the year beginning January of production and related workers on 1, 1978, not less than $2.85 an hour manufacturing payrolls, during the during the year beginning January year beginning January 1, 1980, and 1, 1979, and not less than $3.05 an during each of the next three years, hour after December 31, 1979, except not less than 53 per centum of the as otherwise provided in this sec- average hourly earnings excluding tion;’’.... overtime, during the twelve-month period ending in June of the year THE CHAIRMAN: (7) The question is on preceding such year, or production the amendment offered by the gen- and related workers on manufac- tleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn). turing payrolls, and during the year The question was taken; and the beginning January 1, 1984, and dur- Chairman announced that the noes ap- ing each succeeding year, not less peared to have it. than the minimum wage rate in effect under this paragraph for the MR. ERLENBORN: Mr. Chairman, I year beginning January 1, 1983. For demand a recorded vote.... purposes of computing the minimum A recorded vote was ordered. wage prescribed by this paragraph, The vote was taken by electronic de- the Secretary shall, not later than vice, and there were—ayes 223, noes August 1, 1979, and August 1 of each of the next five years, publish 193, not voting 18, as follows: . . . in the Federal Register an estimate MR. PHILLIP BURTON [of California]: of the average hourly earnings (ex- Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. cluding overtime), during the twelve- The Clerk read as follows: month period ending in June of such year, of production and related workers on manufacturing payrolls, and 6. 123 CONG. REC. 29431, 29436, shall, not later than November 1, 29440, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 1978, and November 1 of each of the 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.). next five years, publish in the Fed-

12000 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

eral Register such earnings for such amendment so that a point of order period.’’. does not lie. ‘‘(2) the minimum wage rate pre- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready scribed by paragraph (1) shall apply in any year, in lieu of the wage rate to rule. prescribed by subsection (a)(1), in The amendment offered by the gen- which the wage rate prescribed by tleman from California (Mr. Phillip paragraph (1) is higher than that Burton) simply adds a new subsection prescribed by subsection (a)(1).’’. to the end of the section. In the opinion MR. ERLENBORN: Mr. Chairman, I of the Chair the amendment is ger- reserve a point of order against the mane. As to whether or not it is incon- amendment.... sistent with the amendment of the MR. [CLIFFORD R.] ALLEN [of Ten- gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Erlen- nessee]: Mr. Chairman, a point of born) adopted a few moments ago, the order. I can find no copy of this amend- Chair cannot rule upon that. The ment. I would like to be able to read Chair holds the amendment to be ger- the amendment and I believe under mane and not to directly change the the rules a certain number of copies amendment already adopted. The point are supposed to be available. of order is overruled.... THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman does So the amendment was agreed to. not state a point of order. The result of the vote was an- MR. PHILLIP BURTON: Mr. Chairman, nounced as above recorded. I yield back the balance of my time. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman § 1.36 The Chair does not pass from Illinois (Mr. Erlenborn) insist upon the consistency of pro- upon his point of order? posed amendments or on MR. ERLENBORN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I must first say I have had only a their legal effect, if adopted. few minutes to look at the amendment On Aug. 22, 1949,(8) in the Com- which is thrown together rather hast- mittee of the Whole, Chairman ily in an attempt, as the gentleman said, to get a recount on the issue of Walter A. Lynch, of New York, re- indexing, but, Mr. Chairman, I make a fused to rule on the consistency of point of order against the amendment an amendment to an authoriza- on the ground that the Committee has tion bill. voted on the issue of indexing, has expressed its will, and this is an amend- MR. [USHER L.] BURDICK [of North ment which merely would have the Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an House again vote on the same issue al- amendment. ready disposed of. The Clerk read as follows: THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Phillip Burton) 8. 95 CONG. REC. 11994, 81st Cong. 1st desire to be heard on the point of Sess. Under consideration was H.R. order? 5472, dealing with public works on MR. PHILLIP BURTON: No, other than rivers and harbors for navigation to say that we have developed this and flood control.

12001 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Amendment offered by Mr. Bur- whether a bill is constitu- dick: On page 19, line 10, strike out lines 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 and tional or unconstitutional. insert ‘‘$250,000,000.’’ On July 21, 1947,(9) it was dem- MR. [WILLIAM M.] WHITTINGTON [of onstrated that the Chair does not Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a rule on the constitutionality of point of order against the amendment, proposed amendments. that the amendment is really without MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mis- meaning or significance, because it au- sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the thorizes no appropriation. The Con- point of order against the bill that it gress cannot make an appropriation violates the Constitution of the United unless it is authorized by law. There is States and that the Congress has no no authorization. The gentleman from right to pass such legislation, and I North Dakota wants to strike out the should like to be heard on the point of order. entire paragraph and merely insert THE SPEAKER: (10) The Chair will $250,000,000. He wants to strike out hear the gentleman from Mississippi on page 19 this language: briefly on the point of order. In addition to previous authoriza- MR. RANKIN: . . . I submit, Mr. tions there is hereby authorized to Speaker, that this bill is not legally be- be appropriated the sum of fore the House, and that my point of $250,000,000 for the prosecution of order should be sustained. the comprehensive plan for the Mis- THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to souri River Basin to be undertaken rule. The bill is properly before the by the Corps of Engineers, approved House. It is not within the jurisdiction by the act of June 28, 1938, as of the Chair to determine what is con- amended and supplemented by sub- stitutional and what is not constitu- sequent acts of Congress. tional. The point of order is overruled. He wants to insert ‘‘$250,000,000’’, without saying it is an authorization or § 1.38 It is for the House and what it is. The amendment is without not the Chair to determine meaning. It is frivolous—meaning- on the constitutionality of a less.... bill; and the Chair has de- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- clined to respond to a par- dress himself to the point of order and say that, in the opinion of the Chair, liamentary inquiry about the point of order is not well taken, for whether a bill contravenes the reason that whether or not this is the Constitution. consistent is not within the province of On Feb. 7, 1995,(11) during de- the Chair. bate on H.R. 729, a bill dealing

The Chair Does Not Rule on 9. 93 CONG. REC. 9522, 9523, 80th Questions of Constitutionality Cong. 1st Sess. 10. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.). § 1.37 The Speaker does not 11. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th rule on the question of Cong. 1st Sess.

12002 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 with the imposition of the death How is that not, Mr. Chairman, penalty under federal sentencing making the fourth amendment of the procedures, an inquiry was raised Constitution moot or at least revising it? about the vote required on pas- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is sage of the bill. The question and not stating a parliamentary inquiry. the Chair’s response are carried He is raising a question of constitu- here. tional law. That is a matter for the House to de- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES cide. MR. [CLEO] FIELDS of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary in- § 1.39 The constitutional re- quiry. quirement that ‘‘All Bills for THE CHAIRMAN: (12) The gentleman raising Revenue shall origi- will state his parliamentary inquiry. nate in the House . . .’’ may MR. FIELDS of Louisiana: Mr. Chair- be raised when a measure is man, since we are about to vote on this before the House for consid- measure, I have a question: Since this bill that is before us modifies the Con- eration, and the issue is de- stitution to some degree, would this termined by the House, vot- not call for a two-thirds vote of the ing on a question of privilege House? which may provide for re- THE CHAIRMAN: The simple answer turning the offending meas- is no. The amendment before us is not a constitutional amendment. ure to the Senate. But the MR. FIELDS of Louisiana: A further challenge is in order only parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman: when the House is in posses- My inquiry was on the bill and not sion of the papers and can- the amendment. not be raised collaterally or THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will issue after the fact when the bill the same ruling: has passed and is no longer This is a bill and not a constitutional in possession of the House. amendment. (13) MR. FIELDS of Louisiana: A further On Apr. 6, 1995, a resolution parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman: was offered from the floor as a The bill precisely says that evidence question of privilege under Rule which is obtained as a result of a IX. The resolution provided as fol- search or seizure shall not be excluded lows: in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the grounds that the MR. [PETER] DEUTSCH [of Florida]: search or seizure was in violation of Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the fourth amendment. 13. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th 12. Frank D. Riggs (Calif.). Cong. 1st Sess.

12003 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

privilege under rule IX of the House munications Commission, and for rules and I offer a House Resolution other purposes) violates the require- No. 131. ment of the United States Constitu- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (14) The tion that all revenue measures origi- Clerk will report the resolution. nate in the House of Representa- tives. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: The Chair ruled that the resolution did not qualify as a proper H. RES. 131 question of Rule IX privilege. Whereas rule IX of the Rules of After debate, the Chair’s decision the House of Representatives provides that questions of privilege was sustained on appeal. shall arise whenever the rights of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the House collectively are affected; Whereas, under the precedents, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. customs, and traditions of the House Deutsch] wish to be heard on whether pursuant to rule IX, a question of the question is one of privilege?... privilege has arisen in cases involv- MR. DEUTSCH: I thank the Chair. ing the constitutional prerogatives of Mr. Speaker, article I, section 7 of the House; the Constitution specifically states that Whereas section 7 of Article I of revenue measures must originate in the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the this Chamber, in the House of Rep- House of Representatives; and resentatives. It is an infringement of Whereas the conference report on the House prerogatives when that is the bill H.R. 831 contained a tar- not done, and in fact this House has geted tax benefit which was not con- consistently ruled that as a question of tained in the bill as passed the privilege when that occurs. It consist- House of Representatives and which ently occurs when the other body does was not contained in the amendment a revenue provision. of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Comptroller What occurred in this case, as most General of the United States shall Members at this point are well aware, prepare and transmit, within 7 days is that this revenue measure which did after the date of the adoption of this originate in the House, then went to resolution, a report to the House of the other body, went to a conference Representatives containing the opin- committee.... ion of the Comptroller General on whether the addition of a targeted The House has consistently held that tax benefit by the conferees to the that type of instance is a violation of conference report on the bill H.R. our prerogatives. 831 (A bill to amend the Internal Furthermore, the Chair has consist- Revenue Code of 1986 to perma- ently ruled that on issues of this na- nently extend the deduction for the ture the House has the right, and the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals, to repeal the pro- appropriate action is for the House to vision permitting nonrecognition of decide itself what is a prerogative and gain on sales and exchanges effec- what is a violation in terms of the tuating policies of the Federal Com- privileges of the House.... THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The 14. Scott McInnis (Colo.). Chair is prepared to rule.

12004 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

MR. DEUTSCH: Mr. Speaker—— the ruling of the Chair. The gentleman THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The is recognized. Chair is prepared to rule. MR. DEUTSCH: Mr. Speaker, I believe The Chair rules that the resolution I am recognized for an hour. does not constitute a question of privi- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The lege under rule IX. gentleman will suspend. The resolution offered by the gentleman from Florida collaterally ques- MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. tions actions taken by a committee of WALKER conference on a House-originated rev- MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- enue bill by challenging the inclusion sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a mo- in the conference report of additional tion. revenue matter not contained in either THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The the House bill nor the Senate amend- Clerk will report the motion. ment committed to conference. The res- The Clerk read as follows: olution calls for a report by the Comp- troller General on the propriety under Mr. Walker moves to lay the appeal on the table. section 7 of article I of the Constitution of those proceedings and conference ac- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The tions on a bill that has already moved question is on the motion to table. through the legislative process. In the opinion of the Chair, such a PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES resolution does not raise a question of MR. [GENE] TAYLOR of Mississippi: the privileges of the House. As re- Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary corded in Deschler’s Precedents, vol- inquiry. ume 3, chapter 13, section 14.2, a THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question of privilege under section 7 of gentleman from the State of Mis- article I of the Constitution may be sissippi [Mr. Taylor] is recognized. raised only when the House is ‘‘in pos- MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi: Mr. session of the papers.’’ In other words, Speaker, since the rules of the House any allegation of infringement on the clearly state that when the question of prerogatives of the House to originate the integrity of the proceedings of this a revenue measure must be made con- House have been violated, that is in- temporaneous with the consideration deed a privileged resolution. Now, I re- of the measure by the House and may alize that the Chair responded to the not be raised after the fact. written request of my colleague, but I The Chair rules that the resolution have also asked the Chair to respond does not constitute a question of the to whether or not it is prima facie evi- privileges of the House.... dence that a question relating to the MR. DEUTSCH: Mr. Speaker, I re- integrity of the proceedings of this spectfully appeal the ruling of the body are called into question when one Chair. individual who earlier this session of- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The fered the Speaker of the House an over gentleman from Florida has appealed $4 million book deal which the Speaker

12005 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

turned down, but he still offered it and vote on the appeal of the Chair, then with—that is a parliamentary inquiry. this side is prepared to do that. I I have just as much right as the Mem- would rather not do it. They will win bers. in either case, but this side is just ask- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Regular ing for a clean vote on the appeal of order. This is a parliamentary inquiry. the Chair. The gentleman will suspend. The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It is Chair has ruled previously on all the Chair’s ruling that the motion that points on this issue as textually raised is currently pending is, in fact, a prop- by the resolution. We now have the er motion under the rules of the motion before the House. House. MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi: Mr. MR. MFUME: I do not dispute that, Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion is not debatable. question before the House is the mo- MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi: Mr. tion to table. Speaker, I have a parliamentary in- Are there further parliamentary inquiry. quiries? MR. [KWEISI] MFUME [of Maryland]: The question is on the motion offered Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary by the gentleman from Pennsylvania inquiry. [Mr. Walker] to lay on the table the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The appeal of the ruling of the Chair. gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Tay- The question was taken; and the lor] may state a legitimate parliamen- Speaker pro tempore announced that tary inquiry.... the noes appeared to have it. MR. MFUME: Mr. Speaker, yesterday MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I object evening when there was an appeal of to the vote on the ground that a the ruling of the Chair; then there was quorum is not present and make the from the other side of the aisle a re- point of order that a quorum is not quest to table. Following that, there present. were questions raised on this side of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evi- the aisle about why is it so difficult to dently a quorum is not present. get a vote on an appeal of the ruling of The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- the Chair?... sent Members. The gentleman has legitimately ap- The vote was taken by electronic de- pealed it and ought to, at least at some vice, and there were—yeas 230, nays point in time, have a vote, so I would 192, not voting 12, as follows:... say to my distinguished colleague, the So the motion to lay on the table the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that, appeal of the ruling of the Chair was while we will vote on the motion to agreed to. table the appeal, that there may in fact The result of the vote was an- be another motion to appeal the Chair, nounced as above recorded. and another one after that, and, if that A motion to reconsider was laid on is what it is going to take to get one the table.

12006 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

Chair Does Not Rule on Hypo- MR. OBEY: Mr. Speaker, I am about thetical Questions to ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down. § 1.40 Although the Chair re- Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman sponds to parliamentary in- yield for a possible correction? I do not want to make a motion to embarrass quiries concerning the rules the gentleman. Would the gentleman of order and decorum in de- yield? bate, he does not rule on hy- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Would pothetical questions; rule the gentleman from Ohio yield to the retrospectively on questions gentleman from Wisconsin? not timely raised; or rule MR. MCEWEN: I yield to the gentleman.... anticipatorily on questions MR. OBEY: Mr. Speaker, I would sim- not yet presented. ply suggest—I would be happy to give On Nov. 20, 1989,(15) the House him another minute because I will not had under debate House Resolu- take more than a minute. tion 295 providing for consider- I think I heard the gentleman say ation of a measure relating to ap- that those who support Marxist revolutions around the world have not taken propriations for foreign oper- specific action on this floor. I hope that ations. the gentleman is not suggesting that During the hour, the debate be- anyone on this floor is in support of came somewhat intemperate. Marxist revolutions. We are going to have an acrimonious enough debate MR. [BOB] MCEWEN [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult time to rep- today without leaving mistaken im- resent the interest of the left when pressions like that.... around the world from Managua to Moscow it is being exposed that com- ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO munism is a violation of human rights TEMPORE and human dignity. Indeed, those who THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Before have supported the Marxist guerrillas the Chair recognizes the gentleman in Central America this week, having killed hundreds of innocent civilians from Massachusetts, the Chair would throughout El Salvador, have not like to say to Members on both sides of taken the floor to make any protesta- the aisle that the Chair may intervene tion of that death.... to prevent the arraignment of the mo- MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: tives of other Members. The Chair Mr. Speaker—— would, therefore, echo the sentiments THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (16) For expressed by the honorable minority what purpose does the gentleman from leader, the gentleman from Illinois Wisconsin rise? [Mr. Michel], this morning when he asked the Members to debate the issue 15. 135 CONG. REC. 30225, 30226, 101st and the policy and not to become in- Cong. 1st Sess. volved in attacking or laying for ques- 16. Pat Williams (Mont.). tion the motives of other Members.

12007 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES MR. [ROSS] BASS of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. MR. [VIN] WEBER [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary in- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will quiry. state it. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. BASS of Tennessee: I make the gentleman will state it. point of order that the amendment is MR. WEBER: Mr. Speaker, I just not germane to the bill. would like to clarify on the ruling of THE CHAIRMAN: It is certainly ger- the Chair right now. mane to the amendment offered by the Does the Chair believe, if someone gentleman from New York to sub- did suggest that Members, not by stitute the word ‘‘decisions’’ for the name, but that Members of this body word ‘‘provisions.’’ The Chair so rules. supported Marxist revolution, that MR. BASS of Tennessee: Mr. Chair- would be unparliamentary language? man, a further point of order. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will Chair is not called upon to rule on pos- state it. sible prior violation of the rules of the MR. BASS of Tennessee: I make the House or Jefferson’s Manual. point of order that the word ‘‘provisions’’ is ambiguous and has no mean- Ambiguities in Legislative Lan- ing whatever and would make the guage amendment not germane. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not § 1.41 The Chair does not rule rule on the question of ambiguity. It is on points of order as to a question of germaneness solely, and whether an amendment is the Chair has ruled that the amend- ambiguous. ment is germane. (17) On July 5, 1956, in the Com- Legal Effect of Bill Not Subject mittee of the Whole, Chairman of Point of Order Francis E. Walter, of Pennsyl- vania, pointed out that the Chair § 1.42 It is not a proper point does not rule on the ambiguity of of order to inquire as to the proposed amendments. legal effect of the adoption of Amendment offered by Mr. an amendment. [James] Roosevelt [of California] to the Powell amendment: Strike the On Aug. 7, 1986,(18) during con- word ‘‘provisions’’ and insert the sideration of the Surface Trans- word ‘‘decisions.’’ portation and Uniform Relocation 17. 102 CONG. REC. 11875, 84th Cong. Assistance Act of 1986 (H.R. 3129) 2d Sess. Under consideration was in the Committee of the Whole, H.R. 7537, dealing with federal assistance to states for school construc- 18. 132 CONG. REC. 19675, 99th Cong. tion. 2d Sess.

12008 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

Chairman Bob Traxler, of Michi- with the rules. It is not properly gan, declined to respond to a point used to question whether an of order seeking information con- amendment is properly drafted to cerning the effect of an amend- achieve its stated purpose. The ment. proceedings of Feb. 4, 1976,(19) il-

MR. [ROD] CHANDLER [of Wash- lustrate this distinction. ington]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a re- MR. [WILLIAM M.] BRODHEAD [of corded vote. Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an A recorded vote was ordered. amendment to the amendment in the MS. [BOBBI] FIEDLER [of California]: nature of a substitute. I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Clerk read as follows: THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The Amendment offered by Mr. gentlewoman will state her point of Brodhead to the amendment in the order. na-ture of a substitute offered by Mr. MS. FIEDLER: Mr. Chairman, I would Krueger: Strike out section 105 and like to ask whether or not a vote in designate the succeeding sections of favor of this particular amendment title I accordingly. would require the elimination of such MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: signs along a route for hospitals or Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of other urgent or emergency care. order on the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The THE CHAIRMAN: (20) The gentleman Chair would like to state to the gentle- from Ohio reserves a point of order on woman that that is not a point of the amendment.... order. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. A recorded vote has been ordered. Brown) insist on his point of order? MR. BROWN of Ohio: I do, Mr. Chair- Point of Order Does Not Lie man. Against Competency of Draft- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from ing of Amendment Ohio will state his point of order. MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, § 1.43 The issue of whether an my point of order against the amend- amendment is properly and ment mentioned is that while it has a competently drafted to ac- purpose with which I am not totally complish its legislative pur- unsympathetic, it does not make the conforming amendments necessary to pose is not questioned by a accomplish that purpose without leav- point of order but is a matter ing a lot of loose ends hanging in the to be disposed of by debate legislation. For example, it strikes sec- on the merits. tion 105, which is entitled, ‘‘Prohibition

The purpose of raising a point 19. 122 CONG. REC. 2371, 94th Cong. 2d of order is to determine whether a Sess. motion or action is in compliance 20. Richard Bolling (Mo.). 12009 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

of the Use of Natural Gas as Boiler a Member must confine his Fuel.’’ remarks to the bill, and if he In section 102, the ‘‘purpose’’ section continues to talk of other of the amendment, it says: matters after repeated points . . . to grant the Federal Energy Administration authority to prohibit of order, the Chairman will the use of natural gas as boiler fuel; request that he take his seat. ... On Mar. 29, 1944,(1) Chairman That would be left in the legislation James Domengeaux, of Louisiana, without any language under this section 105 which provides for that. sustained a point of order against Emanuel Celler, of New York, I think there are other references in after the Member repeatedly the language that I have not had a strayed from the subject before chance to dig out. the House. I would suggest that if the gentleman from Michigan would like to with- MR. [ADOLPH J.] SABATH [of Illinois]: draw his amendment, I think that we Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of can provide the gentleman with an order. amendment that would have all the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will necessary conforming language. state the point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state MR. SABATH: The gentleman is not that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. speaking to the bill. He has been ad- Brown) is no longer speaking on his monished several times, he has re- point of order. The Chair will state fused, and I am obliged to make the that the question the gentleman from point of order myself, though I regret Ohio raises is not a valid point of it. order, it is rather a question of drafts- THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is manship and the Chair overrules the sustained and the gentleman is again point of order. requested to confine himself to the bill. If the gentleman from Ohio desires to be heard in opposition to the amend- 1. 90 CONG. REC. 3263, 78th Cong. 2d ment offered by the gentleman from Sess. Under consideration was H.R. Michigan (Mr. Brodhead) then the 4257, dealing with the expatriation Chair would be glad to recognize the of persons evading military service. gentleman for 5 minutes. Absent language in the special rule (H. Res. 482, 78th Cong.) con- Points of Order Against Rel- fining general debate to the subject evancy of Debate of the bill, debate would have been permitted in the Committee of the § 1.44 Where a special rule pro- Whole on any subject. See 5 Hinds’ Precedents § § 5233–38; 8 Cannon’s vides that general debate in Precedents § 2590; 120 CONG. REC. the Committee of the Whole 21743, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., June 28, shall be confined to the bill, 1974. 12010 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

MR. [NOAH M.] MASON [of Illinois]: make his point of order. After initial Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary in- debate in the Committee of the Whole, quiry. How many times do we have to the Committee voted to rise; and the call the gentleman to order and try to Speaker resumed the Chair. The get him to confine his remarks to the Speaker then stated that under the cir- bill before the privilege of the House is cumstances Mr. Williams could make withdrawn? his point of order at that time. THE CHAIRMAN: This will be the last The dialogue was as follows: time. If the gentleman does not pro- MR. [EMANUEL] CELLER [of New ceed in order, he will be requested to York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the take his seat. House resolve itself into the Com- mittee of the Whole House on the Point of Order Based on Viola- State of the Union for the consider- tion of Ramseyer Rule Lies ation of the bill (H.R. 14765) to assure Only in House nondiscrimination in Federal and State jury selection and service, to facilitate § 1.45 A point of order that a the desegregation of public education and other public facilities, to provide committee report fails to judicial relief against discriminatory comply with the Ramseyer housing practices, to prescribe pen- rule will not lie in the Com- alties for certain acts of violence or in- mittee of the Whole. timidation, and for other purposes. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a point (2) On July 25, 1966, Chairman Rich- of order. ard Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that a THE SPEAKER: The question is on the point of order raised by Mr. John Bell motion offered by the gentleman from Williams, of Mississippi, against con- New York [Mr. Celler]. sideration of the bill on the ground MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a point that the report of the Committee on of order. the Judiciary accompanying the bill did not comply with requirements of THE SPEAKER: All those in favor of the Ramseyer rule, would not lie in the the motion will let it be known by say- Committee of the Whole. Mr. Williams ing ‘‘aye.’’ All those opposed by saying had attempted to raise the point of ‘‘no.’’ The motion was agreed to. order prior to the House’s resolving Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole, itself into the Committee of the Whole but, as Speaker John W. McCormack, House on the State of the Union for of Massachusetts, later acknowledged, the consideration of the bill, H.R. the Chair did not hear Mr. Williams 14765, with Mr. Bolling in the chair. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, a 2. 112 CONG. REC. 16840, 89th Cong. point of order. Mr. Chairman, I have a 2d Sess. Under consideration was point of order. I was on my feet— H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of The Clerk read the title of the bill. 1966. For more on the Ramseyer By unanimous consent, the first rule, see Ch. 17, supra. reading of the bill was dispensed with.

12011 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, a Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman. point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: Under the rule, the MR. CELLER: Regular order, Mr. gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] Chairman. will be recognized for 5 hours and the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] state his point of order. will be recognized for 5 hours. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, im- MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman. mediately before the House resolved MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Chairman. itself into the Committee of the Whole MR. [WILLIAM M.] MCCULLOCH: Mr. House I was on my feet on the floor Chairman. seeking recognition for the purpose of THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose making a point of order against consid- does the gentleman from Ohio rise? eration of H.R. 14765 on the ground MR. MCCULLOCH: Mr. Chairman, I that the report of the Judiciary Com- rise for a parliamentary inquiry. mittee accompanying the bill does not THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will comply with all the requirements of state it. clause 3 of rule XIII of the rules of the MR. MCCULLOCH: I would like to House known as the Ramseyer rule know if the resolution unqualifiedly and intended to request I be heard in guarantees the minority one-half of the support of that point of order. I was time during general debate and noth- not recognized by the Chair. I realize ing untoward will happen so that it technically under the rules of the will be diminished or denied contrary House at this point, my point of order to gentlemen’s agreements. may come too late, after the House re- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman will solved itself into the Committee of the reply by rereading that portion of his Whole House on the State of the opening statement. Under the rule, the Union. gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] MR. CELLER: Mr. Chairman. will be recognized for 5 hours, the gen- MR. WILLIAMS: But I may say, Mr. tleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] will Chairman, that I sought to raise the be recognized for 5 hours. The Chair point of order before the House went will follow the rules. into session. May I ask this question? MR. MCCULLOCH: I thank you, Mr. Is there any way that this point of Chairman. order can lie at this time? MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Not at this time. It MR. CELLER: Mr. Chairman, I yield lies only in the House, the Chair must myself such time as I may care to use. inform the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, Negroes propose to MR. WILLIAMS: May I say that the be free. Many rights have been denied Parliamentarian and the Speaker were and withheld from them. The right to notified in advance and given copies of be equally educated with whites. The the point of order that I desired to right to equal housing with whites. raise, and I was refused recognition al- The right to equal recreation with though I was on my feet seeking rec- whites. ognition at the time.

12012 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

MR. [JOHN J.] FLYNT [Jr., of Geor- THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes gia]: Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling the gentleman from Mississippi. of the Chair. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will have House resolved itself into the Com- to repeat that the gentleman from Mis- mittee of the Whole House on the sissippi is well aware that this present State of the Union a moment ago. occupant of the chair is powerless to do When the question was put by the other than he has stated. Chair, I was on my feet seeking rec- MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Chairman, I ognition for the purpose of offering a appeal the ruling of the Chair. point of order against consideration of THE CHAIRMAN: The question is, the legislation. Although I shouted Shall the decision of the Chair stand rather loudly, apparently the Chair did as rendered? not hear me. Since the Committee pro- The question was taken; and on a di- ceeded to go into the Committee of the vision (demanded by Mr. Williams) Whole, I would like to know, Mr. there were—ayes 139, noes 101. Speaker, if the point of order which I had intended to offer can be offered The decision of the Chair was sus- now in the House against the consider- tained. ation of the bill; and, Mr. Speaker, I MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I make such a point of order and ask move that the Committee do now rise, that I be heard on the point of order. and on that I demand tellers. THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- that the Chair did not hear the gen- man appointed as tellers Mr. Celler tleman make his point of order. There and Mr. Williams. was too much noise. Under the cir- The Committee again divided, and cumstances the Chair will entertain the tellers reported that there were— the point of order. ayes 168, noes 144. So the motion was agreed to. Chairman of Committee of the Accordingly, the Committee rose; Whole Does Not Rule on and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Bolling, Chairman of the House Procedure Committee of the Whole House on the § 1.46 The Speaker, and not State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consid- the Chairman of the Com- eration the bill (H.R. 14765) to assure mittee of the Whole, rules on nondiscrimination in Federal and State the propriety of amendments jury selection and service, to facilitate included in a motion to re- the desegregation of public education commit with instructions. and other public facilities, to provide judicial relief against discriminatory On July 28, 1983,(3) during con- housing practices, to prescribe pen- sideration of H.R. 2760, a bill pro- alties for certain acts of violence or in- timidation, and for other purposes, had 3. 129 CONG. REC. 21471, 98th Cong. come to no resolution thereon. 1st Sess.

12013 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS hibiting covert assistance to Nica- on Rules, which was referred to the ragua in 1983, Chairman William House Calendar and ordered to be H. Natcher, of Kentucky, respond- printed. MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- ing to a parliamentary inquiry, land]: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the stated: gentleman from Missouri has properly The Chair would advise the gen- filed his report. The resolution was tleman that the rule does not protect considered this morning in the Rules such a motion to recommit, but that Committee with no agenda, no notice. would be up to the Speaker when we It was the intention of the gentleman go back into the House to answer that from Maryland to move to reconsider question specifically. this resolution. Now, it is jammed Points of Order Against Committee through here when we have been in Procedure session in the Rules Committee for only 15 minutes. § 1.47 A point of order that a I think the members of the Rules measure was reported from a Committee deserve something better committee in violation of a than that. I question whether a quorum was even present. committee rule requiring ad- THE SPEAKER: (5) The report has been vance notice of the com- filed. mittee meeting will not lie in MR. BAUMAN: I make a point of the House—the interpreta- order that a quorum was not present tion of committee rules being in the Rules Committee at the time the with the cognizance of the action was taken. committee. MR. [RICHARD] BOLLING [of Mis- souri]: If the gentleman will yield—— ( ) On Oct. 12, 1978, 4 Mr. Bolling MR. BAUMAN: I do not have the floor. filed a privileged report ema- THE SPEAKER: The Chair will recog- nating from the Committee on nize the gentleman from Missouri. Rules. Mr. Bauman, a member of MR. BOLLING: Mr. Speaker, there that committee, complained about was a quorum present. The vote was the procedure used in the Com- perfectly proper. No objection was heard, and I filed the report. mittee on Rules in ordering the MR. BAUMAN: And there was no no- resolution reported. tice given, as the rules of the Rules Mr. Bolling, from the Committee on Committee require, of that proposed Rules, submitted a privileged report action. (Rept. No. 95–1769) on the resolution THE SPEAKER: Is the gentleman ad- (H. Res. 1426) providing for the consid- dressing the Chair? eration of reports from the Committee MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is addressing the gentleman 4. 124 CONG. REC. 36382, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 5. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

12014 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

from Missouri, who filed this; through was ordered reported from the the Chair. committee. The Member then THE SPEAKER: Well, as far as notice averred that the facts were to the is concerned, that is a matter of the interpretation of the rules of the Rules contrary and that committee Committee, to be raised within the records disputed the assertion in committee and not in the House. the report. The proceedings are carried here in full (after a special —May Be Raised in House Only order providing for consideration if Improperly Disposed of in of the bill had been adopted).

Committee PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY § 1.48 Certain points of order MR. [DAVID] DREIER [of California]: based on procedures in com- Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. mittees retain viability in the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (7) The House only if first raised and gentleman will state it. improperly disposed of in MR. DREIER: Mr. Speaker, House committee; and the Speaker rule XI, in clause (l)(2)(A) reads: ‘‘No Pro Tempore has advised measure or recommendation shall be that a point of order that a reported from any committee unless a majority of the committee was actually bill was reported to the present, which shall be deemed the House without a majority of case if the records of the committee es- the committee actually being tablish that a majority of the com- present does not lie in the mittee responded on a rollcall vote on that question.’’ House unless made in com- Mr. Speaker, I realize that the rule mittee in a timely manner goes on to say a point of order will lie and improperly disposed of in the House that a quorum was not therein. present unless it was first made in the committee. (6) On Aug. 10, 1994, the Speak- But my question is this: If the er was about to declare the House records of the committee show a resolved into the Committee of the quorum was not present on a rollcall Whole for the consideration of a vote to report a measure, can a com- pending measure. A Member mittee still claim in its report that a pressed a parliamentary inquiry, quorum was present? THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The pointing out that the report ac- gentleman has correctly stated the companying the bill stated that a rule. quorum was present when the bill MR. DREIER: I know I have correctly stated the rule. I wonder if the com- 6. 140 CONG. REC. P. , 103d Cong. 2d Sess. 7. Jose´ E. Serrano (N.Y.).

12015 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

mittee can still claim in its report that THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: In re- a quorum was present? sponse to the third inquiry, the Chair THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The would state that it would be the re- Chair is giving the gentleman credit sponsibility of any and all committee for stating the rule properly. In re- members, at a properly convened meet- sponse to the gentleman’s first inquiry, ing of the committee, to remain avail- the Chair would state that, while it able to assure that at the time the may not be accurate or proper for a measure is ordered reported a point of committee to state in its report that a order is made that a quorum is not quorum was present if its records show present in order to preserve that point a quorum was not actually present, of order in the House. that is an issue which must first be MR. DREIER: Mr. Speaker, I thank raised and preserved in the committee the Chair for that very cogent expla- by a committee member for a point of nation. order to survive in the House. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursu- MR. DREIER: Mr. Speaker, continuing ant to House Resolution 514 and rule my parliamentary inquiry, can a com- XXIII, the Chair declares the House in mittee report a measure without a the Committee of the Whole House on quorum being present, even when the State of the Union for the consider- there is a rollcall vote, or must the ation of the bill, H.R. 4822. committee then utilize a rolling quorum until an actual majority of the members respond to their names? Timing of Point of Order THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: In re- Against Sufficiency of Com- sponse to the gentleman’s second in- mittee Report quiry, the Chair would state that if a point of no quorum is raised by a com- § 1.49 Responding to a par- mittee member when the measure is liamentary inquiry, the ordered reported, then the chairman of Chair indicated that the the committee must either await the proper time to raise a point appearance of a quorum if there is not to be a rollcall vote, or a rollcall vote of order against deficiencies must reveal a majority of the com- in a committee report would mittee having responded at some point be pending the Speaker’s in time before the measure is ordered declaration that the House reported. resolve itself into Committee MR. DREIER: Mr. Speaker, if I could pose one final question on my par- of the Whole for consider- liamentary inquiry, if a committee can ation of the measure re- order a measure reported with less ported. than a majority being present, can the The rules of the House prescribe committee report a bill with just the chairman present as long as he does that certain information relating not make a point of order against him- to the committee process leading self? up to the filing of a committee re- 12016 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 port be set out in the report. Fail- tally sheet shows 35 members voting ure to include such information ‘‘aye’’ and 1 member voting ‘‘nay.’’ may subject the report to a point Mr. Speaker, would a point of order under clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of order. apply? Inquiries relating to the proper THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: In the time to make a point of order of opinion of the Chair, the gentleman is deficiencies in a committee report correct. were directed to the Speaker on MR. KANJORSKI: Mr. Speaker, if that Jan. 19, 1995,(8) pending the con- were the case, it is clear that this bill could not proceed under its present sideration of H.R. 5, the Unfunded rule; is that correct? Mandate Reform Act of 1995. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman is correct, if it is an error PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES on behalf of the committee. If it is a MR. [PAUL E.] KANJORSKI [of Penn- printing error. That would be a tech- sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- nical problem which would not be sus- liamentary inquiry. tained in the point of order. ( ) THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 9 The MR. KANJORSKI: Mr. Speaker, I am gentleman will state it. not going to insist or raise a point of MR. KANJORSKI: Mr. Speaker, as I order. However, I bring this to the at- understand the new rule in clause tention of the Chair and to my col- 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI, adopted on Janu- leagues on the other side. Some of the ary 4 of this year as the new rules of hesitancy to proceed as quickly as we the House, each committee report must are proceeding on this bill and others accurately reflect all rollcall votes on that are part of the Contract With amendments in committee; is that cor- America is the fear on the minority rect? side that this haste may bring waste, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The that speed may bring poor legisla- gentleman is correct. tion.... MR. KANJORSKI: Mr. Speaker, as a THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The further parliamentary inquiry, the re- gentleman from Pennsylvania has been port accompanying H.R. 5, as reported recognized for the purpose of a par- from the Committee on Government liamentary inquiry. The gentleman Reform and Oversight, House Report may continue regarding the in- 104–1, part 2, lists many rollcall votes quiry.... on amendments. On amendment 6, the MRS. [CAROLYN B.] MALONEY [of report states that the committee de- New York]: Mr. Speaker, this was my feated the amendment by a rollcall amendment, and it is a printing record vote of 14 yes and 22 no. However, the error. The Republicans voted against exempting the most vulnerable citizens 8. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th in our society, children, that cannot Cong. 1st Sess. vote, cannot speak for themselves in 9. Steve Gunderson (Wis.). the unfunded mandates bill. But it is a

12017 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

printing error. They did not vote for That request was denied and the mi- it.... nority was told that the only procedure MRS. [CARDISS] COLLINS of Illinois: A allowed would be to continue the full parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. committee markup of the bill. Efforts Mr. Speaker, under clause 2(j)(1) of on the part of the minority members to rule XI it states ‘‘Whenever any hear- raise questions over possible violations ing is conducted by any committee of House rules were dismissed by the upon any measure or matter, the mi- chairman. nority party members on the com- Mr. Speaker, in my view, allowing a mittee shall be entitled, upon request Member not on the committee to tes- to the chairman by a majority of them tify changed the meeting from a before completion of the hearing, to straight markup to a hearing. call witnesses selected by the minority It is true that in many committee to testify with respect to that measure markups the majority requests the or matter during at least 1 day of presence of certain experts, usually ad- hearing thereon.’’ ministration officials or committee Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Gov- staff, to answer questions about the in- ernment Reform and Oversight is the terpretation or effect of different pro- committee of original jurisdiction on posals. this bill. On January 10, the Com- The Member’s appearance before the mittee on Government Reform and committee, the Member who is not a Oversight began its markup on H.R. 5. member of the committee, was not like MR. [DAVID] DREIER [of California]: that. Questions were not put to him. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. He provided a statement and read his THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: There testimony in the way any witness testi- is a parliamentary inquiry before the fies at any hearing. House at the present time.... Mr. Speaker, we do not protest the MRS. COLLINS of Illinois: After two presence of Members not on the com- opening statements, the chairman of mittee at the markup and hearing. Our the committee invited a member of the complaint is that we were denied the majority party who was not a member opportunity to ask questions and to of the committee to testify before the call our own witnesses, as we were en- committee. At the conclusion of his tes- titled to do under the rules. timony, the witness thanked the chair- The only remedy, Mr. Speaker, is a man of the committee for holding the point of order at this stage of delibera- hearing. tion. Mr. Speaker, minority members of Is it correct that I would be required the committee protested in a timely to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, fashion. No opportunity was given to when the committee resolves itself into Members on our side of the aisle to the Committee of the Whole? question the witness. Democrats re- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the quested that an additional formal gentlewoman insists on her point of hearing be conducted on this measure order, that point of order would be so that their witnesses could be called. timely at this point in the process.

12018 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

MRS. COLLINS of Illinois: Thank you, nan. Both the prior statement by Mr. Speaker. However, because, Mr. Mr. Dornan, the Chair’s admoni- Speaker, I do not want to engage in tion about referring, even indi- any kind of dilatory tactics, such as I have heard before in the 103d Con- rectly, to a member of the Senate, gress and previous Congresses, I will and the exchange at issue are car- not insist upon a point of order at this ried below. time. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dornan THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does was allowed to proceed for 3 additional the gentlewoman seek a response from minutes.) the Chair regarding the inquiry? MR. DORNAN: I want to repeat that MRS. COLLINS of Illinois. Not at this line, listen to it well, every Member of time, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made this body.... my point. He tells me there is a criminal investigation of the elected Federal official Point of Order Against Words and that I cannot question this pris- Used in Debate oner about this particular elected official. Then lo and behold, 2 days after § 1.50 A point of order may not I confront this elected Federal official be made or reserved against in his office, he is on an airplane with remarks delivered in debate Justice Department help, and he gets after subsequent debate has to see the felon.... intervened, the proper rem- . . . The FEC never asked for the proof. It was all on supposition, on the edy being a demand that word of this felon, sitting in the former words be taken down as soon General Counsel’s office, the office of as they are uttered. William Oldaker, and ‘‘the elected Fed- On Aug. 20, 1980,(10) a brief ex- eral official.’’ . . . (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dornan change relating to the procedure was allowed to proceed for 1 additional for ‘‘taking down words’’ occurred minute.) during the five-minute debate on THE CHAIRMAN: (11) The gentleman the Treasury, Postal Service, and from California (Mr. Dornan) has also general government appropria- asked unanimous consent to withdraw tions, 1981. The exchange be- his amendment. tween Mr. Robert K. Dornan, of Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? California, and Mr. Henry A. MR. [RONNIE G.] FLIPPO [of Ala- Waxman, of California, followed a bama]: Reserving the right to object, if contentious amendment offered I might reserve the right to object and and then withdrawn by Mr. Dor- I shall not object, the gentleman is making some statements in regard to 10. 126 CONG. REC. 22151–54, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. 11. Richardson Preyer (N.C.).

12019 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

his opinion of the Federal court’s ac- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state tion on the matter regarding Alabama, to the gentleman from California (Mr. and he is speaking with great convic- Dornan) that under the rules of the tion. I wonder if the gentleman has House it is not in order to refer to been following the trials taking place Members of the other body and in the in Alabama in regard to this matter. I light of that the Chair would ask the wish the gentleman would refrain from gentleman from California if he wishes referring to the Senator from Alabama, to withdraw his remarks concerning and give the Senator an opportunity to the Member of the other body. do what he needs to do to explain the MR. DORNAN: Mr. Chairman, as of situations. He does not need to be tried about a year-and-a-half ago, video tape by the Jack Andersons of this world. records of House proceedings have We have a proper court procedure and been made. Taking that into consider- a way to proceed in that regard. ation I will accede to the Chair’s sug- I would hope that the gentleman gestion and remove all statements in would refrain from bringing up the the written Record pertaining to Mem- name of any official from Alabama, or bers of the other body. any other State official’s name up, in a THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will manner that would tend to encourage proceed. The gentleman has agreed to people to believe that they had done remove all the statements in question something wrong, when no such thing from the Record.... exists or it has not been proven in a Does the gentleman from Alabama court of law. I know the gentleman’s still reserve his point of order? high regard for court proceedings. MR. FLIPPO: Mr. Chairman, I no MR. DORNAN: If the gentleman will longer reserve the right to object.... yield, I believe I have discovered a MR. WAXMAN: Mr. Chairman, and major coverup; a terribly inept, if not my colleagues, I am not familiar with illegal obstruction of justice by Justice the allegations being made. This Department people assigned to the fair amendment has been offered for the State of Alabama. I gave the Senator purpose of our colleague using the time mentioned before a face-to-face oppor- of the House of Representatives to en- tunity, alone in his office, to explain gage in a good number of accusations his involvement but he would not do attacking the integrity of men in public so. office and those who would seek to be MR. FLIPPO. Mr. Chairman, I ask in public office and those who have as- that the gentleman’s words be taken sisted them. The gentleman may be down. absolutely correct; I just do not know. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman may It does, however, seem to me quite cu- not refer to Members of the other body. rious to have an amendment offered MR. FLIPPO: Mr. Chairman, I would for the sole purpose of using the time ask that the gentleman’s words be of the House to air all these accusa- taken down. tions. If there are accusations of seri- I will yield to what the gentleman ous moment they ought to be brought wants, then. to the proper authorities: the law en-

12020 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 forcement authorities, if a crime is MR. DORNAN: I will be glad to yield. committed; the Federal Election Com- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has mission which has jurisdiction over the no standing to raise the point of order questions of violations of the law at this point. Debate has intervened. should that be involved. There is no other amendment before Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take the Committee, and the Chair will ask this opportunity to say this strikes me the Clerk to read. as curious and gives me a great deal of The Clerk read as follows:... hesitancy to see that an amendment would be offered solely for the purpose Speaker’s Responsibility To of discussing other matters than what Rule on Questions of Privi- is proposed in the amendment and that relates to the gentleman’s cam- lege of the House Under Rule paign for reelection.... IX MR. DORNAN: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his additions. § 1.51 It is the duty of the THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to Speaker to decide whether a the request of the gentleman from resolution offered as privi- California (Mr. Dornan) to withdraw leged qualifies for the special his amendment? If not, the amend- privileged status bestowed ment is withdrawn. by Rule IX on questions of MR. DORNAN: Mr. Chairman, I re- ‘‘privilege of the House’’ and serve a point of order. he may rule on this question THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state his point of order. without awaiting a point of MR. DORNAN: Mr. Chairman, I re- order from the floor. serve a point of order in opposition to On Jan. 23, 1984,(12) Mr. Wil- the Member’s words against me. liam E. Dannemeyer, of Cali- To suggest that someone’s remarks are demagogic is impugning the mo- fornia, rose to a question of privi- tives of that Member. I could have had lege of the House and offered a my good colleague’s words taken down. resolution. The Speaker (13) asked I reserve the point of order, but add the gentleman why he thought the that I am emotionally concerned about resolution qualified for that spe- a 1-year coverup by the Federal official status under Rule IX, listened cials who are charged with inves- tigating these matters here. Please to the presentation, and then have some sympathy, if not empathy, ruled that the resolution, since it for my position. That is why I do not was in effect a change in House mind your initial and quick analysis of rules, did not qualify. The resolu- my motives here. It is understandable, but wrong. 12. 130 CONG. REC. 78, 98th Cong. 2d MR. WAXMAN: Will the gentleman Sess. yield? 13. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

12021 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS tion, the arguments, and the rul- I especially draw the Chair’s atten- ing are carried herein. tion to III, 2602 and III, 2603 which show that error or obstruction of mi- THE SPEAKER: The Chair had in- nority views are matters of privilege. tended to recognize Members for 1- In the first instance, in the year 1880, minute speeches at this time, unless it was held that the matter of cor- the gentleman has a question of privi- recting the reference of a public bill lege. presented a question of privilege at a MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I time when there was not any other raise a question of the privileges of the means of correction provided for in the House, and I offer a privileged resolu- rules. The point was made on the floor tion (H. Res. 390) and ask for its im- that this matter was one involving the mediate consideration. integrity of the proceedings of the The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- House and as such was privileged. lows: In the next reference, a charge inves- tigated in 1863 as a question of privi- H. RES. 390 lege was ‘‘the charge that the minority Resolved, That effective 30 days views of a committee had been ab- after the adoption of this resolution, stracted from the Clerk’s office by a each Standing and Select Committee Member * * *.’’ Both of these prece- of the House, except for the Com- dents indicate that it is a longstanding mittee on Standards of Official Con- duct, shall be constituted in a ratio matter that the minority is granted its which is proportionate to the mem- ‘‘day in court’’ on questions such as bership of the two political parties in these which are questions impacting the House as a whole; and each sub- on the integrity of the proceedings of committee thereof shall also be so the House. And further, these ques- constituted; and insofar as prac- ticable, the staffs of each Committee tions indicate that it is the process by shall also reflect these same ratios. which legislation is developed which affects the integrity of the proceedings THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from of the House. I submit that the dis- California has been kind enough to ad- proportional ratio of committee mem- vise the Chair that he was going to bership and staffing even more pro- offer this resolution as a question of foundly impacts on the process by privilege at the appropriate time, and which legislation is developed and that now is the appropriate time. there is no question that my resolution Would the gentleman state why he involves a question of privilege. feels the resolution constitutes a ques- Some might argue that my resolution of privilege? tion does not fall within the ambit of MR. DANNEMEYER: I would be happy privilege because they would say it is a to, Mr. Speaker. It has long been rec- motion to amend the rules of the ognized that the integrity of the pro- House or would ‘‘effect a change in the ceedings by which bills are considered rules of the House of their interpreta- is a matter of privilege. (Hinds’ Prece- tion.’’ (Ruling by Speaker O’Neill, Dec. dents III, 2597–2601, 2614; and IV, 7, 1977, pp. 38470–73.) However, upon 3383, 3388, 3478). close examination the Chair will find

12022 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 that my resolution is indeed a question the resolution which he has presented of privilege and that the December 7, addresses not a specific standing rule 1977, ruling does not apply here. of the House, but the customs and tra- My resolution does not amend the ditions of the House, and is thus not to rules of the House because the practice be governed by the precedents in the we are attempting to change is not a manual. rule. It is a custom—a longstanding In the opinion of the Chair, the reso- custom of the majority party that sup- lution does constitute a change in the presses the legitimate representation rules of the House, by imposing a di- of the rights of the minority. I have rection that the composition of all been unable to find—and I challenge standing committees be changed with- any Member of the House to show me in 30 days. The rules of the House do where in the House rules it says the address the question of the procedure ratio in the Rules Committee, for ex- by which full committee membership ample, shall be nine majority and four and staff selections are to be accom- minority. It is certainly not in rules X plished. As indicated on page 399 of and XI which set forth the establish- the manual, rule X, clause 6, the re- ment and conduct of committees. spective party caucus and conference The first and only mention of this perform an essential role in presenting ratio appears in official records of the privileged resolutions to the House, House when the committee assign- both at the commencement of a Con- ments are made by the Democratic gress and subsequently to fill vacan- Caucus or the Republican Conference cies. Because the issue of committee ratios can be properly presented to the after the Speaker has notified the Re- House in a privileged manner by direc- publican leader of the number of party tion of the party conference or caucus, vacancies on each of the several com- and because rule XI, clause 6, estab- mittees. lishes a procedure for selection of per- Mr. Speaker, my resolution is not ef- manent committee professional and fecting a change in the rules. I am sim- clerical staff, the Chair rules that the ply attempting to change the arbitrary resolution constitutes an attempt to political policy of the House—an arbi- change procedures established under trary custom which indeed adversely the rules of the House and does not affects the integrity of the proceedings therefore present a question of the of the House. privileges of the House. THE SPEAKER: The Chair knows it is MR. DANNEMEYER: I thank the the duty of the Chair to preside and to Speaker. determine questions of privilege. Under the precedents of the House § 1.52 On his own volition, cited on page 329 of the House Rules without a question from the and Manual, a question of the privi- floor, the Speaker ruled that leges of the House may not be invoked to effect a change in the rules of the a motion offered in the House or their interpretation. The gen- House to correct the Record, tleman from California contends that no allegation being made 12023 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

that the integrity of the pro- MR. WEBER: Mr. Speaker, on that I ceedings of the House were demand the yeas and nays. involved, failed to qualify as The yeas and nays were ordered. The vote was taken by electronic de- a question of privilege under vice and there were—yeas 200, nays Rule IX. An appeal from his 156, answered ‘‘present’’ 1, not voting decision was tabled. 76.... The proceedings of Apr. 25, 1985,(14) offer another illustration The Chair Rules Whether a of the Chair’s responsibility under Resolution States a Question Rule IX to qualify motions or reso- of Privilege Under Rule IX lutions as questions of ‘‘privilege and No Longer Submits the of the House.’’ Question to the House MR. [VIN] WEBER [of Minnesota]: Mr. § 1.53 Although an earlier Speaker, I offer a privileged motion. practice in the House was for The Clerk read as follows: the Speaker to submit the Motion offered by Mr. Weber: Mr. question of whether a resolu- Weber moves to correct the Congres- sional Record by striking out on page tion raised a question of 2281 the remarks beginning with the privilege, the Speaker now words ‘‘We’’ down to and including the word ‘‘confederation’’ and insert- rules directly on such mat- ing the word ‘‘are’’ before ‘‘a’’. ters without waiting for a

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (15) The point of order from the floor. Chair does not believe the motion as On Feb. 7, 1995,(16) Mr. Gene offered by the gentleman states a ques- Taylor, of Mississippi, offered a tion of privilege. resolution alleging unconstitu- MR. WEBER: Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. tional actions on the part of the MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Wash- President. House Resolution 57 ington]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the was directed to the Comptroller appeal on the table. General and demanded an ac- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The counting of certain public funds. question is on the motion to lay on the The resolution, the Chair’s ruling, table offered by the gentleman from and a portion of the colloquy Washington [Mr. Foley]. The question was taken; and the which followed are carried here. Speaker pro tempore announced that MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi: Mr. the ayes appeared to have it. Speaker, I would like to use this 1 minute to inform my colleagues that 14. 131 CONG. REC. 9419, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. 16. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th 15. Tommy Robinson (Ark.). Cong. 1st Sess.

12024 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 within a matter of minutes this House the value thereof, and of foreign will be given the privilege that the coins’’; Whereas section 9 of Article I President of the United States did not of the Constitution provides that ‘‘no money shall be drawn from the give us; and that is, to decide for our- Treasury, but in consequence of ap- selves whether or not we thought the propriations made by law’’;... Mexican bailout was a good idea. Whereas the obligation or expendi- The privileged motion that will be ture of funds by the President with- before the House in just a few minutes out consideration by the House of Representatives of legislation to is to require the comptroller general to make appropriated funds available tell us if the law was obeyed when the for obligation or expenditure in the President used $20 billion from the manner proposed by the President stabilization fund to bail out Mex- raises grave questions concerning ico.... the prerogatives of the House and the integrity of the proceedings of ENSURING EXECUTIVE BRANCH AC- the House;... Whereas the commitment of COUNTABILITY TO THE HOUSE IN EX- $20,000,000,000 of the resources of PENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY the exchange stabilization fund to Mexico by the President without con- MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi: Mr. gressional approval may jeopardize Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution the ability of the fund to fulfill its (H. Res. 57) to preserve the constitu- statutory purposes: Now, therefore, tional role of the House of Representa- be it tives to provide for the expenditure of Resolved, That the Comptroller public money and ensure that the exec- General of the United States shall prepare and transmit, within 7 days utive branch of the U.S. Government after the adoption of this resolution, remains accountable to the House of a report to the House of Representa- Representatives for each expenditure tives containing the following: of public money, and ask for its imme- (1) The opinion of the Comptroller diate consideration. General on whether any of the proposed actions of the President, as an- The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- nounced on January 31, 1995, to lows: strengthen the Mexican peso and support economic stability in Mexico H. RES. 57 requires congressional authorization Whereas rule IX of the Rules of or appropriation.... the House of Representatives pro- THE SPEAKER: (17) Does the gen- vides that questions of privilege shall arise whenever the rights of tleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] the House collectively are affected; wish to be heard briefly on whether Whereas, under the precedents, the resolution constitutes a question of customs, and traditions of the House privilege? pursuant to rule IX, a question of MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi: Yes, Mr. privilege has arisen in cases involv- Speaker. ing the constitutional prerogatives of the House; Mr. Speaker, in the past few days a Whereas section 8 of Article I of dozen Members of Congress, ranking the Constitution vests in Congress the power to ‘‘coin money, regulate 17. Newt Gingrich (Ga.).

12025 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

from people on the ideological right, ognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio like the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. [Ms. Kaptur]. Bunning] and the gentleman from MS. [MARCY] KAPTUR [of Ohio]: Mr. California [Mr. Hunter], all the way to Speaker, I rise as an original sponsor people on the ideological left, like the of this legislation and in full support of gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sand- our bipartisan efforts to get a vote on ers], have asked the question of wheth- this very serious matter. Our resolu- er or not the role of Congress has been tion is very straightforward in at- shortchanged in the decision by the tempting to reassert our rightful au- President to use this fund to guarantee thority under the Constitution of the the loans to Mexico.... United States.... One provision of our Nation’s Con- We believe that this is a question of stitution that is most clearly manda- privilege of the House because of the tory in nature is article I, section 9, constitutional role of the House of Rep- clause 7. It states, ‘‘No money shall be resentatives to provide for the expendi- drawn from the Treasury but in con- ture of public money and ensure that sequence of appropriations made by the executive branch of the U.S. Gov- law, and a regular statement and ac- ernment remains accountable to the count of the receipts and expenditures House for each such expenditure of of all public money shall be published public money.... from time to time.’’ Mr. Speaker, this Congress cannot THE SPEAKER: Having heard now stand idly by and avoid our constitu- from five Members, the Chair is pre- tional duty, a duty mandatory in na- pared to rule on this. The Chair would ture. first of all point out that the question I request that the Chair rule imme- before the House right now is not a diately on this resolution, and in mak- matter of the wisdom of assistance to ing that ruling abide by section 664 of Mexico, nor is the question before the rule IX, General Principles, as to House right now a question of whether precedents of question and privilege. or not the Congress should act, nor is Once again, it states that ‘‘Certain what is before the House a question of matters of business arising under the whether or not this would be an appro- provisions of the Constitution manda- priate topic for committee hearings, for tory in nature have been held to have legislative markup, and bills to be re- a privilege which has superseded the ported. rules establishing the order of busi- What is before the House at the mo- ness.’’ . . . ment is a very narrow question of Mr. Speaker, since there were a whether or not the resolution offered dozen cosponsors of this resolution, by the gentleman from Mississippi each of us with an equal input, I would [Mr. Taylor] is a question of privilege. like the Chair to oblige those other On that the Chair is prepared to rule. Members who would like to speak on The privileges of the House have the matter. been held to include questions relating THE SPEAKER: The Chair is willing to the constitutional prerogatives of to hear other Members. The Chair rec- the House with respect to revenue leg-

12026 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 islation, clause 1, section 1, article I of have no other basis in the Constitution the Constitution, with respect to im- or in the rules on which to qualify as peachment and matters incidental, and questions of the privileges of the House with respect to matters relating to the have been held not to constitute the return of a bill to the House under a same. The effect of those decisions has Presidential veto. been to require that all questions of Questions of the privileges of the privilege qualify within the meaning of House must meet the standards of rule rule IX. IX. Those standards address privileges The ordinary rights and functions of of the House as a House, not those of the House under the Constitution are Congress as a legislative branch. exercised in accordance with the rules As to whether a question of the of the House, without necessarily being privileges of the House may be raised accorded precedence as questions of simply by invoking one of the legisla- the privileges of the House.... tive powers enumerated in section 8 of The Chair will continue today to ad- article I of the Constitution or the gen- here to the same principles enunciated eral legislative ‘‘power of the purse’’ in by Speaker Gillett. The Chair holds the seventh original clause of section 9 that neither the enumeration in the of that article, the Chair finds helpful fifth clause of section 8 of article I of guidance in the landmark precedent of the Constitution of Congressional Pow- May 6, 1921, which is recorded in Can- ers ‘‘to coin money, regulate the value non’s Precedents at volume 6, section thereof, and of foreign coins,’’ nor the 48. On that occasion, the Speaker was prohibition in the seventh original required to decide whether a resolution clause of section 9 of that article of any purportedly submitted in compliance withdrawal from the Treasury except with a mandatory provision of the Con- by enactment of an appropriation, ren- stitution, section 2 of the 14th amend- ders a measure purporting to exercise ment, relating to apportionment, con- or limit the exercise of those powers a stituted a question of the privileges of question of the privileges of the the House. House.... Speaker Gillett held that the resolu- It bears repeating that questions of tion did not involve a question of privi- privileges of the House are governed lege.... by rule IX and that rule IX is not con- The House Rules and Manual notes cerned with the privileges of the Con- that under an earlier practice of the gress, as a legislative branch, but only House, certain measures responding to with the privileges of the House, as a mandatory provisions of the Constitu- House. tion were held privileged and allowed The Chair holds that the resolution to supersede the rules establishing the offered by the gentleman from Mis- order of business. Examples included sissippi does not affect ‘‘the rights of the census and apportionment meas- the House collectively, its safety, dig- ures mentioned by Speaker Gillett. But nity, or the integrity of its proceedings’’ under later decisions, exemplified by within the meaning of clause 1 of rule Speaker Gillett’s in 1921, matters that IX. Although it may address the aspect

12027 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

of legislative power under the Con- Chair, and I would like Members of stitution, it does not involve a constitu- Congress to be granted the 1 hour that tional privilege of the House. Were the the House rules allow for to speak on Chair to rule otherwise, then any al- this matter. leged infringement by the executive branch, even, for example, through the PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. regulatory process, on a legislative ARMEY power conferred on Congress by the MR. [RICHARD K.] ARMEY [of Texas]: Constitution would give rise to a ques- Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion of the privileges of the House. In tion. the words of Speaker Gillett, ‘‘no one THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report Member ought to have the right to de- the preferential motion. termine when it should come in in The Clerk read as follows: preference to the regular rules of the House.’’ . . . Mr. Armey moves to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi: Mr. Chair. Speaker, I would also like to point out that the original custom of this body PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY was to present any question of a privilege of the House to the Members and MS. KAPTUR: I have a parliamentary let the Members decide whether they inquiry, Mr. Speaker. felt it was a privilege of the House that THE SPEAKER: The gentlewoman will was being violated. Is the Speaker will- state the parliamentary inquiry. ing to grant the Members of this MS. KAPTUR: Mr. Speaker, am I cor- House that same privilege? rect in understanding that the motion THE SPEAKER: The Chair would sim- to table this appeal is not debatable? ply note that the Chair is following THE SPEAKER: The gentlewoman is precedent as has been established over correct. the last 70 years and that that prece- MS. KAPTUR: And thus, Mr. Speaker, dent seems to be more than adequate. Members of Congress will be deprived And in that context, the Chair has by this vote without any type of a de- ruled this does not meet the test for a bate on the authority vested in our question of privilege. constitutional rights to vote on this MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi: Mr. issue? Speaker, a further parliamentary in- THE SPEAKER: The Chair would say quiry: What is the procedure for—— to the gentlewoman that the motion is THE SPEAKER: The only appropriate not debatable. procedure, if the gentleman feels that The question is on the preferential the precedents are wrong, would be to motion offered by the gentleman from appeal the ruling of the Chair and Texas [Mr. Armey]. allow the House to decide whether or The question was taken; and the not to set a new precedent by over- Speaker announced that the ‘‘ayes’’ ap- ruling the Speaker. peared to have it. MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi: Mr. MR. TAYLOR of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Speaker, I object to the vote on the

12028 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

ground that a quorum is not present MR. HOYER: Mr. Chairman, I raise a and make the point of order that a point of order against the language be- quorum is not present. ginning with the words, ‘‘Provided fur- THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is ther,’’ on page 17, line 2, through the not present. word ‘‘Code,’’ on line 5. The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of sent Members. order on behalf of the gentleman from This vote will be 17 minutes total. Missouri [Mr. Clay], the chairman of The vote was taken by electronic de- the Committee on Post Office and Civil vice, and there were—yeas 288, nays Service, pursuant to the colloquy that 143, not voting 3, as follows:... just occurred with the gentleman from So the motion to lay on the table the Virginia [Mr. Wolf] who is the sponsor appeal of the ruling of the Chair was of this amendment and which is in- agreed to. cluded in our bill. The language in fact constitutes leg- Floor Manager of Bill May islation on an appropriation bill and Press Point of Order Against we, therefore, concede the point that His Own Bill would be made by the chairman that it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. § 1.54 Instance where the man- THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point ager of a general appropria- of order? tion bill made (on behalf of If not, for the reasons stated, and be- another) and then conceded cause the point of order was not a point of order against a waived by the rule, the point of order paragraph of his own bill. is sustained and the language is stricken. On June 18, 1993,(18) during consideration of the Treasury- Bill Manager’s Motivation in Postal appropriation bill, fiscal Making Points of Order 1994, the bill manager made a point of order against a provision § 1.55 Motivation for raising therein, honoring a commitment points of order against pro- he had made to an absent col- visions in a bill are varied; league. and the manager of a bill has MR. [STENY H.] HOYER [of Mary- pressed points of order land]: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of against his own bill to expe- order. dite its consideration. THE CHAIRMAN: (19) The gentleman will state his point of order. On Sept. 30, 1993,(20) Mr. John P. Murtha, of Pennsylvania, 18. 139 CONG. REC. 13364, 13365, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. 20. 139 CONG. REC. 23110, 23123, 103d 19. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.). Cong. 1st Sess.

12029 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Chairman of the Defense Sub- (4) the goals of the operation; and committee of the Committee on ... Appropriations, raised points of MR. MURTHA: Mr. Chairman, I ask order against vulnerable provi- unanimous consent that the bill, through page 125, line 19, be consid- sions in his own bill where their ered as read, printed in the Record, inclusion was opposed by the and open to amendment at any point. Chairman of the committee hav- THE CHAIRMAN: (1) Is there objection ing jurisdiction over the ‘‘legisla- to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? tive provisions’’ in the bill. There was no objection. [The following paragraph was POINTS OF ORDER reached in the reading.] MR. MURTHA: Mr. Chairman, I have GLOBAL COOPERATIVE INITIATIVES, four points of order. DEFENSE-WIDE THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) state the points of order. MR. MURTHA: Mr. Chairman, I make For support of Department of De- points of order against the following fense responses to national and international natural disasters and language in the bill. Beginning on page the expenses of other global disaster 27, line 23, through line 25; relief activities of the Department of Beginning with ‘‘Provided’’ on page Defense; . . . Provided further, That 20, line 17, through ‘‘operations’’ on none of the funds appropriated page 21, line 21, of the bill; under this heading shall be obligated Against section 8099, beginning on or expended for costs incurred by page 198, line 20, through page 109, United States Armed Forces in carrying out any international humani- line 5; and tarian assistance, peacekeeping, Against section 8113, beginning on peacemaking or peace-enforcing op- page 114, line 3, through page 115, eration unless, at least fifteen days line 10. before approving such operation, the These provisions give affirmative di- President notifies the Committees on rection, impose additional duties, set Appropriations and Armed Services aside existing law, go beyond the fund- of each House of Congress in accordance with established reprogram- ing in this bill and appropriate for an ming procedures: Provided further, unauthorized project. That any such notification shall This constitutes legislation in an ap- specify— propriations bill and is in violation of (1) the estimated cost of the oper- clause 2 of rule XXI. ation; THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman (2) whether the method by which from Florida wish to be heard on the the President proposes to pay for the points of order? operation will require supplemental appropriations, or payments from MR. [C. W. BILL] YOUNG of Florida: international organizations, foreign Mr. Chairman, we reluctantly concede countries, or other donors; the points of order. (3) the anticipated duration and scope of the operation; 1. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).

12030 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- a point of order. The Chair indi- nizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. cated that the point of order Hamilton]. should be disposed of first. MR. [LEE H.] HAMILTON [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, let me just express my MR. [NORMAN Y.] MINETA [of Cali- appreciation for the consideration by fornia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. the chairman in accepting these points THE CHAIRMAN: (3) The gentleman of order. As chairman of the Com- will state his parliamentary inquiry. mittee on Foreign Affairs, I appreciate MR. MINETA: Mr. Chairman, the fact that very much. that the Clerk has now read page 23, THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other line 14, does this preclude me from Member wish to be heard on the points raising a point of order if the gen- of order? tleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] is If not, the points of order are con- recognized? ceded. THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order will have to be made first. Following disposition of the points of order, Mr. Murtha asked POINT OF ORDER unanimous consent to curtail de- MR. MINETA: Mr. Chairman, I raise bate on the remainder of the bill a point of order on page 23, line 14. THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will read and amendments thereto. the paragraph beginning on line 14. The Clerk read as follows: Priority of Points of Order HIGHWAY PROJECT STUDIES Over Debate (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND) § 1.56 Points of order against a For up to 80 percent of the ex- paragraph in a general ap- penses necessary for feasibility and environmental studies for certain propriation bill are enter- highway and surface transportation tained and disposed of before projects and parking facilities that recognizing Members to de- improve safety, reduce congestion, or otherwise improve surface transpor- bate the provision under pro tation, $7,150,000, to be derived forma amendments. from the Highway Trust Fund and to remain available until September 30, On Sept. 23, 1993,(2) during the 1996. reading of a general appropriation THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose bill under the five-minute rule, a does the gentleman from California Member sought recognition to rise? strike out the last word to debate POINT OF ORDER the pending portion of the bill. MR. MINETA: Mr. Chairman, I raise Another Member wished to make a point of order against the provision on page 23, lines 14 through 22. 2. 139 CONG. REC. 22177, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. 3. Rick Boucher (Va.).

12031 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

This provision violates clause 2 of Where Point of Order Is Deter- rule XXI because it would appropriate mined by Voting on Consider- $7.150 million out of the highway trust fund for general feasibility and envi- ation; Unfunded Mandate ronmental studies. These studies are Legislation not authorized. In addition, the period of funding § 1.57 Under the Unfunded availability until September 30, 1996, Mandates Act, where a point is not authorized. Thus this provision of order is raised against a constitutes an unauthorized appropria- provision in a bill or amend- tion and is subject to a point of order. ment which contains such a THE CHAIRMAN: Do other Members desire to be heard on the point of mandate, the decision on the order? point of order is made by the MR. [BOB] CARR of Michigan: Mr. House, by voting on a motion Chairman, we concede the point of to consider the provision, order. rather than by a ruling of the THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas rise? Chair. MR. [TOM] DELAY [of Texas]: Mr. On Jan. 31, 1995,(4) the House was Chairman, I would like to be heard on continuing its consideration of H.R. 5, the point of order.... the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of One could argue that the request for 1995. During the consideration of title $250,000 for this highway study is au- III for amendment, Mr. David Dreier, thorized. Under section 1105 of the of California, offered an amendment ISTEA legislation titled ‘‘High Priority which provided in essence that points Corridors on National Highway Sys- of order under Sections 425 and 426 of tem’’ U.S. Highway 59, including the the Budget Act would be disposed of by portion of the highway I propose to a vote, and not be dependent on a rul- study, has been designated a high pri- ing by the Chair. The amendment is ority corridor. Under this designation carried herein, along with the expla- there are several interesting factual nation of its proponent, Mr. Dreier. points the ISTEA legislation makes.... ‘‘SEC. 425. POINT OF ORDER. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, this is ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be an authorized project, it is authorized in order in the House of Representa- money, and I urge the Chair to rule tives or the Senate to consider— against the point of order. ‘‘(1) any bill or joint resolution that THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- is reported by a committee unless the committee has published the pared to rule. statement of the Director pursuant For those reasons stated by the gen- to section 424(a) prior to such con- tleman from California [Mr. Mineta] in sideration, except that this para- making the point of order, and sustained in prior points of order, the 4. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th point of order is sustained. Cong. 1st Sess.

12032 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 1 graph shall not apply to any supple- that they are inconsistent therewith; mental statement prepared by the and Director under section 424(a)(4); or (2) with full recognition of the con- ‘‘(2) any bill, joint resolution, stitutional right of the House of Rep- amendment, motion, or conference resentatives and the Senate to report that contains a Federal inter- change such rules at any time, in the governmental mandate having direct same manner, and to the same ex- costs that exceed the threshold speci- tent as in the case of any other rule fied in section 424(a)(1)(A), or that of the House of Representatives or would cause the direct costs of any the Senate, respectively.... other Federal intergovernmental mandate to exceed the threshold MR. DREIER: Mr. Chairman, I offer specified in section 424(a)(1)(A), unan amendment. less—. . . The Clerk read as follows: ‘‘SEC. 426. 5ENFORCEMENT IN THE Amendment offered by Mr. Dreier: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. In section 301, in the proposed sec- ‘‘It shall not be in order in the tion 425 of the Congressional Budget House of Representatives to consider Act of 1974, strike subsection (d) and a rule or order that waives the appli- redesignate subsection (e) as sub- cation of section 425(a): Provided section (d). however, That pending a point of In section 301, in the proposed sec- order under section 425(a) or under tion 426 of the Congressional Budget this section a Member may move to Act of 1974, strike: ‘‘Provided how- waive the point of order. Such a mo- ever,’’ and all that follows through tion shall be debatable for 10 min- the close quotation marks. utes equally divided and controlled In section 301, after such proposed by the proponent and an opponent section 426, add the following: but, if offered in the House, shall otherwise be decided without inter- ‘‘SEC. 427. DISPOSITION OF POINTS OF vening motion except a motion that ORDER. the House adjourn. The adoption of a ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—As disposition motion to waive such a point of order of points of order under section against consideration of a bill or 425(a) or 426, the Chair shall put joint resolution shall be considered the question of consideration with also to waive a like point of order respect to the proposition that is the against an amendment made in subject of the points of order. order as original text.’’.... ‘‘(b) DEBATE AND INTERVENING MO- TIONS SEC. 303. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING .—A question of consideration POWERS. under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by each Member initi- The provisions of this title (except ating a point of order and for 10 section 305) are enacted by minutes by an opponent on each Congress— point of order, but shall otherwise be (1) as an exercise of the rule- decided without intervening motion making powers of the House of Rep- except one that the House adjourn or resentatives and the Senate, and as that the Committee of the Whole such they shall be considered as part rise, as the case may be. of the rules of the House of Rep- ‘‘(c) EFFECT ON AMENDMENT IN resentatives and the Senate, respec- ORDER AS ORIGINAL TEXT.—The dis- tively, and such rules shall super- position of the question of consider- sede other rules only to the extent ation under this section with respect

12033 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

to a bill or joint resolution shall be cer to rule on points of order with re- considered also to determine the spect to not only the existence of a question of consideration under this mandate but whether the cost of the section with respect to an amendment made in order as original mandate exceeds the threshold of $50 text.’’.... million. This will be particularly trou- blesome in situations where a motion MR. DREIER: Mr. Chairman, during to waive such a point of order is not consideration of H.R. 5 in the Com- made. mittee on Rules, an amendment to sec- Second, the amendment addresses a tion 426 was adopted that creates a concern raised by a number of my col- mechanism to allow any Member to leagues on the other side of the aisle make a motion to waive points of order with respect to the role of the chair- against a mandate in any bill, joint man of the Committee on Government resolution, amendment or conference Reform and Oversight in advising the report that does not include a CBO Chair about the question of unfunded cost estimate or a means for paying for mandates. Under my amendment, that the mandate. advice would no longer be necessary. The language currently in section Essentially, Mr. Chairman, the 426 is preferable to the language in amendment provides that whenever H.R. 5 as introduced for several rea- points of order are raised pursuant to sons. section 425(a) or 426, the points of First, it more directly achieves the order shall be disposed of by a vote of goal of the authors of H.R. 5 to guar- the Committee of the Whole. antee votes in the House specifically on The question would be debatable for unfunded mandates. Second, it does not place undue constraints on the leg- 20 minutes, 10 minutes by the Member islative schedule by requiring our Com- initiating the point of order and 10 mittee on Rules to report two rules minutes by an opponent of the point of every time a decision is made to waive order.... the application of section 425. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MOAKLEY Third, it relieves some of the burden TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. on the presiding officer when making a DREIER determination with respect to a point of order. MR. [JOHN JOSEPH] MOAKLEY [of Since H.R. 5 was reported to the Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer House, I have been working with the an amendment to the amendment. Parliamentarian and a lot of other The Clerk read as follows: Members have been working with the Amendment offered by Mr. Moak- Parliamentarian on language to ad- ley to the amendment offered by Mr. dress two additional concerns raised by Dreier: section 426. The language is contained In the proposed new section 427, in the amendment that I am now offer- insert the following new subsection (a) (and redesignate the existing sub- ing, Mr. Chairman. sections accordingly): First, the amendment further re- ‘‘(a) In order to be cognizable by duces the burden on the presiding offi- the Chair, a point of order under sec-

12034 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 2

tion 425(a) or 426 must specify the tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. precise language on which it is pre- Moakley] to the amendment offered by mised.’’. . . the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]. MR. MOAKLEY: Mr. Chairman, the Dreier amendment is a major improve- The amendment to the amendment ment over the text of the bill. I would, was agreed to. however, make one suggestion.... THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on My amendment makes the Member the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] as who is raising the point of order show amended. exactly where the unfunded mandate The amendment, as amended, was exists and explain how that language agreed to. constitutes a violation.... MR. DREIER: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.... It seems to me that on this issue the § 2. Manner of Making burden of proof should in fact lie with Point of Order the Member raising the point of order. This is a very effective way to address The formalities followed in mak- that concern. I strongly support the amendment offered by the gentleman ing a point of order are relatively from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] to simple. Members making points of the amendment I have offered. The order must address the Chair and gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. be recognized before proceeding,(6) Clinger] will be let off the hook with the Member should be specific as this amendment.... to the language to which he ob- MR. [WILLIAM F.] CLINGER [Jr., of jects,(7) and the Member should Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, that is make clear that he is making a precisely what I wanted to say. In the (8) legislation presently drafted, the task point of order. The Chair con- of determining what was or was not an trols debate on a point of order, unfunded mandate would have fallen and a Member recognized on a on the shoulders of the chairman of the point of order may not yield to an- Committee on Government Reform and other Member for debate thereon. Oversight, and/or perhaps the ranking member of that committee, so I cer- Addressing the Chair tainly appreciate the fact that this is now going to ensure that this matter § 2.1 Members making points will be decided by the House itself. of order must address the That is the appropriate place for this decision to be made. I am pleased to Speaker and be recognized support the amendment. before proceeding. THE CHAIRMAN: (5) The question is on the amendment offered by the gen- 6. See § 2.1, infra. 7. See § 2.2, infra. 5. Bill Emerson (Mo.). 8. See § 2.3, infra.

12035 Ch. 31 § 2 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

On Oct. 24, 1945,(9) Speaker MR. RANKIN: I am withdrawing the Sam Rayburn, of Texas, asserted words. I have not the time to argue himself when the discussion on such matters. MR. MARCANTONIO: I object to his the floor grew particularly acri- withdrawing the words. I request that monious. the words be taken down. MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mis- THE SPEAKER: The Chair has already sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, we have just stated the rule with reference to the witnessed one of the most ridiculous language of the gentleman from Mis- performances that has taken place in sissippi. this House since I have been in Con- MR. MARCANTONIO: But he repeated gress. These unjustified attacks on the it, sir. Committee on Un-American Activities, MR. RANKIN: But I withdrew it. I these smear attacks on the Daughters have something else to talk about. of the American Revolution by the MR. MARCANTONIO: But I object to Jewish gentleman from New York [Mr. his withdrawing it. Celler], have been shocking indeed, to THE SPEAKER: The Chair has already say the least of it. ruled on the matter and that is the MR. [EMANUEL] CELLER [of New end of it. York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. of order that the gentleman is out of Rankin] will proceed in order. order when he refers to me as ‘‘the MR. MARCANTONIO: He repeated it Jewish gentleman from New York.’’ I despite the Speaker’s ruling. ask that the words be taken down. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, it is ex- THE SPEAKER: If the gentleman will ceedingly strange that a man pre- allow the Chair, there is one way to suming to arrogate to himself the pre- refer to a Member of the House of Rep- rogative of speaking for a minority resentatives and that is, ‘‘the gen- group will rise on this floor and de- tleman from’’ the State from which he nounce the Daughters of the American comes. Any other appellation is a viola- Revolution, in the manner the Member tion of the rules. from New York [Mr. Celler] did and MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, if he ob- then raise a protest when he is even jects to being called a ‘‘Jewish gen- referred to as a gentleman of his race. tleman’’ I withdraw it. MR. CELLER: Mr. Speaker, a point of MR. CELLER: Mr. Speaker, I ask that order. the words be taken down. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of New state it. York]: I ask that those words be taken MR. CELLER: The gentleman by in- down. ference and innuendo has simply repeated what he said at the inception of 9. 91 CONG. REC. 10033, 79th Cong. 1st his remarks when he attempted to Sess. Under consideration was H.R. state that I was a Jewish gentleman. 1834, proscribing procedures of in- That is the second time he did it by in- vestigative committees. direction. I think the gentleman should

12036 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 2

be called to order and cautioned not to a further amendment. This takes the repeat that kind of language. place of the language stricken on the THE SPEAKER: The gentleman refers point of order made by the gentleman to the gentleman, if he referred to him from New York [Mr. Taber]. at all, as the member of a minority The Clerk read as follows: race. The Chair does not think that is Amendment offered by Mr. a violation of the rule. Caldwell: On page 18, line 2, after MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, a par- the figures and the semicolon insert the following: ‘‘Bureau of Inter- liamentary inquiry. I wish to proceed parliamentary Union for Promotion in order. Does the Member from New of International Arbitration, $20,000, York [Mr. Celler] object to being called including not to exceed $10,000 for a Jew or does he object to being called the expenses of the American group a gentleman? What is he kicking of the Interparliamentary Union, in- about? cluding personal services in the Dis- trict of Columbia and elsewhere, MR. MARCANTONIO: Mr. Speaker, a traveling expenses, purchase of nec- point of order. essary books, documents, news- THE SPEAKER: The Chair desires to papers, periodicals, maps, stationery, make a little statement. official cards, printing and binding, entertainment, and other necessary The Chair trusts that points of order expenses to be disbursed on vouchers may be properly points of order here- approved by the president and ex- after, and that a Member before he ecutive secretary of the American makes a point of order secures the rec- group.’’ ognition of the Chair. MR. [JOHN] TABER: Mr. Chairman, I The gentleman from Mississippi will make the point of order that the lan- proceed in order, and the Chair trusts guage is still beyond the authorization that the gentleman from Mississippi of the law. understands what the Chair means. THE CHAIRMAN: Will the gentleman be specific and point out the language § 2.2 In making a point of he objects to in the amendment offered order, a Member should be by the gentleman from Florida? MR. TABER: The words ‘‘and other specific as to the objection- necessary expenses to be disbursed on able language. vouchers approved by the president and executive secretary of the Amer- On Feb. 7, 1940,(10) Chairman Harry ican group.’’ P. Beam, of Illinois, instructed that a MR. CALDWELL: Mr. Chairman, I be- point of order should be specific. lieve it proper, in view of the scope of MR. [MILLARD F.] CALDWELL [of Flor- the act which authorizes our participa- ida]: Mr. Chairman, I send to the desk tion in the Interparliamentary Union, that it be held that all of the purposes 10. 86 CONG. REC. 1194, 76th Cong. 3d now included in the amendment are Sess. Under consideration was H.R. authorized. Even the word ‘‘entertain- 8319, a State, Justice, Commerce, ment,’’ which was complained of in the and Judiciary appropriations bill for point of order previously considered, fiscal 1941. must of necessity be included here.

12037 Ch. 31 § 2 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from pared to rule. Illinois has asked a question rather The act of June 28, 1935, among than making a point of order. other things, in the second paragraph MR. [JAMES G.] FULTON of Pennsyl- has the following language: vania: I am here. I am against the Such appropriation to be disbursed amendment. on vouchers to be approved by the MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of president and the executive secretary Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a point of of the American group. order. Considering this language in connec- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will tion with the amendment offered by state his point of order. the gentleman from Florida, the Chair MR. WAGGONNER: Is it not necessary, is constrained to overrule the point of under the rules of the House, in the in- order. stance of a teller vote, that the Chair name one Member as a teller who sup- § 2.3 A point of order should ports the amendment? be stated explicitly, so that it THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state is clearly understood to be a that the gentleman from Louisiana has point of order and not a par- not made a point of order, but rather liamentary inquiry. has asked a question. The Chair designated as tellers the gentleman from ( ) On June 28, 1967, 11 after a Indiana [Mr. Roudebush], the author of teller vote had commenced, Chair- the amendment, and the gentleman man John J. Flynt, Jr., of Georgia, from California [Mr. Miller]. No point ignored ‘‘points of order’’ which was raised until the vote had begun to were stated as questions. be taken. The vote will proceed. MR. [DONALD] RUMSFELD [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Parliamentarian’s Note: Pursu- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will ant to Rule I clause 5, the Chair state his point of order. is required to name tellers ‘‘on MR. RUMSFELD: Is it not correct that each side of the question,’’ and a there should be a teller in favor of the timely point of order, before the amendment and a teller in opposition? vote had commenced, would have

11. 113 CONG. REC. 17748, 90th Cong. been entertained. 1st Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 10340, authorizing appropriations for the National Aeronautics § 3. Reserving Points of and Space Administration. See also Order 118 CONG. REC. 13114, 13115, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 18, 1972. Under consideration was H.R. 45, estab- By reserving a point of order lishing an institute for continuing against an amendment, instead of studies of juvenile justice. making it, a Member may hear 12038 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3 the debate on the merits of a ments and not to a paragraph in proposition or ask a preliminary the bill text.(19) question, and later determine whether to press or withdraw his ( ) point of order. 12 Such a reserva- In General tion is in the discretion of the Chair (13) who must entertain and § 3.1 A Member may reserve a rule on the point of order imme- point of order against a diately, if a demand for regular measure and then, after de- ( ) order is made. 14 Where all debate on the measure, either bate time has expired, the res- insist upon or withdraw the ervation of a point of order is not point of order. possible. Where there is no time ( ) for debate, a point of order must On Oct. 28, 1969, 20 Mr. George H. be immediately stated and ruled Mahon, of Texas, and Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, reserved points of order (15) upon. The reservation of a against an amendment offered by Mr. point of order by one Member Jeffery Cohelan, of California, but after against an amendment at the some discussion on the amendment, proper time reserves all points of Mr. Mahon decided not to press his order against the provision (16) and point of order, while Mr. Bow deter- inures to all Members,(17) but the mined to proceed and the Chair then requested that he state it: reservation of a point of order by MR. COHELAN: Mr. Chairman, I offer one Member does not preclude an- an amendment. other from insisting upon a point The Clerk read as follows: of order immediately.(18) Amendment offered by Mr. The practice of ‘‘reserving a Cohelan: Page 4, line 22, after point of order’’ applies to amend- ‘‘lower:’’, insert the following: ‘‘Provided, That in the case of ac- 12. See § 3.1, infra. Of course, if the tivities for which appropriations would be available to the Office of Member pressed his point of order at Education under the Act making ap- that time, instead of reserving it, de- propriations for the Departments of bate on the point of order, if per- Labor, and Health, Education, and mitted at all by the Chair, would be Welfare for the fiscal year 1970, as confined to the point of order only. passed by the House, the amount available for each such activity shall See § 3.2, infra. 13. See §§ 3.17, 3.18, infra. 19. See § 3.5, infra; but see also § 3.6, 14. See § 3.15, infra. infra. 15. See § 3.30, infra. 20. 115 CONG. REC. 31886, 31888, 91st 16. See § 3.11, infra. Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 17. See § 3.10 et seq., infra. were continuing appropriations for 18. See § 3.9, infra. fiscal 1970.

12039 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

be the amount provided therefor by knowledge, it is a proper amendment. the House action.’’ I urge that it be so recognized.

MR. MAHON: Mr. Chairman, I re- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready serve a point of order on the amend- to rule. The gentleman from California ment. offered an amendment to page 4, line 22, of the bill, to which the gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: (1) The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order. from Ohio made a point of order. The gentleman from Ohio in making his MR. BOW: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order has not pointed out to point of order also. the Chair any rule of the House that THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from the amendment violates. The point Ohio reserves a point of order.... raised by the gentleman from Ohio is The Chair notes that a point of order not one for the Chair to pass on, but is pending. presumably is one for the committee MR. MAHON: Mr. Chairman, I have itself to pass on. The Chair does not now had an opportunity to read the sustain the point of order. gentleman’s amendment, and I withdraw my point of order. Effect of Reservation MR. BOW: Mr. Chairman, I renew the point of order. § 3.2 Where points of order are THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will reserved, debate may be had state his point of order. on the merits of the propo- MR. BOW: The amendment provides for activities for which appropriations sition under consideration, would be available for the Office of but where points of order are Education under the act making appro- made, discussion is confined priations for the Departments of to the question of order pre- Labor, and Health, Education, and sented. Welfare for fiscal 1970, as passed by the House. Now, there is no act mak- On Apr. 2, 1937,(2) Chairman ing appropriations for the Departments Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, ex- of Labor, and Health, Education, and plained the effect of reserving a Welfare. Since there is no act, this be- point of order to Mr. Jack Nichols, comes an action of this House in making an appropriation to the Depart- of Oklahoma. ment when no act has been passed by MR. NICHOLS: Will the Chair explain the Congress. the effect of reserving a point of order THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman instead of making it?... from California desire to be heard on THE CHAIRMAN: It is within the right the point of order? of the gentleman from Oklahoma ei- MR. COHELAN: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment was carefully 2. 81 CONG. REC. 3096–98, 75th Cong. drafted, and to the very best of my 1st Sess. Under consideration was an appropriation bill for the District 1. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.). of Columbia.

12040 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

ther to make his point of order or to (b) Such Act is amended by adding reserve his point of order. If the gen- after section 7 the following new sec- tleman makes the point of order, dis- tion: cussion would be confined to the point ‘‘PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY of order. If he reserves the point of order it would permit debate on the ‘‘SEC. 8. (a) The President is au- provision of the bill against which the thorized to issue such orders and point of order is reserved. regulations as he may deem appropriate to stabilize prices, rents, MR. NICHOLS: Then, Mr. Chairman, I wages, and salaries at levels not less decline to reserve the point of order, than those prevailing on January 1, but make it. 1979, and to stabilize interest rates and corporate dividends and similar Yielding for Amendment While transfers at levels consistent with orderly economic growth. Such orders Reservation of Point of Order and regulations may provide for the Is Pending making of such adjustments as may be necessary to prevent gross inequi- § 3.3 A Member who has of- ties.... fered an amendment against MR. [WILLIAM S.] MOORHEAD of which a point of order has Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I reserve been reserved may not dur- a point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from ing his time for debate yield New York (Mr. Weiss). to another Member to offer THE CHAIRMAN: (4) The gentleman an amendment to the amend- from Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead) will ment. be protected on his reservation of the point of order. During consideration of a bill under the five-minute rule, in Committee of MR. WEISS: Mr. Chairman, I rise to the Whole, on Mar. 21, 1979,(3) an speak on the amendment.... amendment was offered by Mr. Theo- MR. [MARC L.] MARKS [of Pennsyl- dore S. Weiss, of New York, against vania]: Mr. Chairman, will the gen- which a point of order was reserved. tleman yield? The proceedings are carried below. MR. WEISS: I am pleased to yield to Amendment offered by Mr. Weiss: the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Page 3, insert after line 5 the fol- MR. MARKS: Mr. Chairman, I thank lowing: the gentleman for yielding.

SEC. 5. (a) Section 3(b) of the Council Mr. Chairman, I have an amend- on Wage and Price Stability Act is ment to the amendment offered by the amended by striking out ‘‘Nothing in gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss). this Act’’ and inserting in lieu thereof THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will re- ‘‘Except as provided in section 8, noth- mind the gentleman from Pennsyl- ing in this Act’’. vania (Mr. Marks) that his amendment is not in order at this point. 3. 125 CONG. REC. 5779–81, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. 4. Butler Derrick (S.C.).

12041 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. MARKS: May I ask the Chair a THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state question? that a point of order has been re- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from served, and the time of the gentleman Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead) has re- from New York (Mr. Weiss) has not ex- served a point of order against the pired. It would be improper for the pending amendment. gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MR. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania: Mr. Marks) to offer his amendment to the Chairman, I would now like to insist amendment at this time. on my point of order against the MR. WEISS: Mr. Chairman, if the amendment offered by the gentleman Chair would allow me to proceed, I un- from New York (Mr. Weiss). derstood that what we had was a res- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will point ervation of the point of order, and out that the time is under the control pending that, it is my understanding of the gentleman from New York (Mr. that the debate could proceed as if in Weiss). fact there had been no intervention. I MR. WEISS: Mr. Chairman, the gen- would ask if that is accurate. tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marks) THE CHAIRMAN: But the amendment had asked if I would yield to him, and offered by the gentleman from New I am pleased to yield to him at this York (Mr. Weiss) is the amendment point. that is pending before the Committee, MR ARKS . M : Mr. Chairman, I thank and that is the subject at this moment. the gentleman for yielding. MR. WEISS: That is right, Mr. Chair- Mr. Chairman, it was my purpose to man. offer an amendment to the suggestion or the amendment offered by the gen- THE CHAIRMAN: When the Chair dis- tleman from New York (Mr. Weiss), poses of the point of order, then the seeking to give the President the au- gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. thority to impose mandatory wage and Marks) may offer his amendment to price controls, whereby we would give the amendment, if it remains pend- the Congress the authority to nullify ing.... the controls imposed by the President After further argument, the by the passage of a concurrent resolution. Chair sustained the point of order. It is my purpose, if it is in order, to ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. A Member Reserving a Point of Weiss) if he would accept such an Order Does Not Thereby Get amendment. Five Minutes of Debate Time MR. WEISS: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to accept that language and § 3.4 A Member who reserves a make it part of my amendment, if that point of order against an is satisfactory to the Chair. amendment is not entitled to MR. MARKS: I would ask the opportunity in that case, Mr. Chairman, on debate time at that point, for my own time, if I may, to speak to the the proponent has the right amendment. to explain his amendment 12042 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

under the five-minute rule chinery will be available in all States for use on farms for farming pur- when the point of order is re- poses. Nothing in this section shall served. affect the control of lead or lead ad- ( ) ditives in gasoline distributed and On Oct. 7, 1985, 5 Mr. John D. sold for other uses. For purposes of Dingell, Jr., of Michigan, reserved this section, the term ‘‘gasoline used a point of order and attempted to on a farm for farming purposes’’ has the same meaning as when used in control the debate on an amend- section 6420 of the Internal Revenue ment offered as a substitute to an Code of 1954.... amendment to H.R. 2100, the MR. [THOMAS J.] TAUKE [of Iowa] Food Security Act of 1985. Of (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I course, if the point of order is ask unanimous consent that the made against the amendment, amendment be considered as read and rather than reserved, the Member printed in the Record. THE CHAIRMAN: (6) Is there objection making the point of order is im- to the request of the gentleman from mediately recognized for argu- Iowa? ment thereon, prior to debate on There was no objection. the merits of the amendment. The MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I re- proceedings were as follows: serve a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from The Clerk read as follows: Michigan reserves a point of order on Amendment offered by Mr. Tauke the amendment. as a substitute for the amendment MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I do offered by Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: not have any reason to believe it will Page 509, after line 13, insert: be necessary for me to insist on the point of order. I make the reservation LEAD ADDITIVES IN FARM FUEL of objection for purposes of a colloquy SEC. 1896. (a) Except as provided with my three distinguished friends, in subsection (f), any regulation the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Mad- issued under any provision of law be- igan], the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. fore or after the date of enactment of Tauke], and of course my dear friend this section regarding the control or prohibition of lead additives in gaso- from Texas, the chairman of the Com- line shall be amended to provide mittee on Agriculture, Mr. de la Garza. that the average lead content per I understand when this matter gallon of gasoline distributed and reaches the conference stage that you sold for use on a farm for farming have agreed to keep the Committee on purposes shall not be less than 0.5 Energy and Commerce—— grams per gallon. The purpose of such amendment shall be to ensure THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman, Mr. that adequate supplies of gasoline Dingell, will suspend for 1 second, containing sufficient lead additives please. to protect and maintain farm ma- The Chair would respectfully advise the gentleman that he cannot proceed 5. 131 CONG. REC. 26444, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. 6. David E. Bonior (Mich.).

12043 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

with the debate on a reservation of a bill. If the total amount specified in the point of order. If the gentleman from bill is not increased, I shall not insist Iowa wishes to yield to the gentleman upon the point of order. If it is infor that purpose, he has the time. creased by amendment, I shall be com- The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. pelled to insist upon the point of order. Tauke] is recognized for 5 minutes. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is of the § 3.5 It is not the practice to opinion that the point of order should be disposed of before any amendment permit the reservation of a is considered. point of order against part of MR. COUDERT: In that event, Mr. a bill and then consider Chairman, I make the point of order amendments. against that language. On Apr. 13, 1949,(7) following Mr. Chairman, may I state a par- the reading of an amendment by liamentary inquiry? the Clerk, Mr. Frederic R. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will Coudert, Jr., of New York, threat- state it. ened to press his reserved point of MR. COUDERT: Mr. Chairman, is it order if the amounts authorized in the final decision of the Chairman that the military appropriation bill I may not reserve the point of order until the amendment is disposed of? under consideration were in- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is increased by the amendment. Chair- formed that it has not been the prac- man Eugene J. Keogh, of New tice to reserve points of order and then York, prevented the Member from consider amendments. The Chair will reserving the point of order, how- entertain the gentleman’s point of ever, by requiring it be disposed of order if the gentleman presses it.... before any amendments be consid- MR. COUDERT: Therefore, Mr. Chair- ered. man, I must insist upon the point of order to the entire paragraph, includ- The Clerk read as follows: ing the amount. MR. COUDERT: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Parliamentarian’s Note: The ra- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will tionale behind disposing of points state it. of order against paragraphs in a MR. COUDERT: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order with respect to general appropriation bill, before the last three lines of that paragraph entertaining amendments thereto, . . . as legislation on an appropriation is that points of order, if sustained, might result in the strik- 7. 95 CONG. REC. 4521, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was H.R. ing of the paragraph, in which 1146, the national military establish- event amendments to such para- ment appropriation bill of 1950. graph would be precluded.

12044 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

Instance Where a Reservation partment of Commerce, including trade promotional activities abroad of Point of Order Against without regard to the provisions of Paragraph in Bill Was Per- law set forth in 44 U.S.C. 3702 and mitted 3703; full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate fam- ilies of employees stationed overseas; § 3.6 Although it is contrary to employment of Americans and aliens established practice, in one by contract for services abroad; rent- instance the Chairman of the al of space abroad for periods not ex- ceeding five years, and expenses of Committee of the Whole per- alteration, repair, or improvement; mitted a Member to reserve a purchase or construction of temporary demountable exhibition struc- point of order against a para- tures for use abroad; payment of tort graph in a general appro- claims, in the manner authorized in priation bill, allowed limited the first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2673 when such claims arise in foreign debate thereon, and then rec- countries; not to exceed $165,200 for ognized the Member who had official representation expenses abroad; awards of compensation to made the reservation. informers under the Export Adminis- On Sept. 19, 1983,(8) during the tration Act of 1979, and authorized by 22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of pas- reading of H.R. 3222, the Com- senger motor vehicles for official use merce, State, Justice, and the Ju- abroad and motor vehicles for law diciary and related agencies ap- enforcement use; $183,831,000, to re- propriations, fiscal 1984, one main available until expended: Pro- vided, That the provisions of the first Member sought recognition to de- sentence of section 105(f) and all of bate the pending paragraph by a section 108(c) of the Mutual Edu- pro forma amendment while an- cational and Cultural Exchange Act other reserved a point of order of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out pending that debate. Chairman these activities. During fiscal year George E. Brown, Jr., of Cali- 1984 and within the resources and fornia, permitted this to happen to authority available, gross obligations avoid a point of order being imme- for the principal amount of direct loans shall not exceed $15,000,000. diately pressed against the para- During fiscal year 1984, total com- graph. mitments to guarantee loans shall The Clerk read as follows: not exceed $30,000,000 of contingent liability for loan principal. INTERNATIONAL TRADE MR. [BILL] FRENZEL [of Minnesota]: ADMINISTRATION Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION last word. For necessary expenses for inter- MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- national trade activities of the De- sylvania]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? 8. 129 CONG. REC. 24638, 98th Cong. MR. FRENZEL: I yield to the gen- 1st Sess. tleman from Pennsylvania.

12045 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I re- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman with- serve a point of order against this sec- draws his reservation of a point of tion of the bill. order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) reserves a Reservation of Points of Order point of order against this section of the bill. § 3.7 A point of order may not MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Chairman, I take be reserved against a para- this time simply to indicate that this is graph in a general appro- an unauthorized section, as was noted in the general debate. But, after dis- priation bill but must be cussing this matter with the distin- made immediately after the guished chairman and the distin- portion of the bill is read or guished ranking member, I think that considered as read, before it will not be necessary to make a amendments are offered. point of order. The House authorization bill, which During the reading of a general was only passed last week, contained appropriation bill in Committee of about $271⁄2 million for this total range the Whole, a point of order of programs. This authorization bill against an amendment may be contains $40 million plus $30 million in loan guarantee authority. The chair- ‘‘reserved’’ so that the text of the man and ranking member have indi- amendment may be examined be- cated that they would like to follow the fore a point of order has to be House authorization as closely as pos- stated. However, this rationale for sible when the bill moves into con- permitting a reservation of a point ference. of order does not exist with re- This is a section of the law which has not been terribly effective, but on spect to the bill text, since Rule the other hand, in light of our present XXI clause 7, requires the report difficulties in this trade area, it is con- to be available for three days be- sidered important to many Members. I fore the bill is called up and the would hope that the Committee of the reported text has been before the Whole would stand easy on this one Members during the general de- and trust the Appropriations Com- mittee to carry it through in con- bate on the bill. ference. Often the manager of the bill THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman will ask unanimous consent that a from Pennsylvania insist upon his portion of the bill encompassing point of order? many paragraphs be ‘‘considered MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, in light as read.’’ When this happens, of the remarks of the distinguished ranking member of the committee that points of order against the bill handles this legislation, I withdraw my text must be made immediately reservation of a point of order. after the request is agreed to and 12046 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3 come too late after amendments MR. WEISS: I thank the Chair, and I have been offered to the pending withdraw my reservation of objection. text. The proceedings of Sept. 16, THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to (9) the request of the gentleman from New 1980, are illustrative: York? THE CHAIRMAN: (10) The Clerk will There was no objection. read. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any points The Clerk read as follows: of order against title VII? SEC. 736. No part of the funds ap- MR. [ELLIOTT H.] LEVITAS [of Geor- propriated under this Act shall be gia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point used to pay salaries of any Federal of order on section 761. employee who is convicted in any THE CHAIRMAN: Is the gentleman Federal, State, or local court of com- making the point of order now? petent jurisdiction, of inciting, promoting, or carrying on a riot, or any MR. ADDABBO: Mr. Chairman, it will group activity resulting in material be my intention, after unanimous con- damage to property or injury to per- sent has been agreed to, to move to sons, found to be in violation of Fed- strike section 761. eral, State, or local laws designed to MR. LEVITAS: I thank the gentleman. protect persons or property in the community concerned. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any points of order at this time? MR. [JOSEPH P.] ADDABBO [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. Chair- POINT OF ORDER man, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as MR. WEISS: Mr. Chairman, I have a read and open to amendment at any point of order. point. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to state his point of order. the request of the gentleman from New MR. WEISS: Mr. Chairman, I object York? to section 736 and rise to make a point MR. [THEODORE S.] WEISS [of New of order against section 736. York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the This provision violates rule XXI, right to object, I ask simply to pro- clause 2, of the rules of the House of pound a parliamentary inquiry. I will Representatives, which forbids legisla- have a point of order to raise against tion in an appropriations bill. one of the sections in this title. Under By permitting the Department of De- the unanimous-consent request that fense to impose funding sanctions has been asked for, would that point of against its employees who are con- order be in order at any time during victed of ‘‘inciting, promoting, or car- consideration of title VII? rying on a riot, or any group activity THE CHAIRMAN: Immediately after resulting in material damage to prop- the unanimous-consent request is erty or injury to persons,’’ section 736 agreed to. is legislation as to the qualifications of the recipients of these appropriations. 9. 126 CONG. REC. 25604, 96th Cong. This cannot be done under the House 2d Sess. rules—see Deschler’s chapter 26, sec- 10. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.). tions 11.36 and 11.26.

12047 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

In addition, the section requires a as legislation—Deschler’s; chapter State-by-State analysis of differing 26, section 16, 12. criminal statutes, and a review of per- Based on this precedent and because sonnel activities at all levels of the the section would require the deter- military. This creation of a new affirm- minations of material damage and the ative duty on the part of a Federal offi- purpose of local governments in enact- cial is legislation and thus impermis- ing laws, the Chair sustains the point sible in an appropriations bill—see of order, and section 736 is stricken Deschler’s chapter 26, sections 10.7, from the bill. 11.38, and 8.9. The precedents of the House clearly § 3.8 The reservation of a point state that legislative changes may not of order against an amend- be made on an appropriations bill. I urge the Chairman to uphold the rules ment at the proper time re- of this body and rule this provision out serves all points of order of order. against the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman On July 19, 1973,(11) Chairman from New York (Mr. Addabbo) desire William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, to be heard on the point of order? upheld the right of Mr. Thomas S. MR. ADDABBO: I do, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the point of order. Foley, of Washington, to make a Mr. Chairman, this is strictly a limi- point of order that he had re- tation on the funds in this bill. They served earlier, although at the pertain only to the Federal employees time of his reservation, he had inas the language is contained in the dicated another basis for a point bill, and, therefore, it is strictly a limi- of order. tation and not legislation. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- MR. [WILLIAM L.] ARMSTRONG [of pared to rule, based on the precedents Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an suggesting that when a Federal official amendment. is called upon to subjectively evaluate The Clerk read as follows: . . . the propriety of individual conduct; MR. FOLEY: Mr. Chairman, I suggest such language constitutes legislation. a point of order would lie against this For example: amendment. I believe we have gone past this section of the bill, and I re- An amendment providing that no serve a point of order.... part of the funds carried in a general appropriations bill may be used for THE CHAIRMAN: The time of the gen- financial assistance for students who tleman from Colorado has expired. have engaged in conduct of a serious The Chair would ask the gentleman nature contributing to a substantial from Washington (Mr. Foley) whether campus disruption and who have used force or the threat thereof to 11. 119 CONG. REC. 24950, 24951, 93d prevent the pursuit of academic aims was held to be imposing new duties Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration and exercise of judgment on the part was H.R. 8860, to amend and extend of Federal officials and was ruled out the Agricultural Act of 1970.

12048 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

the gentleman insists upon his point of On July 19, 1967,(12) Mr. H. R. order? Gross, of Iowa, insisted on making MR. FOLEY: Mr. Chairman, I do. his point of order immediately, al- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will though Mr. Edwin E. Willis, of state his point of order. Louisiana, had expressed his de- MR. FOLEY: Mr. Chairman, I must insist upon my point of order, because sire to reserve the same point of the amendment offered by the gen- order. tleman from Colorado is not germane MR. WILLIS: Mr. Chairman, I reserve to the bill. a point of order against the amend- H.R. 8860 is an agriculture and farm ment. program and deals only with a pro- MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, I make a gram specified under the jurisdiction of point of order against the amendment. the Department of Agriculture. This THE CHAIRMAN: (13) The gentleman amendment offered by the gentleman will state it. from Colorado, which amends the Eco- MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, I make nomic Stabilization Act, was not be- the point of order against the amend- fore the Committee on Agriculture for ment on the grounds that the amend- its consideration and jurisdiction. Ac- ment is not germane to the pending cordingly I suggest the amendment is legislation. not germane to the bill. MR. WILLIS: That is the reservation THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman that I had in mind. from Colorado desire to be heard on MR. GROSS: I have no reservation. I the point of order? am making the point of order. MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Chairman, I do. I would respectfully point out that Reservation of Point of Order this is not the point of order which the Inures to All Members gentleman from Washington earlier reserved, and I would, therefore, inquire § 3.10 A timely reservation of a of the Chair at this point if such a point of order by one Mem- point of order is timely. ber inures to all, and Mem- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from Colo- bers other than the one lodg- rado that the gentleman from Wash- ing the reservation may later ington was heard [to reserve] a point of press a point of order. order, and at that time he did not have A point of order may be re- to state the basis for his reservation. His point of order is now in order. served against a motion to recom-

§ 3.9 The reservation of a point 12. 113 CONG. REC. 19412, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was of order by one Member does H.R. 421, prescribing penalties for not preclude another from travel in interstate commerce to in- pressing the same point of cite riots. order. 13. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.). 12049 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS mit with instructions to report at the end the following new sub- back forthwith, with an amend- section: ‘‘(g)(1) Except as provided by para- ment, since such a motion may be graph (2), any budget submitted to debated for 10 minutes under Congress pursuant to subsection (a) Rule XVI clause 4. for the ensuing fiscal year shall not On July 18, 1990,(14) during con- be in deficit. ‘‘(2) For any fiscal year with re- sideration of the Balanced Budget spect to which the President deter- Act of 1990, a point of order was mines that it is infeasible to submit reserved by Mr. John Conyers, a budget in compliance with paragraph (1), the President shall submit Jr., of Michigan, against an on the same day two budgets, one of amendment offered by Mr. Willis which shall be in compliance with D. Gradison, Jr., of Ohio. The paragraph (1), together with written point of order was first pressed by reasons in support of that deter- another Member and then, after mination.’’.... argument, renewed by Mr. Con- MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. yers. GRADISON

BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1990 MR. GRADISON: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. MR. [BUTLER] DERRICK [of South THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (15) Is Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the the gentleman opposed to the bill? bill (H.R. 5258) to require that the President transmit to Congress, that MR. GRADISON: I am, Mr. Speaker. the congressional Budget Committees THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The report, and that the Congress consider Clerk will report the motion to recom- a balanced budget for each fiscal year, mit. and ask for its immediate consider- The Clerk read as follows: ation. Mr. Gradison moves to recommit The Clerk read the title of the bill. the bill (H.R. 5258) to the Committee The text of H.R. 5258 is as follows: on Rules and the Committee on Gov- ernment Operations with instruc- H.R. 5258 tions to report the same to the Be it enacted by the Senate and House forthwith with the following House of Representatives of the amendment: United States of America in Congress Strike all after the enacting clause assembled, and insert the following:

TITLE I—AMENDMENT TO TITLE 31, SEC. 101. AMENDMENTS CHANG- UNITED STATES CODE ING ‘‘CONCURRENT’’ TO ‘‘JOINT’’ RESOLUTIONS. SEC. 101. SUBMISSION OF BALANCED BUDGET BY THE PRESIDENT. (a) The table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the Congressional Section 1105 of title 31, United Budget and Impoundment Control States Code, is amended by inserting Act of 1974 is amended by striking ‘‘concurrent’’ in the items relating to 14. 136 CONG. REC. 17920, 17930, 17931, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. 15. David E. Skaggs (Colo.).

12050 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

sections 301, 303, and 304 and in- are dealing with. It requires a com- serting ‘‘joint’’.... plete revision of the Budget Act in that we ask the President to sign it. MR. CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object on a point of order. MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his point of order. gentleman will state it. MR. CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, I have MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, the gen- not seen the language that has been tleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] presented. reserved the point of order. Is it in THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The order for the gentleman from South gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Con- Carolina [Mr. Derrick] to make the yers] reserves a point of order. point of order that was reserved by the The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. gentleman from Michigan? Gradison] is recognized for 5 min- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under utes.... the rules of the House, a timely res- MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- ervation of a point of order by one sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- Member inures to any other Member liamentary inquiry. that wishes to press it, and so the gen- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The tleman from South Carolina [Mr. Der- gentleman will state it. rick] is sentitled to press that point of MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, is the order.... gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Con- MR. CONYERS: Mr. Speaker, if I may yers] reserving the right to object on be heard on my point of order, I be- the question of the reading of the mo- lieve that the motion of the gentleman tion, or is he reserving simply a point from Ohio [Mr. Gradison] is not ger- of order? I understood he was reserv- mane because it amends the table of ing the right to object. contents to make it a joint resolution. This is the only way it can be done, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The and in effect it affects all budget reso- Chair understood the gentleman from lutions, not just the Balanced Budget Michigan [Mr. Conyers] to reserve a Act, H.R. 5258. point of order against the motion. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge MR. GRADISON: Mr. Speaker, I yield that the point of order be sustained be- myself such time as I may con- cause it is not germane.... sume.... THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. DERRICK: Mr. Speaker, I have a Chair will apply the fundamental pur- point of order. pose test of germaneness to this mo- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The tion. The underlying legislation is de- gentleman will state his point of order. scribed primarily in the second para- MR. DERRICK: Mr. Speaker, the mo- graph of page 2 of the Rules Com- tion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. mittee report filed with the bill.... Gradison] is out of order. It goes be- For that reason it fails the test of yond the scope of the Budget Act. It is germaneness, and the point of order is entirely out of the scope of what we sustained.

12051 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

§ 3.11 Because the reservation MR. STEED: Mr. Chairman, I con- of a point of order by one tinue to reserve my point of order against the amendment. Member inures to all Mem- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from bers, where one Member re- Maryland is recognized. serves a point of order MR. GERALD R. FORD [of Michigan]: against an amendment and Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary in- the point of order is there- quiry. after overruled or with- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state it. drawn, another Member may MR. GERALD R. FORD: At what point immediately make another does the reservation expire, and at point of order before further what point must the Chair decide the debate is had on the amend- point of order? ment. MR. STEED: Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order. (16) On June 22, 1972, upon the THE CHAIRMAN: Will the gentleman overruling of a point of order state his point of order. raised by Mr. Thomas J. Steed, of MR. STEED: Mr. Chairman, I make a Oklahoma, to an amendment pro- point of order against the amendment posed by Mr. Morris K. Udall, of on the grounds that it is legislation on Arizona, Mr. Howard W. Robison, a general appropriation bill.... of New York, immediately raised THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready another point of order before any to rule...... [I]t is the opinion of the Chair debate could intervene. that these are legitimate limitations. MR. UDALL: Mr. Chairman, I offer an They do not constitute legislation on amendment. an appropriation bill, and the point of The Clerk read as follows:... order is overruled. MR. STEED: Mr. Chairman, I reserve MR. ROBISON of New York: Mr. a point of order against the amend- Chairman, I make a point of order ment. against the amendment offered by the THE CHAIRMAN: (17) The gentleman gentleman from Arizona. from Oklahoma reserves a point of THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear order against the amendment. the gentleman.... The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. MR. UDALL: Mr. Chairman, I wish to Udall) is recognized. . . . be heard on a point of order; in the first place, my esteemed friend from 16. 118 CONG. REC. 22098, 22099, 92d New York (Mr. Robison) did not re- Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration serve a point of order. He is either was H.R. 15585, dealing with Treas- making the same one my friend from ury, Postal Service, and general gov- Oklahoma made, or he is making a dif- ernment appropriations for fiscal ferent one, and the gentleman from 1973. Oklahoma’s point of order has been 17. John S. Monagan (Conn.). ruled upon.

12052 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

He has no right to make a point of and report was defeated, thus per- order, since he did not reserve one, and mitting an amendment in the na- debate had intervened. ture of a limitation to be offered. On the second ground, I think the On this occasion, the so-called Chairman has already covered in his earlier ruling the precise point the gen- Hyde amendment relating to abor- tleman has raised. tion services was offered. No point MR. STEED: Mr. Chairman, may I be of order was actually pressed heard further? against this ‘‘made-known’’ THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, the gentleman amendment, but a point of order is recognized. was reserved and several inquir- Mr. Steed here discussed the ies addressed to the Chair. The point of order. pertinent proceedings of June 30, 1993,(18) are carried herewith: THE CHAIRMAN: The point made by the gentleman from New York is es- THE CHAIRMAN: (19) All time for de- sentially that already made by the gen- bate has expired. tleman from Oklahoma. This bill does The Clerk will read the remaining contain appropriations for the Execu- sentence of the bill. tive Office of the President and the The Clerk read as follows: Chair reads the amendment as being a This Act may be cited as the ‘‘De- limitation upon those appropriations. partments of Labor, Health and And, as pointed out before, the specific Human Services, and Education, and provision is that no part of the appro- Related Agencies Appropriations Act, priations made by this act shall be ex- 1994’’. pended for certain purposes—detailed MR. [WILLIAM H.] NATCHER [of Ken- in the first four paragraphs of the tucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment. The Chair is constrained, Committee do now rise and report the therefore, to overrule the point of bill back to the House with sundry order. amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed § 3.12 The reservation of a to, and that the bill, as amended, do point of order by one Mem- pass. ber inures to all, and any THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on Member may raise other the motion to rise and report offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. points of order if the reserva- Natcher]. tion is withdrawn or the The question was taken, and the point of order is disposed of. Chairman announced that the ayes ap- At the conclusion of the consid- peared to have it. eration of the Labor, Health and 18. 139 CONG. REC. 14891–93, 103d Human Services appropriation Cong. 1st Sess. bill, fiscal 1994, a motion to rise 19. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.). 12053 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

RECORDED VOTE read. In the absence of a point of order or otherwise, the Chair must have the MR. [HENRY J.] HYDE [of Illinois]: Clerk read at this point. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded MR. [HENRY A.] WAXMAN [of Cali- vote. fornia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a A recorded vote was ordered. point of order on the amendment. The vote was taken by electronic de- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from vice, and there were-ayes 190, noes California [Mr. Waxman] reserves a 244, not voting 6, as follows: . . . point of order on the amendment. So the motion to rise and report was The Clerk will report the amend- rejected. ment. The result of the vote was an- The Clerk read as follows: Amend- nounced as above recorded. ment offered by Mr. Hyde of Illinois: MR. NATCHER: Mr. Chairman, after On page 62, after line 10, add the fol- the amendment of the gentleman from lowing new section: Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is offered, I ask Sec. 507. None of the funds appro- unanimous consent that the time to be priated under this Act shall be ex- consumed on the amendment be lim- pended for any abortion except when it is made known to the federal enti- ited to 30 minutes, equally divided, ty or official to which funds are ap- with 15 minutes controlled by the gen- propriated under this Act that such tleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and procedure is necessary to save the 15 minutes by myself. life of the mother or that the preg- nancy is the result of an act of rape THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to or incest.... the request of the gentleman from Kentucky? MR. [JOHN] LINDER [of Georgia]: Mr. MS. [CORRINE] BROWN of Florida: I Chairman, reserving the right to ob- object, Mr. Chairman.... ject, is it correct that this is a non- debatable motion unless it is debated THE CHAIRMAN: Objection is heard. in the unanimous-consent request? AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HYDE THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is correct, there will be no debate on this MR. HYDE: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment unless this or another amendment. unanimous-consent request is agreed THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Chair re- to. mind Members of the status of our pro- MR. LINDER: Mr. Chairman, I object. cedural situation. The gentleman from THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman ob- Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has offered his jects to the unanimous-consent re- amendment. It will be read by the quest. Objection is heard. Clerk. At that point we will turn to a vote in the absence of a unanimous- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY consent request for time to debate. No MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: time is allocated at this point in the Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary proceedings. The Chair has recognized inquiry. the gentleman from Illinois to offer the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rec- amendment and will ask the Clerk to ognize the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.

12054 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

Yates], a member of the Appropria- of a point of order [protects] that right tions Committee for a parliamentary for all Members until a point of order inquiry, but would state first that still is disposed of. pending is the reservation of the gen- Therefore, as long as Mr. Waxman tleman from California [Mr. Waxman], held a point of order in reservation, who has reserved a point of order any other Member could ride on that against the amendment. reservation. That is what the gen- MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, that is tleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has the basis for my parliamentary in- done. quiry. Is the point of order still pend- Does the gentleman wish to pursue ing? his point of order? THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, I with- has not been made. The gentleman re- draw my point of order. served a point of order, and we will THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on have to proceed to that in the absence the amendment offered by the gen- of other procedures here. tleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].... MR. YATES: I should like to reserve a So the amendment was agreed to. point of order as well, Mr. Chair- The result of the vote was an- man.... nounced as above recorded. THE CHAIRMAN: Regular order. Reg- MR. NATCHER: Mr. Chairman, I ular order at this point is the reserva- move that the Committee do now rise tion of the point of order. Does the gen- and report the bill back to the House tleman from California [Mr. Waxman] with sundry amendments, with the or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. recommendation that the amendments Yates] wish to pursue the point of be agreed to and that the bill, as order against the amendment of the amended, do pass. gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]? The motion was agreed to. MR. WAXMAN: Mr. Chairman, I will not pursue my point of order. Reservation of Point of Order MR. YATES: I will pursue my point of Protects All Members Who order. Wish To Make a Point of THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair could not hear the gentleman. Order MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, I will § 3.13 One Member’s reserva- pursue my point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman indi- tion of a point of order cates that he will pursue the point of against an amendment pro- order. The gentleman will state his tects the rights of all Mem- point of order. bers to insist on a point of MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- order if the reservation is sylvania]: Mr. Chairman, point of order later withdrawn. is not timely. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will indi- During the consideration of ag- cate that a reservation by one Member ricultural appropriations for fiscal 12055 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

1985,(20) Mr. David R. Obey, of amendment on the grounds that it Wisconsin, offered a substitute for would constitute legislation on an ap- the pending Walker amendment. propriations bill. Mr. Robert S. Walker, of Pennsyl- THE CHAIRMAN: Against the sub- vania, reserved a point of order stitute, Mr. Obey’s? which he later withdrew. Mr. MR. WHITTEN: Against the substitute. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, MR. OBEY: I do not recall the chair- then pressed a point of order. The man reserving a point of order at the proceedings are included herein. time, and I would think his point MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I offer comes too late. an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: If the gentleman The Clerk read as follows: from Wisconsin would repeat himself Amendment offered by Mr. Walk- for the Chair, please. er: On page 60, after line 18, insert MR. OBEY: Mr. Chairman, it is my the following new section: impression that the chairman did not SEC. 629. Notwithstanding any reserve a point of order at the time other provision of this Act, each that I offered my amendment, and, amount appropriated or otherwise under those circumstances, I would made available in this Act is hereby reduced by one percent.... think that his objection comes too late. Amendment offered by Mr. Obey THE CHAIRMAN: The reservation by as a substitute for the amendment any Member protects all Members. So offered by Mr. Walker: the gentleman from Mississippi’s point SEC. 629. All amounts appro- of order is timely and in order. priated by this Act not required to be appropriated by previously enacted MR. OBEY: But my understanding is law shall be reduced by 64 percent. that Mr. Walker withdrew his point of order. MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I re- THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct, but serve a point of order against the the reservation still prevails. [Obey] amendment.... MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Chairman, the MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point of order. facts are that I was on my feet when ( ) Mr. Walker was recognized. He made THE CHAIRMAN: 1 Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to be the point of order; I did not. I relied on heard? the point of order he made. I asked MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I with- him if he was going to push his point draw my point of order. of order; when he said no, I asked to be recognized on a point of order. POINT OF ORDER THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Chairman, I from Wisconsin wish to be heard make a point of order against the against the point of order? MR. OBEY: Mr. Chairman, if the 20. 130 CONG. REC. 15120–22, 98th Chair is entertaining comments on the Cong. 2d Sess., June 6, 1984. point of order being lodged, I would 1. David E. Bonior (Mich.). simply submit that all the amendment

12056 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3 does is to reduce by a specified amount THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- every account in the bill which is not pared to rule that this is not legisla- required to be appropriated at a spe- tion on an appropriation bill. It pro- cific level by previous law. I would vides for a specific percentage reduc- think, under the circumstances, that it tion in discretionary accounts in the would be in order. base bill accounts identifiable as a matter of law. The point of order is THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from Mississippi wish to be heard? overruled. MR. WHITTEN: I insist, Mr. Chair- man. Reservation of Point of Order, May I say I still have not seen a Renewal Must Be Timely copy of the amendment. I listened as best I could when it was read, but my § 3.14 While the reservation of colleague has not given me a copy of a point of order by one Mem- the amendment. I was trying to get a ber inures to all, the point of copy. order, if withdrawn by the Mr. Chairman, the amendment I Member who made the res- have before me, all amounts appropriated by this act shall not be re- ervation, must be renewed quired to be appropriated by previously by another in a timely fash- enacted law shall be reduced by ion and comes too late after ‘‘blank’’ percent. debate on the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Sixty-four percent. Chairman Don Fuqua, of Flor- MR. WHITTEN: That is the copy that ida, presiding during deliberation I have; ‘‘blank’’ percent. on the International Security As- THE CHAIRMAN: The copy at the desk says 64 percent. sistance Act, fiscal 1979, on Aug. (2) MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Chairman, we 2, 1978, declined to recognize a have a little fun here from time to Member to press a point of order time, but if this were to be adopted, after the proponent of the amend- and goodness knows I hope not, it ment had been recognized for de- would require how much work on the bate. part of the executive branch? It certainly would require additional duties MR. [TOM] HARKIN [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. by the executive branch, the amount of which would be almost limitless. The Clerk read as follows: THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman Amendment offered by Mr. Har- from Wisconsin wish to be heard fur- kin: Page 19, immediately after line 14, insert the following new section ther? 21: MR. OBEY: I would simply say, Mr. Termination of Deliveries of De- Chairman, that this does not impose fense Articles to Chile. any duties on the executive branch; it is a direct reduction in the accounts af- 2. 124 CONG. REC. 23921, 23922, 95th fected. Cong. 2d Sess.

12057 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

SEC. 21. Section 406(a)(2) of the I would like to ask the Chair, since International Security Assistance the gentleman from Wisconsin re- and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 served a point of order, and the gen- is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: tleman from Maryland who was also ‘‘After the date of enactment of the on his feet did not reserve a point of International Security Assistance order because he thought the gen- Act of 1978, no deliveries of defense tleman from Wisconsin was going to articles or services may be made to make a point of order, whether or not Chile pursuant to any sale made be- it would be in order for the gentleman fore the date of enactment of this section, until the Government of from Maryland to make a point of Chile has turned over to U.S. cus- order? tody those Chileans indicted for the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair had rec- murder of Orlando Letelier and ognized the gentleman from Wisconsin Ronni Moffitt. (Mr. Zablocki) for 5 minutes, so the Redesignate existing section 21 of point of order could not be made at the bill as section 22 and correct any cross references thereto. this time. MR. BAUMAN: Can the gentleman MR. [CLEMENT J.] ZABLOCKI [of Wis- from Wisconsin still make his point of consin]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a order at this time? point of order against the amend- THE CHAIRMAN: No, he cannot. ment.... MR. BAUMAN: I thank the Chair. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on his point of order? Discretion of Chair MR. ZABLOCKI: I do not insist on my point of order, to save time. § 3.15 Reservation of a point of Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to order against an amendment the amendment. is within the discretion of THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from the Chair; and if the regular Wisconsin is recognized. order is called for, the Chair MR. ZABLOCKI: Mr. Chairman, I hears and rules on the point think the substantive part of this amendment is identical to the amend- of order as expeditiously as ment introduced earlier by the gen- possible. tleman from California (Mr. Stark). On Apr. 10, 1963,(3) following The Committee has voiced its opinion and I urge and expect the same fate the Clerk’s reading in the Com- for this amendment.... mittee of the Whole, of an amend- MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- ment offered by Mr. Edward P. land]: Mr. Chairman, will the gen- Boland, of Massachusetts, Mr. tleman yield? MR. ZABLOCKI: I yield to the gen- 3. 109 CONG. REC. 6130–32, 88th Cong. tleman from Maryland. 1st Sess. Under consideration was MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Chairman, I thank H.R. 5517, making supplemental ap- the gentleman for yielding. propriations for fiscal 1963.

12058 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

Melvin R. Laird, of Wisconsin, re- against an amendment or served a point of order. whether to dispose of the After debate on the amendment, point of order before debate. the following proceedings took On Oct. 14, 1981,(5) the Chair- place: man of the Committee of the THE CHAIRMAN: (4) Does the gen- Whole allowed a point of order to tleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Laird] de- be reserved against an amend- sire to withdraw his point of order? ment although the proponent of MR. LAIRD: Mr. Chairman, I would the amendment argued for imme- like to reserve the point of order until diate disposition of the point of we study [the amendment]. order as the more orderly method THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair feels that of proceeding. this matter should be disposed of before we proceed further. Amendment offered by Mr. Fin- dley: Page 1, Section 101 of Title I as MR. LAIRD: Mr. Chairman, if that is amended is amended by striking the the case, the only option I have is to punctuation marks and the word insist upon the point of order at this ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (1) point. I would like to study the point, and inserting in lieu thereof the fol- but if the Chair insists that I make the lowing: ‘‘; Provided That, notwithstanding any other provision of this point of order now, I will. Act, if the Secretary estimates as of THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair thinks September 29, 1982, or any date that this is the proper parliamentary thereafter through September 30, procedure. 1985, that net government purchases of dairy products, for any such fiscal MR. LAIRD: I make the point of order year, will equal or exceed four billion against the amendment on the basis pounds of milk equivalent, the sup- that you are legislating in an appro- port price for such fiscal year shall priation bill.... not be in excess of that which was in effect at the end of the previous fis- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman has cal year.’’. had an opportunity to examine the amendment and feels that the matter MR. [TOM] HARKIN [of Iowa]: Mr. discussed is a limitation on the appro- Chairman, I reserve a point of order priation. Therefore the Chair overrules against this amendment. ( ) the point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: 6 The gentleman from Iowa reserves a point of order. Chair’s Discretion Regarding MR. [PAUL] FINDLEY [of Illinois]: Does the gentleman make a point of Reservation of Point of Order order against the amendment? MR. HARKIN: The gentleman wants § 3.16 The Chair has the dis- to hear some of the explanation. The cretion whether to permit a point of order to be reserved 5. 127 CONG. REC. 23882, 23884, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.). 6. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).

12059 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

gentleman is about to raise a point of tinuing the consideration of the order. emergency supplemental appro- MR. FINDLEY: Mr. Chairman, I think priation bill, fiscal 1995. The rule it would facilitate our proceedings if the gentleman would just make the providing for the consideration of point of order and get the question set- the bill required amendments to tled. be pre-printed, so they could not THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman may be redrafted to accommodate the reserve his point of order at the changing amendment situation. Chair’s discretion. Mr. Christopher Shays, of Con- MR. HARKIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve the point of order until necticut, offered an amendment I hear the gentleman’s explanation. At which, in part, amended a figure that point I would like to decide already changed in the amend- whether or not to raise that point of ment process. The proceedings order. were as follows: THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will exercise discretion. The gentleman reserves IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE a point of order.... Accordingly, the House resolved THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will in- itself into the Committee of the Whole quire of the gentleman from Iowa House on the State of the Union for whether he continues to insist upon his the further consideration of the bill reservation. (H.R. 1158) making emergency supple- MR. HARKIN: Mr. Chairman, I with- mental appropriations for additional draw my reservation. disaster assistance and making rescissions for the fiscal year ending Sep- Chair’s Discretion in Permit- tember 30, 1995, and for other pur- ting Reservation of Point of poses, with Mr. Bereuter in the chair. Order The Clerk read the title of the bill. THE CHAIRMAN: (8) . . . Two hours § 3.17 The Chair has the dis- and 3 minutes remain for consider- cretion to permit the res- ation of amendments under the 5- minute rule. ervation of a point of order Are there further amendments to the against an amendment to bill?... permit debate on the merits or he may choose to dispose AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SHAYS of the points of order to con- MR. SHAYS: Mr. Chairman, I offer an serve debate time. amendment listed in the March 13 Congressional Record as amendment ( ) On Mar. 16, 1995, 7 the Com- No. 70. mittee of the Whole was con- THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will designate the amendment. 7. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th Cong. 1st Sess. 8. Douglas Bereuter (Nebr.).

12060 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

The text of the amendment is as fol- THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other lows: Member insist on a point of order at this time? Amendment offered by Mr. Shays: Page 50, beginning on line 6, strike MR. [ROBERT] LIVINGSTON [of Lou- ‘‘$186,000,000 shall be from amounts isiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a earmarked for housing opportunities point of order on the amendment. for persons with AIDS;’’. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Conform the aggregate amount set Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is recog- forth on page 49, line 14, accord- nized on his point of order. ingly. MR. LIVINGSTON: Mr. Chairman, I Page 54, line 18, strike ‘‘$38,000,- 000’’ and insert ‘‘$224,000,000’’. will not make a point of order, but I would like to address a colloquy to the MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: gentleman from Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of THE CHAIRMAN: Is the gentleman order on the amendment. from Louisiana requesting time in op- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from position to the amendment? Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] reserves a point MR. LIVINGSTON: I am asking for the of order. time, Mr. Chairman.... Is the gentleman opposed to the THE CHAIRMAN: Does any Member amendment as well? insist on a point of order? MR. OBEY: Mr. Chairman, I reserve MR. DELAY: Mr. Chairman, I would a point of order on the amendment, like to reserve my point of order. Mr. Chairman, and I claim the time in THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would opposition. ask the gentlemen to insist upon or withdraw their points of order at this THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from time in order to conserve debate time. Connecticut [Mr. Shays] will be recog- R. LIVINGSTON: Mr. Chairman, I nized for 15 minutes, and the gen- M withdraw my point of order. tleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from be recognized for 15 minutes. Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] withdraws The Chair recognizes the gentleman his point of order. from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. MR. SHAYS: Mr. Chairman, I have a MR. [TOM] DELAY [of Texas]: Mr. question to ask of the Chair, a par- Chairman, I also reserve a point of liamentary inquiry. order on this amendment.... THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman recognize the gentleman from Con- from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] wish to necticut [Mr. Shays]. Does the gen- press or withdraw his reservation of a tleman ask unanimous consent to point of order? withdraw his amendment? MR. OBEY: Mr. Chairman, I with- MR. SHAYS: No, I do not ask that. I draw my reservation. I would also have a parliamentary inquiry before I withdraw my request to manage time make that decision. against the amendment. I thought the gentleman was offering a different PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY amendment, and I do not have an ob- MR. SHAYS: Mr. Chairman, I have a jection to this amendment. parliamentary inquiry.

12061 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. state his point of order. MR. SHAYS: Mr. Chairman, I want to MR. DELAY: Mr. Chairman, the gen- be up front with every Member on both tleman’s amendment seeks to amend a sides, even if I do not happen to agree paragraph previously amended, and with them. the procedures in the U.S. House of I want the opportunity to use my 15 Representatives, chapter 27, section minutes to state the case on this issue. 27.1, states the following: If the gentleman withdraws his point It is fundamental that it is not in of order, is he allowed to bring it up in order to amend an amendment pre- the future? viously agreed to. Thus the text of a THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will not bill perfected by amendment cannot insist upon the gentleman from Texas thereafter be amended. [Mr. DeLay] insisting upon or withdrawing his point of order at this time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment He may continue his reservation if he seeks to amend text previously amend- wishes. ed, and is, therefore, not in order. I re- With that ruling, the Chair recog- spectfully ask the Chair to sustain my nizes the gentleman from Connecticut point of order.... [Mr. Shays] on the remainder of his 15 MS. [NANCY] PELOSI [of California]: minutes. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on MR. SHAYS: I thank the Chair. the point of order. I wish to state that My understanding is that I have 9 if the point of order of the gentleman minutes remaining. Is that cor- from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is in order, rect?... that just points to the ultra-restrictive- Mr. Chairman, based on the dialog ness of the rule under which this bill that has taken place in this instance was brought to the floor because we with the chairman, and based on the did abide by—— courtesy of this House for allowing me MR. DELAY: Regular order, Mr. to proceed on an amendment that Chairman.... could have been declared out of order, MRS. [NITA M.] LOWEY [of New I ask unanimous consent to withdraw York]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be this amendment. heard on the gentleman’s point of THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to order. the request of the gentleman from Connecticut? THE CHAIRMAN: The gentlewoman will state her point.... MR. [GERRY E.] STUDDS [of Massa- chusetts]:... Mr. Chairman, in Bos- MR. DELAY: Regular order, Mr. ton this means 244 people sick and Chairman. homeless. That is unacceptable, and I THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- object. pared to rule. THE CHAIRMAN: Objection is heard. Under the precedents recorded in section 31 in chapter 27 of Deschler’s POINT OF ORDER Procedure, the point of order of the MR. DELAY: Mr. Chairman, I have a gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is point of order. sustained. It is consistent with the

12062 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

Chair’s ruling yesterday on the amend- The gentleman is in error. It is en- ment offered by the gentlewoman from tirely at the discretion of the Chair as Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. to whether the point of order will be reserved unless another Member de- § 3.18 A point of order may not mands the regular order. A reservation be reserved against an of a point of order is not in the nature amendment upon a demand of a unanimous-consent request. Regular order was not demanded. for the regular order by any Therefore it is in order for the gen- Member; but the Chair may tleman to persist in his point of order. in his discretion permit the The Chair recognizes the gentleman continued reservation of the from Michigan. point of order until the regular order is demanded. Right of Members On Dec. 14, 1973,(9) in the Com- § 3.19 Reservation of a point of mittee of the Whole, Chairman order against an amendment Richard Bolling, of Missouri, ex- or the continuation of such a plained the nature of the reserva- reservation may be per- tion of a point of order to Mr. mitted by leave of the Com- Craig Hosmer, of California. mittee of the Whole, but any THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman Member may demand that from Michigan insist on his point of order? the point of order be dis- MR. HOSMER: Mr. Chairman, a par- posed of. liamentary inquiry. On Apr. 4, 1973,(10) on demand It is my understanding that when a for regular order by Mr. H. R. point of order is made that the rules require that the ruling be made there- Gross, of Iowa, Mr. Gerald R. on, and that when a Member reserves Ford, of Michigan, was compelled the point of order it is in the nature to either make or withdraw his re- only of a unanimous-consent request served point of order: and, therefore, when that request is objected to, that thereafter he can no MR. [JOHN R.] RARICK [of Louisiana]: longer pursue the point of order which Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. he has reserved. The Clerk read as follows: MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- Amendment offered by Mr. Rarick: gan]: Mr. Chairman, the Chair has al- Page 15, after line 11 insert: ready ruled on this. ‘‘Sec. 10. No funds provided under THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair needs no the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, assistance in this matter. 10. 119 CONG. REC. 10935, 10936, 93d 9. 119 CONG. REC. 41738, 93d Cong. 1st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration Sess. Under consideration was H.R. was H.R. 5683, which was to amend 11450, the Energy Emergency Act. the Rural Electrification Act.

12063 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

as amended, shall be used outside The Chair therefore overrules the the United States or any of its pos- point of order. sessions. (And renumber the remaining paragraphs.)’’ Effect of Demanding Regular ( ) THE CHAIRMAN: 11 For what purpose Order Where a Point of Order does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Gerald R. Ford) rise? Has Been Reserved Against MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Chair- an Amendment man, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. § 3.20 Where the proponent of THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from an amendment against which Louisiana (Mr. Rarick) is recognized a point of order has been re- for 5 minutes.... served has been recognized MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Chair- to debate the amendment, he man, I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas several questions before I cannot during his five min- either renew or withdraw my reserva- utes be taken from the floor tion. by a ‘‘demand for the regular MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, regular order.’’ order. (12) THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has On Aug. 1, 1975, the Com- permission to reserve his point of mittee of the Whole had under order. consideration the Energy Con- MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, I make servation and Oil Policy Act of the point of order that he must insti- 1975. During the reading of the tute his reservation. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman bill for amendment under the five- wish to withdraw his point of order minute rule, an amendment was and seek recognition? offered by Mr. Clarence J. Brown, MR. GERALD R. FORD: No. I want to of Ohio, against which two Mem- make the point of order. I do not think bers reserved points of order. The the amendment is germane to the general purposes of the bill. proponent of the amendment was I appreciate the gentleman from then recognized for his five min- Iowa giving me an opportunity to ask utes, during which time, he was the gentleman from Texas a question asked to yield for a parliamentary or two. inquiry. The proceedings are car- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready ried below: to rule on the point of order. It is the opinion of the Chair that MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a restriction on the I offer an amendment. use of funds authorized under the REA The Clerk read as follows: program and is germane to the bill. 12. 121 CONG. REC. 26945, 26946, 94th 11. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.). Cong. 1st Sess.

12064 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

Amendment offered by Mr. Brown prove the bill so that we can proceed of Ohio: Strike out Title III, as from the point at which we find our- amended, and reinsert all except for selves to a bill which could be im- Section 301, as amended. proved to the extent that perhaps it MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- can be signed into law, which ought to gan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point be our objective, I think, as Members of order against the amendment. of Congress.... MR. [BOB] ECKHARDT [of Texas]: Mr. MR. [WILLIAM A.] STEIGER of Wis- Chairman, I also reserve a point of consin: Mr. Chairman, will the gen- order. tleman yield for a parliamentary in- MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, quiry? the thrust of this amendment is to MR. BROWN of Ohio: I yield to the strike from the bill the provisions of gentleman from Wisconsin. the Staggers pricing amendment, sec- MR. STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. tion 301, by revising title III to strike Chairman, if the regular order were the whole title and to reinsert all in demanded, would the point of order the title, except section 301. have to be stated? Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state amendment? to the gentleman that it is proper for a (13) THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman Member to reserve a point of order. has been recognized for 5 minutes, so MR. STEIGER of Wisconsin: I thank the gentleman may proceed. the Chairman. MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, MR. BROWN of Ohio: I thank the gen- may I reserve 2 minutes of my time to tleman from Wisconsin.... speak on the points of order? We were very close to agreement a THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rec- few days ago, and that agreement fell ognize the gentleman to speak on the apart. I think there is a chance for us points of order at the appropriate time. to get an energy bill. But there is no MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I have chance with this provision in it. My ob- not yet made the point of order. I re- jective is only to try to get a bill, get served it. this part out of it that will prevent us THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has rec- from getting a bill and will give us an ognized the gentleman from Ohio to opportunity to proceed in a rational speak on the gentleman’s amendment manner. for 5 minutes. Then the gentlemen who reserved the points of order may press MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, I them or they may not. raise a point of order against the amendment. MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment, as I THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will said, is to strike section 301, the pric- state it.... ing section, from the bill. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. The reason for striking the pricing Brown) desire to be heard on the point section from the bill is an effort to im- of order? MR. BROWN of Ohio: Perhaps, Mr. 13. Richard Bolling (Mo.). Chairman, it would be appropriate to

12065 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

hear both points of order. Or does the MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: Chair desire me to respond to each Mr. Chairman, I make the point of point of order as it is raised? order that this is legislation on an ap- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman may propriation bill.... proceed as he wishes in response to the MR. BENNETT of Florida: Mr. Chair- points of order. man, does not the point of order come MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, too late? The gentleman from New let me say, in response to the first York did not reserve a point of order. ground for the point of order that the THE CHAIRMAN: It did not. gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) raised, stating that this amendment § 3.22 Where a point of order is comes too late, it is appropriate to offer reserved against an amend- the amendment because the title is ment and later withdrawn, open now at any point for amendment, and this is an amendment to title III. another Member may press another point of order. Effect of Withdrawal of Res- On Mar. 27, 1962,(15) during de- ervation bate on an amendment offered by Mr. William Fitts Ryan, of New § 3.21 The reservation of a York, to an appropriations bill, point of order being with- Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode Is- drawn, another Member may land, first reserved a point of immediately renew it. order, then withdrew it before Mr. On July 28, 1959,(14) Chairman James C. Davis, of Georgia, was Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, had recognized to make his point of occasion to address the propriety order. The Chairman ruled the of a point of order raised after an- point of order by Mr. Davis did other point had been withdrawn. not come too late.

MR. [CHARLES E.] BENNETT of Flor- MR. FOGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I re- ida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend- serve the point of order.... ment. MR. JAMES C. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, The Clerk read as follows: . . . is it in order for me at this time to MR. [OTTO E.] PASSMAN [of Lou- make a point of order against the isiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point amendment? of order against the amendment, and THE CHAIRMAN: (16) The gentleman will reserve the point of order.... from Rhode Island has reserved his Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order. 15. 108 CONG. REC. 5164, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 14. 105 CONG. REC. 14524, 14525, 86th 10904, involving appropriations for Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration the Department of Health, Edu- was H.R. 8385, making appropria- cation, and Welfare for fiscal 1963. tions for certain programs. 16. Omar T. Burleson (Tex.).

12066 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3 point of order. Does the gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: Not under the cir- from Rhode Island insist on the point cumstances. The Chair would assume of order? there is a possibility of more than one MR. FOGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I point of order being made and for more waive the point of order. I have stated than one reason. my reasons as to why the amendment The Chair recognizes the gentleman should be defeated and I ask the com- from Georgia. mittee to vote down the amendment. MR. JAMES C. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, MR. JAMES C. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the a parliamentary inquiry. amendment on the ground that it is THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will legislation on an appropriation bill. state the parliamentary inquiry. Similarly, on Feb. 28, 1939,(17) Mr. MR. JAMES C. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, Abe Murdock, of Utah, was allowed to is it in order for me to make a point of make a point of order after Mr. Louis order against the amendment?... Ludlow, of Indiana, withdrew a point MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: of order that he had earlier reserved: Mr. Chairman, has not the point of MR. LUDLOW: Mr. Chairman, I re- order been waived by the gentleman serve a point of order against the from Rhode Island speaking to the amendment. question? MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair under- Why not make the point of order? stood that the gentleman from Rhode MR. LUDLOW: My attention was di- Island was speaking to his point of verted from the reading of the amend- order and insisted then on the defeat ment, and I should like to know more of the amendment. about the amendment before making MR. YATES: That is correct, Mr. the point of order.... Chairman, and, therefore, no point of Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my res- order is proper at this time. ervation of a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from MR. MURDOCK of Utah: Mr. Chair- Georgia [Mr. James C. Davis] now man, on the question of the point of states he was on his feet attempting to order—— press a point of order against the (18) amendment, but the Chair had under- THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose stood that the gentleman from Rhode does the gentleman from Utah rise? Island did insist on his point of order. MR. MURDOCK of Utah: On the ques- However, the Chair was in error as to tion of the point of order to the amend- that and the gentleman from Georgia ment of the gentleman from New York, is now recognized to make his point of and may I propound this parliamen- order. tary inquiry? MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, one final parliamentary inquiry. 17. 84 CONG. REC. 2021–23, 76th Cong. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will 1st Sess. Under consideration was state it. H.R. 4492, involving the Treasury MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, does not and printing office appropriation for the point of order by the gentleman fiscal 1940. from Georgia come too late? 18. John W. Boehne, Jr. (Ind.).

12067 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will The Clerk read as follows: . . . state it. MR. MAHON: Mr. Chairman, I re- MR. MURDOCK of Utah: As I under- serve a point of order on the amend- stood the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ment. Ludlow], he reserved all points of order (20) against the amendment offered by the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman gentleman from New York. from Texas reserves a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is MR. [FRANK T.] BOW [of Ohio]: Mr. correct. Chairman, I reserve a point of order MR. MURDOCK of Utah: Then, as I also. understand the rules, the gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from cannot deprive me, after making that Ohio reserves a point of order.... reservation, in the event he does not The Chair notes that a point of order want to make the point of order, of is pending. making a point of order myself against the amendment at this time. MR. MAHON: Mr. Chairman, I have THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has now had an opportunity to read the the right to make the point of order. gentleman’s amendment, and I with- MR. MURDOCK of Utah: Then I make draw my point of order. the point of order at this time, Mr. MR. BOW: Mr. Chairman, I renew Chairman. the point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will § 3.23 Where a Member restate his point of order. serves a point of order against an amendment and Withdrawal of Reserved Point then, after debate on the of Order amendment, withdraws the point of order, the point of § 3.24 While the reservation of order may yet be renewed a point of order by one Mem- and pressed by another ber inures to all, withdrawal Member. of a reservation by the Mem- ber requires other Members On Oct. 28, 1969,(19) after the withdrawal of a point of order re- to either make or continue to served by Mr. George H. Mahon, reserve the point of order at of Texas, the point of order was that point, and a further res- renewed by another Member. ervation comes too late after MR. [JEFFREY] COHELAN [of Cali- there has been debate. fornia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an (1) amendment. On Dec. 15, 1982, a point of order had been reserved against 19. 115 CONG. REC. 31886, 31888, 91st an amendment offered in the Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was H.J. Res. 966, dealing with con- 20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.). tinuing appropriations for fiscal 1. 128 CONG. REC. 30938, 30939, 97th 1970. Cong. 2d Sess.

12068 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

Committee of the Whole. When THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair under- the reservation was withdrawn, stands that the gentleman from Michi- the amendment was debated and gan (Mr. Dingell) reserves a point of then another Member attempted order? MR. DINGELL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. to reserve a point of order. The MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, proceedings are carried below. I think the point of order is too late, is MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio it not? (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I THE CHAIRMAN: It is a reservation of ask unanimous consent that the a point of order. amendment be considered as read and MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, printed in the Record. may I ask, can a reservation of a point THE CHAIRMAN: (2) Is there objection of order come at any time? I had yield- to the request of the gentleman from ed to the Speaker, and the debate had Ohio? begun on the amendment. There was no objection. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is (Mr. Brown of Ohio asked and was correct. A point of order was reserved given permission to revise and extend and then withdrawn, and the gen- his remarks.) tleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) was THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from recognized for 5 minutes on his amend- Ohio (Mr. Brown) will be recognized ment and had yielded. The point of for 5 minutes in support of his amend- order cannot be reserved at this time. ment. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. The Chair will inquire, does the gen- Brown) is recognized for 5 minutes. tleman from New York (Mr. Ottinger) continue to reserve his point of order on the amendment? Reserving Points of Order MR. [RICHARD L.] OTTINGER [of New Against General Appropria- York]: No, Mr. Chairman, I will drop tion Bills my reservation of a point of order. MR. [THOMAS P.] O’NEILL [of Massa- § 3.25 Points of order against chusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? general appropriation bills MR. BROWN of Ohio: I yield to the are now ‘‘considered as re- distinguished Speaker. served’’ when the bill is re- MR. O’NEILL: Mr. Chairman, I thank ported. the gentleman for yielding, and I would just like to make the following Before clause 8 was added to statement:... Rule XXI in the 104th Congress, MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, points of order against general ap- I thank the distinguished Speaker. propriation bills had to be re- MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- served, on the floor of the House, gan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. when the bill was reported and referred to the Union Calendar. If 2. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.). this window of opportunity was 12069 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS missed, points of order could a report was filed by the Committee on thereafter be reserved only by Appropriations on August 12, 1976, unanimous consent. pursuant to permission granted on Au- gust 10, 1976. The rationale for reserving THE SPEAKER: (4) Is there objection to points of order had its basis in the the request of the gentleman from requirement that the consider- Ohio? ation of an appropriation bill had There was no objection. to occur in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Reservation of Points of Order, Union. It followed that the en- General Appropriation Bills forcement of Rule XXI clause 2 prohibiting legislative provisions § 3.26 Under Rule XXI clause 8, in a general appropriation bill, ei- adopted in the 104th Con- ther in the measure as reported or gress, points of order on gen- introduced by amendment, had to eral appropriation bills are occur in that Committee. While of- ‘‘considered as reserved’’ fending provisions could be strick- when the report is filed. en by amendment, they could be The proceedings of Feb. 10, eliminated from the bill as the re- 1995,(5) demonstrate that when a sult of a ruling on a point of order general appropriation bill is filed only if the House gave such per- from the floor as privileged, the mission. Speaker indicates that points of An instance where points of order order are reserved. were not reserved when the report was REPORT ON H.R. 889, DEPARTMENT OF filed, but were subsequently reserved, DEFENSE EMERGENCY SUPPLE- occurred on Aug. 23, 1976.(3) MENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 1995 PERMISSION TO RESERVE ALL POINTS MR. [ROBERT] LIVINGSTON [of Lou- OF ORDER ON H.R. 15194, PUBLIC isiana], from the Committee on Appro- WORKS EMPLOYMENT APPROPRIATION priations, submitted a privileged report ACT, 1977 (Rept. No. 104–29) on the bill (H.R. MR. [CLARENCE E.] MILLER of Ohio: 889) making emergency supplemental Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent appropriations and rescissions to pre- that I may reserve all points of order serve and enhance the military readi- on the bill H.R. 15194 making appro- ness of the Department of Defense for priations for public works employment the fiscal year ending September 30, for the period ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, which 1977, and for other purposes, on which 4. Carl Albert (Okla.). 3. 122 CONG. REC. 27141, 94th Cong. 5. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th 2d Sess. Cong. 1st Sess.

12070 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

was referred to the Union Calendar the Department of Education, for and ordered to be printed. fiscal 1976, was under consider- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (6) All points of order are reserved on the bill. ation in Committee of the Whole. One of the ‘‘general provisions’’ of Reserving Points of Order the bill was read by the Clerk and Mr. Fortney H. (Pete) Stark, of § 3.27 A point of order against California, attempted to reserve a a paragraph in a general appoint of order so that debate on propriation bill must be the provision could proceed. raised (and may not be re- Chairman James C. Wright, Jr., served) immediately after of Texas, stated that the point of the paragraph is read. order had to be made, not re- In the practice of the House, served. Proceedings were as indi- points of order may be reserved cated. against amendments but not THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will read. against provisions in a bill being The Clerk read as follows: read for amendment. Permitting a Sec. 805. No part of the funds appoint of order to be reserved when propriated under this Act shall be an amendment is offered does not used to provide a loan, guarantee of unduly interfere with the consid- a loan, a grant, the salary of or any remuneration whatever to any indi- eration of the matter before the vidual applying for admission, at- House or Committee of the Whole, tending, employed by, teaching at, or so long as the point of order is dis- doing research at an institution of posed of, or the reservation with- higher education who has engaged in conduct on or after August 1, 1969, drawn, before an amendment in which involves the use of (or the as- the second degree is offered or be- sistance to others in the use of) force fore the question is put on the or the threat of force or the seizure of property under the control of an amendment. The reservation of a institution of higher education, to re- point of order against an amend- quire or prevent the availability of ment is at the Chair’s discretion certain curriculum, or to prevent the and he, or any Member, may faculty, administrative officials, or students in such institution from en- press for the ‘‘regular order’’ gaging in their duties or pursuing which causes the point of order to their studies at such institution. be withdrawn or stated and decided. MR. STARK: Mr. Chairman, I would ( ) like to reserve a point of order against On Apr. 16, 1975, 7 the bill section 305. making annual appropriations for THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair advises that this is the time to make a point of 6. J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.). order against section 305. The Chair 7. 121 CONG. REC. 10375, 94th Cong. recognizes the gentleman from Cali- 1st Sess. fornia for a point of order.

12071 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. STARK: Mr. Chairman, I rise to considering an appropriation bill for make a point of order against section education, was confronted with the 305 on the grounds that it imposes ad- same point of order. ditional burdens and duties on Govern- The Chair finds that the provision ment executives and is legislation on under contest in the precedent, cited an appropriations bill, and is in viola- by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, tion of clause 2 of rule XXI.... was for all purposes identical to the So I submit this is legislation on an provision contained in the present bill. appropriations act and should be ruled It was held on that occasion that it out of order. was a legitimate limitation on an ap- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman propriation bill. Consistent with that from Pennsylvania wish to be heard on precedent, and because the precedents the point of order? cited by the gentleman from California MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsyl- are clearly distinguishable, the Chair vania]: I do, Mr. Chairman. overrules the point of order. Mr. Chairman, this language has been in this bill for many, many years, § 3.28 Where a point of order since 1969 anyhow. We have always was reserved against a para- considered this to be a limitation on an graph in a general appro- appropriation bill. priation bill, the manager of Mr. Chairman, I refer the Chair to the bill then ‘‘modified the ‘‘Deschler’s Procedure,’’ chapter 25, page 280, section 15.4, where I find paragraph’’ and the point of this language: order was subsequently not An amendment providing that no pressed. part of the funds carried in a pend- On Mar. 7, 1991,(8) during con- ing general appropriation bill may be used for financial assistance for stu- sideration of the dire emergency dents who have engaged in force or supplementary bill, a point of have used the threat of force to pre- order was reserved against a vent faculty or students from carrying out their duties or studies, was paragraph containing legislative held in order as a limitation. 115 provisions. The following colloquy CONG. REC. 21636, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 31, 1969 (H.R. 13111). then took place, the paragraph was modified to satisfy a jurisdic- That was sustained in the 91st Con- tional concern, and the point of gress, 1st session. I remember that very well, indeed.... order withdrawn. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- THE CHAIRMAN: (9) . . . The Clerk pared to rule on the point of will report the next paragraph in disorder.... pute. In the case cited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Holifield 8. 137 CONG. REC. 5497, 5498, 102d on July 31, 1969, while presiding over Cong. 1st Sess. the Committee of the Whole House, in 9. Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio).

12072 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

The Clerk read as follows: Is there objection to the request of Page 28, beginning on line 13, the gentleman from Virginia? There was no objection. CHAPTER X The text of chapter X, as modified, is as follows: GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION None of the funds made available CHAPTER X by this or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used by the GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION General Services Administration to None of the funds made available obligate or expend any funds for the by this or any other Act with respect award of contracts for the construc- to any fiscal year may be used by the tion of the Northern Virginia Naval General Services Administration to Systems Command Headquarters obligate or expend any funds for the project without advance approval in award of contracts for the construc- writing of the House Committee on tion of the Northern Virginia Naval Appropriations. Systems Command Headquarters project without advance approval in THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman writing of the House Committee on from New Jersey [Mr. Roe] wish to be Public Works and Transportation heard on his point of order? and the House Committee on Appro- MR. [ROBERT A.] ROE [of New Jer- priations. sey]: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman point of order against the provision of from New Jersey [Mr. Roe] insist on title II, chapter X, entitled ‘‘General his point of order? Services Administration’’ beginning on MR. ROE: No, I do not, Mr. Chair- page 28, lines 14 through 21. That pro- man. I withdraw my point of order. vision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it again is recommending legislation in an appropriations bill. Reservation of Point of Order THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- Against Bill Text Not in nizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Order Wolf]. MR. [FRANK R.] WOLF [of Virginia]: § 3.29 A point of order may not Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- be reserved against a portion sent that the provision entitled ‘‘Gen- of text of an appropriation eral Services Administration’’ be modi- bill (as opposed to an amend- fied by inserting in line 21, after the word ‘‘the,’’ the words, ‘‘House Com- ment) but must be stated and mittee on Public Works and Transpor- pressed immediately after tation and the’’.... the paragraph is read and THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from before debate or amend- Virginia [Mr. Wolf] seeks unanimous ments are offered. consent to modify the language subject to the reservation of the point of order During the reading of the of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Treasury-Postal appropriation bill, Roe]. fiscal 1992, a long paragraph 12073 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS funding named projects in dif- The Clerk read as follows: ferent states was offered. The Provided That each of the imme- paragraph had in it a long and diately foregoing limits of costs on new construction projects may be ex- complicated series of provisos. ceeded to the extent that savings are During the reading of the para- effected in other such projects, but graph, Mr. James A. Traficant, by not to exceed 10 per centum: Pro- vided further, That all funds for di- Jr., of Ohio, attempted to reserve rect construction projects shall ex- a point of order. The proceedings pire on September 30, 1993, and re- of June 18, 1991,(10) were as indi- main in the Federal Buildings Fund except funds for projects as to which cated. funds for design or other funds have The Clerk read as follows: been obligated in whole or in part prior to such date: Provided further, Georgia: That claims against the Government Atlanta, Center for Disease Con- of less than $100,000 arising from trol, $5,000,000 direct construction projects, acquisi- Florida: tions of buildings and purchase con- Fort Myers, Federal Building and tract projects pursuant to Public U.S. Courthouse, $977,000 Law 92–313, be liquidated with prior Tallahassee, U.S. Courthouse notification to the Committees on Annex, $3,764,000.... Appropriations of the House and Senate to the extent savings are ef- POINT OF ORDER fected in other such projects: Pro- vided further, That to the extent that MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, I savings can be effected in other Fed- rise to a point of order. eral Buildings Fund activities, the GSA shall seek reprogramming of up THE CHAIRMAN: (11) The gentleman to $16,200,000 to supplement funds will state his point of order. previously authorized and appro- MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, I priated for the NOAA laboratory, raise now a point of order starting on Boulder, Colorado, subject to the ap- page 31, line 1, with the word ‘‘pro- proval of the House and Senate Com- vided,’’ and continue it down to and in- mittees on Appropriations according cluding line 15, up to ‘‘in other such to existing reprogramming procedures: Provided further, That such projects.’’ funds will be obligated only upon the THE CHAIRMAN: What is the point of advance approval of the House Com- order of the gentleman? mittee on Public Works and Trans- MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, I portation; (2) not to exceed further reserve the right to object to $569,251,000 which shall remain available until expended, for repairs other elements within that section, and and alterations: Provided further, wait for a ruling on this section. That funds in the Federal Buildings THE CHAIRMAN: First let the Clerk Fund for Repairs and Alterations read that paragraph. shall, for prospectus projects, be limited to the amount by project as follows: except each project may be in- 10. 137 CONG. REC. 15208, 15209, 102d creased by an amount not to exceed Cong. 1st Sess. 10 per centum unless advance ap- 11. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.). proval is obtained from the Commit-

12074 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

tees on Appropriations of the House THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman and Senate of a greater amount: from California [Mr. Roybal] wish to be heard on the point of order? POINT OF ORDER MR. [EDWARD R.] ROYBAL [of Cali- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the Chair un- fornia]: Mr. Chairman, the committee derstand that the point of order of the concedes the point of order. gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] is THE CHAIRMAN: The committee con- directed solely to page 31, lines 1 cedes the point of order, the point of through 15? order is sustained, and the language in MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, the question is stricken, but the proviso on first part of that is line 1 through line lines 15 through 22 of page 31 remains 15, including and up to ‘‘in other such in the bill. projects.’’ Then I want to reserve a point of Parliamentarian’s Note: All of order commencing later on on that the paragraph was stricken by the page. I am prepared to object to those point of order except for the pro- other items now, if it would be the will viso shown in italics in the ex- of the Chair. cerpt above. THE CHAIRMAN: It would be appropriate for the gentleman to make any Reservation of Point of Order and all points of order he may have against that paragraph at this time. Not Possible Where No De- MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, in bate Time Remains addition to that, commencing on line 22, with the words, ‘‘provided further,’’ § 3.30 Where an amendment is and continuing on, until page 32, line not subject to debate, a point 8. of order may not be reserved THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair under- against it but must be stated stands the point of order of the gen- and pressed immediately fol- tleman from Ohio to go to the entirety lowing the reading of the of the paragraph beginning on page 31, line 1. Is that correct? amendment. MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, all On June 19, 1991,(12) during except line 15, ‘‘provided further,’’ prolonged consideration of the through line 22, ‘‘provided further.’’ International Cooperation Act That section, with Federal building funds activities, I do not strike. under the five-minute rule, an THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will amendment was offered by Mr. state his point of order, now that he Lee H. Hamilton, of Indiana. The has designated it. amendment was not subject to de- MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, bate because of the terms of the under clause 2, rule XXI of House rules, for constituting legislation in an 12. 137 CONG. REC. 15477, 102d Cong. appropriation bill. 1st Sess.

12075 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS special rule which governed the train of thought as my colleague, the debate on this measure. Pro- gentleman from Pennsylvania. ceedings were as follows: No. 1, I would ask, is this amendment in order? And No. 2, would it not AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HAM- in effect emasculate the Volkmer ILTON TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED amendment so that aid could go to Jor- BY MR. VOLKMER AS A SUBSTITUTE dan? FOR THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The MR. BURTON OF INDIANA, AS AMEND- Chair will state that the Hamilton ED amendment is drafted as an amendment to the Volkmer substitute. The MR. HAMILTON: Mr. Chairman, I Chair cannot characterize the amend- offer an amendment to the amendment ment. offered as a substitute for the amendment, as amended. MR. BURTON of Indiana: I thank the Chair. The Clerk read as follows: THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Does Amendment offered by Mr. Ham- the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. ilton to the amendment offered by Walker] insist on his point of order? Mr. Volkmer as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Burton of MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I re- Indiana, as amended: Strike out the serve a point of order on the amend- period at the end of the section pro- ment. posed to be added by the Volkmer THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The substitute and insert in lieu thereof Chair states that no debate is in order the following: ‘‘unless the President certifies to the appropriate congres- on this amendment, so the point of sional committees that such assist- order should be disposed of now. ance is in the national interest of the United States.’’. POINT OF ORDER

THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: (13) MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I make The Chair will state that this amend- a point of order on the amendment, ment will have no debate. that the amendment is being offered in MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- the third degree, and, therefore, it is sylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a not eligible for consideration in the point of order on the amendment. House. THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Chair will state that the amendment to MR. [DAN] BURTON of Indiana: Mr. the substitute is not in the third de- Chairman, I have a parliamentary in- gree, but is in the second degree. quiry. The question is on the amendment THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The offered by the gentleman from Indiana gentleman will state his parliamentary [Mr. Hamilton] to the amendment of- inquiry. fered by the gentleman from Missouri MR. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Chair- [Mr. Volkmer] as a substitute for the man, I may be following the same amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], as amend- 13. Jim McDermott (Wash.). ed.

12076 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 3

Reserving a Point of Order States from obtaining for military recruiting purposes— § 3.31 A Member may reserve a (1) entry to campuses or access to students on campuses; or point of order against an of- (2) access to directory information fered amendment to ascer- pertaining to students; consistent tain from its author the in- with applicable law.... tention or meaning of the MR. BOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, I re- language. serve a point of order with respect to the amendment offered by the gen- On May 4, 1994,(14) the House tleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. had under consideration the Na- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from tional Science Foundation author- Virginia [Mr. Boucher] reserves a point of order against the amendment. The ization bill (H.R. 3254). During gentleman from New York [Mr. Sol- consideration of the bill for omon] is recognized for 5 minutes in amendment under the five-minute support of his amendment. rule, Mr. Gerald B. H. Solomon, of MR. BOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, will New York, offered an amendment the gentleman yield? MR. SOLOMON: I yield to the gen- and the manager of the bill, Mr. tleman from Virginia. Rick Boucher, of Virginia, re- MR. BOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, I served a point of order. The re- thank the gentleman for yielding to sulting colloquy is carried here. me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to propound a AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SOLOMON question with respect to how the gen- MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Chairman, I offer tleman interprets the recent addition an amendment. that was made to the base text amendment. The addition that is written in The Clerk read as follows: on this amendment on line 7, following Amendment offered by Mr. Sol- the phrase that is denumerated para- omon: graph number 2, says, ‘‘consistent with At the end of Title II, add the fol- applicable law.’’. . . lowing new section: MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Virginia that he SEC. 213. DENIAL OF AWARDS OF GRANTS OR CONTRACTS TO EDU- knows that we had a problem in draft- CATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH ing the amendment to make it ger- PREVENT MILITARY RECRUITING. mane. Even though I believe that it is a limitation amendment, which should (a) DENIAL OF FUNDS.—The Direc- tor may not make a grant or award be allowed, I have every reason to be- a contract to any educational institu- lieve the Parliamentarians would rule tion that has a policy of denying, or against me and in favor of the gen- which effectively prevents, any of the tleman raising a point of order against military services of the United it. Therefore, we had to modify it by 14. 140 CONG. REC. p. , 103d adding the terms ‘‘consistent with ap- Cong. 2d Sess. plicable law.’’

12077 Ch. 31 § 3 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

It does apply to line 6 as well. In ef- explicit in defining when a point fect, it makes this a sense-of-Congress of order is timely. For example, a resolution rather than binding. We point of order against a privileged would hope to pass it over here in this resolution is properly raised when forum and then have the Senate adopt it in its original form where it will be- it is called up, before debate is ( ) come law. had on the resolution. 15 Simi- MR. BOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, if the larly, a point of order against gentleman will continue to yield, I ‘‘consideration’’ is timely when the thank the gentleman for his expla- measure is called up.(16) A point of nation.... order against a report involving I ask the gentleman this additional the privileges of the House is question: Does the gentleman believe properly raised after the report is that he is adding any requirements read,(17) whereas points of order that do not already exist in present law through the general text of his against conference reports are amendment? Will this amendment, if made after the reading of the re- adopted, change the required conduct port and before the reading of the of universities in terms of the access statement of the managers in ex- and information they provide? planation of the report.(18) MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman, it is not my intention, by rendering this new modification, to create new law. It is appli- Challenging Privileged Status cable law. That is my intent.... of a Resolution THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] has reserved a § 4.1 A point of order ques- point of order. Does the gentleman tioning the privilege of a res- wish to press the point of order? olution reported by the Com- MR. BOUCHER: Mr. Chairman, I mittee on Rules has been en- withdraw the reservation of the point tertained when the resolu- of order. tion was called up before the reading of the resolution by the Clerk. § 4. Timeliness On Aug. 19, 1964,(19) before the It is essential that a point of Clerk read the text of a privileged order be raised at the proper time 15. See § 4.1, infra. if it is to be entertained by the 16. See § 4.2, infra. Chair. Generally, a point of order 17. See § 4.5, infra. comes too late after debate on the 18. See § 4.4 and Ch. 33, infra. matter has commenced; but the 19. 110 CONG. REC. 20212, 20213, 88th precedents are sometimes more Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration

12078 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4 resolution, it was determined to The House of Representatives be timely for a Member to raise a and the Senate have sometimes point of order against it. reached different interpretations of provisions of the Congressional MR. [HOWARD W.] SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolu- Budget Act of 1974. Such was the tion 845 and ask for its immediate con- case in 1975 when the House, act- sideration. ing first on the legislation, per- MR. [JAMES G.] O’HARA of Michigan: mitted consideration of the Inter- Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order. national Development Act of 1975, ( ) THE SPEAKER: 20 The gentleman will H.R. 9005, the Speaker overruling state it. a point of order that the bill could MR. O’HARA of Michigan: Mr. Speak- er, I make a point of order against the not be considered because of a consideration of House Resolution 845 provision defining certain loan re- on the grounds that the Committee on ceipts under the bill as being ‘‘au- Rules is without jurisdiction to bring thorized to be made available.’’ such resolution to the floor of the The Speaker found evidence in House under the provisions of rule 16 the bill that the receipts were of the Rules of the House of Represent- atives, and I ask permission to be available only through the appro- heard on the point of order. priations process. THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear The House proceedings of Sept. the gentleman. 10, 1975,(1) were as indicated Following argument, the Speak- below: er overruled the point of order. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOOD ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1975 Points of Order Against Con- MR. [THOMAS E.] MORGAN [of Penn- sideration of Measure sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Com- § 4.2 Under the Congressional mittee of the Whole House on the Budget Act of 1974, one of State of the Union for the consider- the enforcement measures ation of the bill (H.R. 9005) to authorize assistance for disaster relief and re- permitted a point of order habilitation, to provide for overseas against the consideration of distribution and production of agricul- a bill providing new spend- tural commodities, to amend the For- eign Assistance Act of 1961, and for ing authority not subject to other purposes. the appropriations process. POINT OF ORDER

was H. Res. 845, providing for the MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- consideration of H.R. 11926, which land]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of was to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts in reapportionment cases. 1. 121 CONG. REC. 28270, 28271, 94th 20. John W. McCormack (Mass.). Cong. 1st Sess.

12079 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

order against the present consideration in effect appropriate funds and, thereof the bill H.R. 9005 on the grounds fore, is not subject to a point of order that on page 15 of this bill, in section under clause 5 of rule XXI. The funds 302(e), lines 6 to 17, there is contained referred to in section 103 will not be a provision which in essence changes available for reuse unless they are ap- the law governing repayments on pre- propriated. . . . The clear language of vious foreign assistance loans making the bill, Mr. Speaker, proposed in sec- these sums available for certain pur- tion 103 specifically provides that poses without reappropriation by Con- amounts repaid are authorized to be gress. At the present time the proceeds available for use and authorized for ap- from repayments of these loans are re- propriation. It does not provide that turned to the Treasury for later reap- they be available for use as an appro- propriation by the Congress. priation. Apparently this provision allows at THE SPEAKER: The Chair would like least $200 million in loan reflows, as to address a question to the gentleman the report refers to them, to be respent from Maryland. without either authorization or further Is the gentleman raising a point of appropriation by the Congress each order under the Budget Act for the year. purpose of preventing the consider- It would be my contention that this ation of the legislation, or is he at- provision violates Public Law 93–344, tempting to make a point of order that section 401(a), the Congressional this is an appropriation on a legislative Budget Act of 1974, which in effect bill? prohibits the consideration by the MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am House of any bill or resolution which making the point of order for the ex- provides any new spending authority. press purpose of preventing the consid- In effect this is back-door spending eration of the bill, inasmuch as the without authorization and appropria- public law to which I have referred tion each year by the Congress. says that it shall not be in order for ei- THE SPEAKER: (2) Does the gentleman ther House to consider a bill which from Pennsylvania desire to be heard contains such a provision. on the point of order? I would, therefore, in response to the statement of the chairman of the com- MR. MORGAN: I do, Mr. Speaker. mittee, refer to the committee report Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to on page 46 which says: the point of order. Mr. Speaker, the proposed section The third subsection added to sec- 103 of the Foreign Assistance Act of tion 103 authorizes repayments on prior year aid loans to be made 1961 contained in section 301(a) of available for specified purposes. House Resolution 905 as reported, which authorizes the repayment on This would remove it from the ap- prior year foreign aid loans to be made propriation process. available for specific purposes, does not THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from Maryland is 2. Carl Albert (Okla.). making the point of order that the por-

12080 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

tion of the bill under section 302(e) Senate to consider any bill or resolu- constitutes new spending authority tion which provides new spending and violates section 401(a) of the authority described in subsection (c)(2) (A) or (B) (or any amendment Budget Act, Public Law 93–344. which provides such new spending The Chair has reviewed the lan- authority), unless that bill, resolu- guage shown in the bill and in the re- tion, or amendment also provides port which shows that it is subject to that such new spending authority is the appropriation process because the to be effective for any fiscal year only to such extent or in such whole intent and thrust is predicated amounts as are provided in appro- on the words ‘‘are authorized to be priations Acts. made available.’’ In other words, the ( ) reflow funds are to be appropriated by THE PRESIDING OFFICER: 4 The the Committee on Appropriations and Chair rules the point of order is well by subsequent legislative actions and taken under section 401(a) of Public not as a result of the passage of this Law 93–344. Therefore, the bill cannot bill. be considered. The Chair, therefore, overrules the What is the pleasure of the Senate? point of order. MR. [HUBERT H.] HUMPHREY [of Minnesota]: Mr. President—— In the Senate, a point of order THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Sen- against consideration was sus- ator from Minnesota. tained, but then the Senate per- MR. HUMPHREY: Mr. President, I un- mitted the point of order to be derstand the concern that the Senator withdrawn and the bill modified from Hawaii has expressed. Might I to pass muster under the Budget say most respectfully that in the other body, and I say this to the Parliamen- Act. The Senate proceedings of tarian, as the Parliamentarian knows, ( ) Nov. 3, 1975, 3 which carry a de- the ruling of the Parliamentarian was scription of how the House re- that the language was in order in the solved the parliamentary situa- bill. tion, are carried below: This is the language from the other body, but we have our own rules; I un- MR. [DANIEL K.] INOUYE [of Hawaii]: derstand that. Mr. President, I raise a point of order I suggest to the Senator from Hawaii with reference to section 492(d), page that the report indicates what has 5, line 17) and section 302(e), (page 23, been our practice, that the use of funds line 6), authorizing funds ‘‘to be made for these purposes, whatever the pur- available’’ which violates section 401(a) poses as outlined were, would of course of the Budget Act, Public Law 93–344, be contingent upon the appropriations which states: action. So it might be, if the Senator It shall not be in order in either will withhold his point of order, that the House of Representatives or the we might be able to reconcile our differences here, because there is no de- 3. 121 CONG. REC. 34732–34, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 4. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.).

12081 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

sire to escape the appropriations proc- MR. INOUYE: Mr. President, I ask ess. unanimous consent to withdraw my For example: On line 6, the language point of order. ‘‘after July 1, 1975, are authorized to THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Does the be appropriated for each of the fiscal Senator ask unanimous consent that years 1976 and 1977’’ instead of ‘‘au- his point of order be withdrawn? thorized to be made available.’’ MR. INOUYE: I do. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without ob- THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair jection, it is so ordered. would advise the Senator from Min- MR. HUMPHREY: Mr. President, in nesota that to vitiate the point of order light of the discussion which we have and the rulings would require unani- had, both here and in the colloquy, as mous consent.... well as our private discussions, I now MR. HUMPHREY: Large sums of move, on page 23, on line 6, after the money, and that is why in this lan- words, ‘‘to be’’, to strike the words guage we are authorizing their use ‘‘made available’’, and insert in lieu only on the basis of the appropriations thereof the word ‘‘appropriated’’. The process. We authorize them for specific line will then read: ‘‘and after July 1, purposes, such as for the International 1975, are authorized to be appro- Fund for Agricultural Development the priated’’ for each of the fiscal years, sum of $200 million. But it is not to and so on. bypass the Appropriations Committee. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The ques- And I think it should be noted that tion is on agreeing to the amendment. when this point was raised in the other The amendment was agreed to. body, the chairman of the House Inter- national Relations Committee rose in Budget Act Point of Order opposition to the point of order. Against Consideration He noted some of the same points that are being made here.... § 4.3 While the Budget Act pro- Senator Humphrey then quoted hibits consideration of a bill, from the debate and the ruling by amendment or conference re- Speaker Albert. port which would cause the total level of budget outlays THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The Chair for the current year to be ex- advises, in that regard, based on the point of order originally made and the ceeded, the point of order ruling by the Chair, that the bill is not must be made when the bill, before the Senate to be so amended, amendment, or conference unless by unanimous consent, and the report is called up and comes point of order would be withdrawn, too late after debate. even though that would allow the point of order to be raised again, but, if by On Dec. 15, 1982,(5) the Chair- unanimous consent the point of order man of the Committee on Appro- were withdrawn, the Senate could move to consideration of such an 5. 128 CONG. REC. 30912, 30923, 97th amendment.... Cong. 2d Sess.

12082 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4 priations called up a conference as part of your 1 minute. All time is report on the agricultural appro- controlled. priation bill, fiscal 1983. The con- MR. DANNEMEYER: Then this is my ference report was considered as request in the nature of a parliamentary inquiry. read and then Mr. Jamie L. Whit- If the funding level of this conference ten, of Mississippi, was recognized report is $31.7 billion-plus, and the to debate the report. The following budget resolution passed by the House proceedings are pertinent. earlier this year listed as a maximum amount for this area of spending some- AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT thing a little below $23 billion, my par- AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIA- liamentary inquiry is: If we have TION, 1983 passed the budget resolution providing MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I call up a level of spending for this category or the conference report on the bill (H.R. function of the Federal budget, how do 7072) making appropriations for the we have the ability now to consider a agriculture, rural development, and re- conference report that proposes to lated agencies programs for the fiscal spend an amount substantially in ex- year ending September 30, 1983, and cess of that figure? Where do we get for other purposes. that right? The Clerk read the title of the bill. MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, will the ( ) THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 6 Pur- gentleman yield to me? suant to the rule, the conference report THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (7) No is considered as having been read. point of order was made against the (For conference report and state- conference report when it was brought ment, see proceedings of the House of up. If one had been raised, the Chair December 10, 1982.) would have ruled at that time. A time- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ly point of order was not made and, gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whit- therefore, there is no ruling. ten) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Nebraska MR. DANNEMEYER: Does the Speaker (Mrs. Smith) will be recognized for 30 mean that if a Member had raised this minutes. in the way of a point of order when it The Chair recognizes the gentleman was first brought up—— from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten).... THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If there had been a point of order raised on a PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY timely basis, the Chair would have ruled on the point of order. MR. [WILLIAM E.] DANNEMEYER [of California]: Mr. Speaker, before I con- MR. DANNEMEYER: Ruled which way? sume that 1 minute, may I have a par- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The liamentary inquiry? Chair cannot engage in speculation. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, will the parliamentary inquiry would be made gentleman yield to me?

6. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.). 7. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).

12083 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The rules of the House would a point of time of the gentleman from California order lie to this bill inasmuch as it is (Mr. Dannemeyer) has expired. not as was reported out of the com- MR. WHITTEN: Mr. Speaker, I yield mittee yesterday, and is not identical? myself 1 minute. Would a point of order lie at this point? THE SPEAKER: The resolution is al- Point of Order Against Privi- ready under consideration and there leged Resolution Does Not Re- has been debate. flect Committee Action Any point of order against its consideration would come too late at this § 4.4 A point of order that the time. text of a privileged resolution does not reflect the ac- Point of Order Against Report tion of the Committee on Relating to Privilege of House House Administration in or- § 4.5 A point of order against a dering it reported comes too report involving the privi- late after there has been de- leges of the House is prop- bate on the resolution. erly raised after the report is On Aug. 5, 1970,(8) a privileged read. report was filed from the Com- On Oct. 18, 1966,(10) Speaker mittee on House Administration John W. McCormack, of Massa- and immediately called up for con- chusetts, responded to an inquiry sideration. Following the reading as to when was the proper time to of the resolution and several min- raise a point of order against a utes of discussion as to the merits privileged report filed by the Com- of raising the salaries of two mittee on Un-American Activities.

House employees, a parliamentary MR. [EDWIN E.] WILLIS [of Lou- inquiry was made as to the timeli- isiana]: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a ques- ness of a point of order. tion of the privilege of the House, and by direction of the Committee on Un- ( ) THE SPEAKER: 9 The gentleman will American Activities I submit a privi- state the parliamentary inquiry. leged report—House Report No. 2302. MR. [WILLIAM L.] DICKINSON [of Ala- MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: bama]: Mr. Speaker, according to the Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

8. 116 CONG. REC. 27450, 91st Cong. 2d 10. 112 CONG. REC. 27439, 89th Cong. Sess. Under consideration was H. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H. Res. 1117, which provided additional Rept. No. 89–2302, which related to compensation for two positions cre- H. Res. 1060, involving the refusal of ated by H. Res. 543 [89th Cong.]. a witness to testify before the Com- 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.). mittee on Un–American Activities.

12084 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will A privileged resolution, certi- state it. fying the report to the United MR. YATES: At what point is it in States Attorney, was then offered, order for me to present a point of order (12) to the resolution? debated, and agreed to. THE SPEAKER: After the report is read. Point of Order Falls When Mo- The Clerk read as follows: tion at Which It Is Directed Is Withdrawn PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MILTON MITCHELL COHEN § 4.6 A motion that the House The Committee on Un-American resolve into the Committee Activities, as created and authorized by the House of Representatives, of the Whole for consider- through the enactment of Public Law ation of a bill may be with- 601 of the 79th Congress, section 121, subsection (q)(2), under House drawn pending a point of Resolution 8 of the 89th Congress, order against consideration duly authorized and issued a sub- of the bill (for failure of the pena to Milton Mitchell Cohen.... Pursuant to resolution of the Com- report to comply with the mittee on Un-American Activities ‘‘Ramseyer’’ rule), and if duly adopted at a meeting held Jan- uary 13, 1966, the facts relating to withdrawn, the Chair is not the aforesaid failures of Milton obligated to rule on the point Mitchell Cohen are hereby reported of order. to the House of Representatives, to the end that the said Milton Mitchell On Dec. 3, 1979,(13) Mr. Henry Cohen may be proceeded against for contempt of the House of Represent- A. Waxman, of California, moved atives in the manner and form pro- that the House resolve into the vided by law. Committee of the Whole to con- After the reading of the volumi- sider the Child Health Assurance nous report was dispensed with by Act of 1979. Before the question unanimous consent, the Chair en- was put by the Speaker Pro Tem- tertained the point of order by Mr. pore, a point of order was raised Yates. against consideration. The pro- The Speaker overruled the point ceedings are carried herein. of order after extensive argument MR. WAXMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move on the proper interpretation of that the House resolve itself into the Rule XI clause 26(m).(11) Committee of the Whole House on the

11. House Rules and Manual § 735 12. H. Res. 1060, 112 CONG. REC. (1965). For the current rule, see 27448–85, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. House Rules and Manual § 712 13. 125 CONG. REC. 34385, 96th Cong. (1997). 1st Sess.

12085 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

State of the Union for the considera- of the Social Security Act is not tion of the bill (H.R. 4962) to amend amended, but the committee report title XIX of the Social Security Act to also has this provision shown in italic strengthen and improve medicaid serv- type indicating that it is a change in ices to low-income children and preg- existing law, and is, therefore, in viola- nant women, and for other purposes. tion of the House rule. Subparagraph MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- (C) is not an amendment nor is it land]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. amended by the bill and, therefore, the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (14) The committee report is in violation of the gentleman from Maryland will state provisions of clause 3 of rule XIII, the point of order. which has the purpose of clearly show- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I make a ing existing law and proposed amend- point of order against the present con- ments to that law. sideration of the bill, H.R. 4962, on the The purpose of the rule is to make it grounds that the committee report fails readily apparent what change in exist- to comply with the provisions of clause ing law is intended. I cite volume 8, 3 of rule XIII, the so-called Ramseyer chapter 236, section 2236 of ‘‘Cannon’s rule. Precedents of the House of Representa- The relevant provision of clause 3 of tives’’ in support of this. On Monday, rule XIII requires that— February 3, 1930, the House was considering bills on the Consent Calendar, Whenever a committee reports a bill or a joint resolution repealing or when the bill—H.R. 8156—to change amending any statute or part thereof the limit of cost for the construction of it shall include in its report or in an the Coast Guard Academy was accompanying document—a com- reached. parative print of that part of the bill MR. FIORELLO H. LA GUARDIA, of or joint resolution making the amendment and of the statute or New York, made the point of order part thereof proposed to be amended, that the change proposed in the law showing by stricken-through type was not properly indicated in the re- and italics, parallel columns, or port. other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions The Speaker, the great Mr. Long- proposed to be made. worth of Ohio, sustained the point of order and said: Section 4 of the bill amends subparagraph (B) of section 1905(a)(4) of title It is perfectly apparent to anyone reading the bill that its language is XIX of the Social Security Act. This not exactly in the form prescribed by amendment is properly shown in italic the Ramseyer rule, which provides type on page 111 of the report (H. that— Rept. 96–568). Section 4 further ‘‘Whenever a committee reports a amends section 1905(a)(4) by adding a bill or joint resolution repealing or new subparagraph (D). This amend- amending any statute or part thereof it shall include in its report or in an ment is also properly shown in italic accompanying document— type. Subparagraph (C) of this section ‘‘(1) the text of the statute or part thereof which is proposed to be re- 14. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.). pealed; and

12086 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

‘‘(2) a comparative print of that MR. WAXMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do part of the bill or joint resolution desire to be heard on the point of making the amendment and of the order. statute or part thereof proposed to be amended showing by stricken- Mr. Speaker, there are over 20 pages through type and italics, parallel col- in the proposed bill. The gentleman is umns or other appropriate typo- referring to one paragraph, in which I graphical devices, the omissions and am informed has a typographical error; insertions proposed to be made.’’ but the point that I would make in op- The Chair does not think that the position to the point of order that is rule has been complied with. What is made is that the Ramsayer is in sub- required under the second part has not been done. Of course the rule is stantial compliance with the rule and intended to make it evident just that on that basis the point of order what change in a bill or resolution is ought to be overruled. intended. It is to make this change THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The apparent to anybody without con- Chair would ask the gentleman from sulting the statute which it is intended to amend. California (Mr. Waxman) to withhold his motion until the Chair can ascer- Mr. Speaker, the report on H.R. tain whether the Ramsayer rule was 4962 does not make it evident just violated by the committee or whether a what change is intended. The report typographical error by the Government does not make it apparent what is Printing Office exists in the report. being amended without consulting the Will the gentleman withdraw his statute. In fact, the report clearly and motion? erroneously indicates a section of exist- MR. WAXMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will ing law is amended when it is not. withhold my motion. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I note MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, if I may that the report has not even ‘‘substan- be heard further, for the Chair’s delib- tially’’ complied with the rule. The erations I would only indicate that the precedents demonstrate that substan- gentleman from California (Mr. Wax- tial compliance is achieved even man) has offered as his only rebuttal though the report may contain errors of punctuation, capitalization, or ab- that this is substantial compliance and breviations which are at variance with not anything more than an error. the bill. The report error here goes far The fact of the matter that the sec- beyond these minor problems and tion is involved I discovered only be- causes difficulty in clearly discerning cause of the substantive nature of that what this amends and what is now section in my own desire to possibly statutory law. The fact that this ap- offer amendments. Now, if this gen- pears in italic type signifies it as an tleman was misled, I am sure other amendment, which it is not. The report Members may have been misled, and I causes confusion rather than clarifica- think the purpose of this rule is to pre- tion and is, therefore, clearly in viola- vent that. tion of the rule. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does motion to go into committee has been the gentleman from California desire withdrawn, so the Chair will at the to be heard on the point of order? present time withhold its ruling.

12087 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Against Ramseyer Rule Viola- found in the bill which, under the tions Ramseyer rule, was not stated in the accompanying report in § 4.7 A point of order that a re- italicized or other distinctive port fails to comply with the print. Mr. Abernethy then ob- requirement that proposed tained unanimous consent that changes in law be indicated the motion be withdrawn and that typographically, as required the bill be recommitted to the by the Ramseyer rule, is committee. properly made when the bill is called up in the House and § 4.8 The proper time to raise a before the House resolves point of order that a com- into the Committee of the mittee report fails to comply Whole. with the Ramseyer rule is On July 13, 1959,(15) imme- when the motion is made to diately after Mr. Thomas G. go into the Committee of the Abernethy, of Mississippi, moved Whole to consider the bill. that the House resolve itself into On July 30, 1968,(17) during de- the Committee of the Whole for bate on House Resolution 1218, the consideration of the bill, Mr. which provided that it should be H. R. Gross, of Iowa, inquired of in order to move that the House the Speaker: resolve itself into the Committee MR. GROSS: Mr. Speaker, I desire to of the Whole for the consideration make a point of order against the con- of a bill to amend the Food and sideration of the bill and the report. Agriculture Act of 1965, Mr. Paul When is the proper time to seek rec- Findley, of Illinois, unsuccessfully ognition for this purpose? attempted to raise a point of order THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (16) This is the proper time for the gentleman to against further consideration of make his point of order. the resolution on the ground that Thereupon, Mr. Gross made a the committee report accom- point of order against language panying the bill did not comply with the provisions of the 15. 105 CONG. REC. 13226, 13227, 86th Ramseyer rule. Speaker Pro Tem- Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration pore John J. Rooney, of New York, was H.R. 6893, a bill to amend the District of Columbia Stadium Act of 17. 114 Cong. Rec. 24245, 24252, 90th 1957 with respect to motor vehicle Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration parking areas. was H.R. 17126, the extension of the 16. John W. McCormack (Mass.). 1965 Food and Agriculture Act.

12088 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4 then ruled that a point of order on On Oct. 1, 1963,(18) Mr. that ground was not appropriate Armistead I. Selden, Jr., of Ala- at that time. Mr. Findley then in- bama, moved that the House required as to when the point would solve itself into the Committee of be in order. The Speaker Pro the Whole for the consideration of Tempore then stated that it could a bill and Speaker John W. be raised when the motion was McCormack, of Massachusetts, made to go into the Committee of immediately put the question on the motion. Mr. Frank T. Bow, of the Whole. Ohio, then stated a point of order After the previous question was against the bill on the basis that ordered on the resolution and the the report accompanying the bill resolution was agreed to, Mr. Wil- did not comply with the Ramseyer liam R. Poage, of Texas, moved rule. that the House resolve itself into In debate on the point of order, the Committee of the Whole for Mr. Selden contended that the the consideration of the bill. point of order was too late because Speaker John W. McCormack, of a resolution had been adopted to Massachusetts, then heard Mr. provide for the consideration and Findley on his point of order. that the provision questioned by Mr. Bow did not make a specific § 4.9 Where, pending a motion change in the provisions of the to consider a bill in Com- law as Mr. Bow had argued. To mittee of the Whole, a point this Mr. Bow responded that of order was made against a under the rules of the House, even bill on the ground that the though a resolution had been report did not comply with adopted, the point of order under the Ramseyer rule, and the the Ramseyer rule had to come contention was made that immediately before the House the point of order came too went into the Committee of the late, the House having al- Whole. Consequently, argued Mr. ready adopted a resolution Bow, the point of order did not making consideration of the come too late. bill in order, the Chair overruled the point of order, but 18. 109 CONG. REC. 18412, 88th Cong. by so doing indicated that 1st Sess. Under consideration was the point of order was time- H.R. 7044, a bill to amend Pub. L. No. 193 [83d Cong.], relating to the ly. Corregidor-Bataan Memorial.

12089 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The Chair overruled the point of CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 622, ENERGY order, holding that there had been POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT an adequate compliance with the MR. [HARLEY O.] STAGGERS [of West Ramseyer rule, and, thus, by im- Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the plication, indicating that the point conference report on the Senate bill (S. of order was timely. 622) to increase domestic energy supplies and availability; to restrain energy demand; to prepare for energy Time for Making Point of emergencies; and for other purposes, Order Against Conference Re- and ask unanimous consent that the port statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report. § 4.10 A point of order against MR. [BARRY] GOLDWATER [Jr., of a conference report must be California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a made after the reading of the point of order. (1) report and before the read- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from California will state his point of ing of the joint statement. order. A Member wishing to make a MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, I point of order against a portion of make a point of order against title V, a conference report on a bill car- part B. rying a Senate number, on the THE SPEAKER: The Chair would request that the gentleman withhold his basis that one of the provisions point of order until we have had the proposed by the Senate and in- title of the bill read by the Clerk. cluded in the conference agree- The Clerk read the title of the bill. ment would not have been ger- THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to mane if offered to the House the request of the gentleman from version when the bill was under West Virginia? consideration in the House, has a 92d Congress. See H. Res. 11532, narrow window of opportunity. Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023. The perti- The proceedings of Dec. 15, nent rule, Rule XXVIII clause 4(a), ( ) 1975, 19 illustrate one of the first was further amended in the 93d applications of the new rule Congress to bring within the applica- adopted in the 93d Congress.(20) tion of the rule provisions in a Sen- ate bill sent to conference if they 19. 121 CONG. REC. 40671, 40675–77, would not have been considered ger- 40680, 40681, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. mane if offered to the House version. 20. The original concept of permitting See H. Res. 998, Apr. 9, 1974, which points of order to address ‘‘non-ger- added the last sentence to clause mane’’ provisions in conference 4(a). See House Rules and Manual agreements was included in amend- § 913(b) (1997). ments to the rules adopted in the 1. Carl Albert (Okla.).

12090 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

MR. [OLIN E.] TEAGUE [of Texas]: nize him first on his point of order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a right to ob- ... ject. THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from the request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague) reserves a right to West Virginia? object. There was no objection. The Chair states that the right of THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. the gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) will be protected.... Goldwater). THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, a the request of the gentleman from point of order. West Virginia (Mr. Staggers)? THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will MR. [JOHN B.] ANDERSON of Illinois: state it. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to ob- MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, I ject, I have a parliamentary inquiry. make a point of order to that part of THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will section 301 which adds to the new state it. motor vehicle improvements and cost MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: I address saving account a new title V, part B, the Chair with the following par- entitled ‘‘Application Advanced Auto- liamentary inquiry: At which point motive Technology.’’ would it be in order to offer or make a My point of order is that it is non- point of order against section 102 of germane, pursuant to clause 4, rule the conference report? XXVIII. THE SPEAKER: If objection to the Part B of title V was not in the reading of the statement is not made, House bill, as passed in H.R. 7014, but or at any time prior to reading the it was in the Senate version and it is statement. The Chair has promised he in the conference report. is going to recognize the gentleman If the section had been offered as an from California first on that issue, ei- amendment on the House floor, it ther now or at that point. would have been subject to a point of MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. order as nongermane. Hence, it is sub- Speaker, if I still have the floor, I ject to a nongermaneness point of make a point of order against section order now under rule XXVIII, clause 4. 102 of the conference report. May I point out to the Speaker that THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will the automotive R & D part of title V is not be recognized because there is a wholly unrelated to the oil pricing and unanimous-consent request pending. conservation thrust of the bill. Besides, MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: May I re- the Science and Technology Committee serve a point of order against that sec- has jurisdiction of all nonnuclear en- tion? ergy R. & D. matters, and this is an R. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman’s & D. incentive program which clearly rights will be protected, but the Chair falls in that jurisdiction. has already promised the gentleman The original Senate version of sec- from California that he would recog- tion 546 was contained in title II of the

12091 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Senate bill (S. 1883). H.R. 9174 was in- MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, I would troduced on July 31, 1975, by the gen- like to be heard on the point of order. tleman from Washington (Mr. McCor- MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- mack) and was referred to the Com- gan]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be mittee on Science and Technology. heard on the point of order at the ap- H.R. 9174 basically included all of title propriate time. II of the Senate bill (S. 1883), specifi- MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, I cally the loan guarantee provision. The yield back my time. I have made my committee jurisdiction was positively point of order. established by that referral. MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of that this is not a good point of order, order. but out of grace and in order to give MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I have the House a chance to vote on this as a parliamentary inquiry. an orderly procedure—I protested the THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will disorderly procedure with the ERDA state it. bill which was before us—but in order to have orderly procedure I will not MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is that I had asked contest the point of order, and I do not unanimous consent that the statement think my good friend from West Vir- ginia, the chairman of the committee on the part of the managers be read in (Mr. Staggers) will contest it. Under lieu of the report. those circumstances, I think it is ap- Mr. Speaker, I would like to go propriate for the Chair to rule on the through with that before any other point of order with regard to germane- unanimous-consent requests or any ness in order that we may proceed. other points of order are made against MR. STAGGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would the bill. It does not jeopardize any say that we have a separate vote on point of order and then I would be glad the point of order and then under to answer any questions. those circumstances we would be able THE SPEAKER: The Chair had asked to proceed. whether there was any objection to the THE SPEAKER: The point of order is request and there was no objection. It conceded and sustained. was so ordered. MR. STAGGERS: I would say to the MR. STAGGERS: So, Mr. Speaker, it is gentleman from California that it is now considered as read? without prejudice—— THE SPEAKER: The request that the MR. TEAGUE: Whether he concedes it statement be read in lieu of the report or not, I would like to be heard on the has been granted. It does not jeop- point of order. ardize any point of order. THE SPEAKER: The Chair is going to MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, I sustain the point of order. yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MR. TEAGUE: Mr. Speaker, may I re- Teague). serve the right to make a point of THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman order? I am going to make a point of wish to be heard further on the point order against the whole conference re- of order? port.

12092 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

THE SPEAKER: That would come The Chair recognizes the gentleman later. from California.... MR. TEAGUE: But the Speaker will THE SPEAKER: The question is on the reserve my right? motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater). THE SPEAKER: Could the Chair make The question was taken; and the himself clear to the gentleman? That Speaker announced that he was in might depend upon the outcome of the doubt. motion the gentleman from California MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, on will make. that I demand the yeas and nays. MR. DINGELL: I think the gentleman The yeas and nays were ordered. wants to be heard; he desires to be The vote was taken by electronic de- heard. vice, and there were—yeas 300, nays I ask unanimous consent that he be 103, not voting 31, as follows.... heard at this time on the point of order which, by concession, without waiving § 4.11 Rule XXVIII clause 4(a), questions of jurisdiction—— was amended in the 96th THE SPEAKER: The Chair has no au- Congress to provide that if a thority to hear arguments on matters conference report is consid- not related to the point of order made ered read, then a point of by the gentleman. If the gentleman order should be made imme- from California makes a motion, the business which transpires after the diately when consideration motion made by the gentleman will de- of the report begins. termine whether certain other points Rule XXVIII, dealing with con- of order will be in order. ference reports and amendments MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, a in disagreement, now provides parliamentary inquiry. that if the report or amendments THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will reported in disagreement have state it. been available for three calendar MR. GOLDWATER: Has the Chair days (excluding any Saturday, ruled on the point of order. Sunday, or legal holiday) after fil- THE SPEAKER: The Chair sustained ing and if printed in the Record, the point of order. can be considered as read when MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Speaker, I called up for consideration. Clause offer a motion. 4(a) now reflects this reality, and The Clerk read as follows: so points of order on the germane- Mr. Goldwater moves that part B, ness of amendments included in title V in section 301 of S. 622 be re- the conference agreement or rejected. ported in disagreement must be THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from made immediately at the incep- California (Mr. Goldwater) is recog- tion of consideration.(2) nized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Stag- 2. See the current provisions of Rule gers) is recognized for 20 minutes. XXVIII clause 4(a) House Rules and

12093 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

§ 4.12 A point of order against Act to improve the grain inspection a conference report can only and weighing system, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent be raised after the reading of that the statement of the managers be the report has been com- read in lieu of the report. pleted or has been dispensed The Clerk read the title of the bill. with by unanimous consent. MR. [W. HENSEN] MOORE [of Lou- Until the addition of clause 2(c) isiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against consideration of this con- of rule XXVIII, which provides ference report. that a conference report which THE SPEAKER: (4) The gentleman will has been available in accordance state his point of order. with clause 2(a) shall be ‘‘consid- MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the con- ered as having been read when ference report, in particular section 8, called up for consideration,’’ a subparagraph (5), violates clause 3 of point of order could be raised rule XXVIII of the rules of the House. against a conference report only THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman withhold his point of order, because after the reading of the report had the gentleman is premature. We have been completed or waived. The to read the report before the point of proceedings of Sept. 30, 1976,(3) order would lie. show the application of this ear- MR. MOORE: My rights will be pro- lier practice. tected to raise the point of order, Mr. Speaker? CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 12572, U.S. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman’s GRAIN STANDARDS ACT OF 1976 rights will be protected.... MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Wash- Is there objection to the request of ington]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the con- the gentleman from Washington? ference report on the bill (H.R. 12572) There was no objection. to amend the U.S. Grain Standards MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my point of order on the conference re- Manual (1997), particularly the an- port. notations thereto in § 913, wherein it THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from is stated ‘‘The clause was . . . Louisiana (Mr. Moore) reserves a point amended in the 96th Congress (H. of order on the conference report. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7–16) to Does the gentleman from Wash- provide that if the conference report ington (Mr. Foley) request that this is considered read under clause 2(c) matter be put over and be made the of this rule, a point of order under first order of business tomorrow? this clause must be made imme- MR. FOLEY: Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- diately upon consideration of the imous consent that the further consid- conference report.’’ eration of this conference report be 3. 122 CONG. REC. 34224, 34225, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).

12094 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

postponed, and that it be made the conference report has to be made first order of business tomorrow. in a timely fashion. THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference re- Washington? port on the bill (H.R. 5612) to amend There was no objection. section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, and ask unanimous consent that the § 4.13 A point of order against statement of the managers be read in a conference report (which lieu of the report. has not been printed in the The Clerk read the title of the bill. Record for three days and is MR. [GEORGE E.] DANIELSON [of therefore not ‘‘considered as California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against this conference read’’ when called up) must report. be made or reserved before THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (7) The the reading of the joint state- gentleman will be protected. ment where by unanimous Is there objection to the request of consent the statement is read the gentleman from Iowa? in lieu of the report. MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illi- nois]: Mr. Speaker, I object. Rule XXVIII, ‘‘Conference Re- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objec- ports,’’ was amended in 1979 by tion is heard. the addition of clause 2(c),(5) The Clerk will read the report. which specifies that any con- The Clerk proceeded to read the report. ference report or a Senate amend- MR. SMITH of Iowa (during the read- ment in disagreement which has ing): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous been filed and printed in the consent that the statement of the man- Record for three days is ‘‘consid- agers be read in lieu of the report. ered as having been read when THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there called up for consideration.’’ How- objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa? ever, if a conference report is MR. DANIELSON: Mr. Speaker, a called up before the three-day re- while ago I raised a point of order quirement is met, it must still be against the conference report. I under- read. The following sequence of stood the Speaker to say that my point events on Oct. 1, 1980,(6) illustrate of order will be protected. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The how a point of order against a gentleman is correct. MR. DANIELSON: If I am not waiving 5. House Rules and Manual § 912d any rights, I will withdraw my reserva- (1997). tion of objection. 6. 126 CONG. REC. 28637–40, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

12095 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: With- Act of 1974, which if sustained, out objection, the statement of the would have prevented consider- managers will be read in lieu of the report. ation of the report. The second There was no objection. point of order was against a non- The Clerk read the statement. germane portion of the conference (For conference report and state- agreement. Speaker Carl Albert, ment, see proceedings of the House of of Oklahoma, ruled on only the September 30, 1980.) first point of order for the reasons which he stated at that time. Points of Order Against Con- ference Reports CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 10339, FARMER TO CONSUMER DIRECT MAR- § 4.14 The Chair entertains KETING ACT OF 1976 and rules upon points of MR. VIGORITO: Mr. Speaker, I call up order against conference re- the conference report on the bill (H.R. ports which, if sustained, 10339) to encourage the direct mar- will vitiate the entire con- keting of agricultural commodities from farmers to consumers, and ask ference report (as under the unanimous consent that the statement Congressional Budget Act) of the managers be read in lieu of the before entertaining points of report. order against portions of the The Clerk read the title of the bill. report (under Rule XXVIII THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to clause 4, e.g.) which, if sus- the request of the gentleman from tained, merely permit a mo- Pennsylvania? MR. ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, I tion to reject the non- make a point of order. germane portion of the re- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will port. state his point of order. On Sept. 23, 1976,(8) Mr. Joseph MR. ROUSSELOT: Mr. Speaker, I have P. Vigorito, of Pennsylvania, two points of order to raise against the called up a conference report on conference report on H.R. 10339 (H. Rept. 94–1516). the bill H.R. 10339, the Farmer to The first is under the Budget Con- Consumer Direct Marketing Act of trol Act. The second is under House 1976. Mr. John H. Rousselot, of Rule XXVIII. California, raised two points of Section 401(b)(1) of the Congres- order against the report, one sional Budget and Impoundment Con- under the Congressional Budget trol Act (Public Law 93–344) provides as follows: 8. 122 CONG. REC. 32099, 32100, 94th (b) Legislation Providing Entitle- Cong. 2d Sess. ment Authority.—

12096 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

(1) It shall not be in order in ei- ments . . . the budget authority for ther the House of Representatives or which is not provided for in advance by the Senate to consider any bill or appropriation Acts, to any person . . . resolution which provides new spending authority described in sub- if . . . the United States is obligated to section (c)(2)(C) (or any amendment make such payments to persons . . . which provides such new spending who meet the requirements established authority) which is to become effec- by such law.’’ tive before the first day of the fiscal In the instance at hand, hay pay- year which begins during the calendar year in which such bill or res- ments are mandated by the language olution is reported. directing that the President shall direct the Secretary of Agriculture to pay The text of the conference agreement 80 percent of hay transportation as set forth in the amendment adding costs—up to $50 per ton. a new section 8 is as follows: The second point of order is that sec- EMERGENCY HAY PROGRAM tion 8 of the conference report is not in compliance with rule XXVIII, clause 4, SEC. 8. In carrying out any emergency hay program for farmers or and if such language were offered to ranchers in any area of the United H.R. 10339 during its consideration in States under section 305 of the Dis- the House it would not be deemed to aster Relief Act of 1974 because of be germane under rule XI, clause 7. an emergency or major disaster in such area, the President shall direct THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman the Secretary of Agriculture to pay from Pennsylvania (Mr. Vigorito) de- 80 percent of the cost of transporting sire to be heard on the points of order? hay (not to exceed $50 per ton) from MR. VIGORITO: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I areas in which hay is in plentiful would like to be heard on the two supply to the area in which such farmers or ranchers are located. The points of order. provisions of this section shall expire THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from on October 1, 1977. Pennsylvania is recognized. It is clear from a literal reading of MR. VIGORITO: Mr. Speaker, my un- this proposed language that certain derstanding is that if this program is livestock owners will be entitled to a an entitlement program under section hay subsidy immediately upon enact- 401 of the Budget Act, the funding ment of this bill. could not be given an authorization in This bill is effective during the so- this bill until the beginning of the next called transition period of July 1–Sep- fiscal year, or, in this case, October 1, tember 30, 1976. 1976. If that is the case, I would think In any event it is a new spending that we could develop legislative intent authority effective before October 1, here in that none of the funding would 1976, which marks the beginning of begin in this bill until fiscal year 1977. fiscal year 1977 but occurs in the cal- As a practical matter, the bill will endar year in which the conference re- probably not have cleared the Presi- port is being called up in the House. dent prior to that time, anyway, and ‘‘New spending authority’’ is defined consequently we will not be delaying in section 401(c)(2)(C) to include ‘‘pay- the impact of the bill for any substan-

12097 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

tial length of time. We have less than end. But the point is that the pay- a week before October 1 comes ments cannot begin before October 31, about.... 1976, without violating the Congres- THE SPEAKER: The Chair is having sional Budget Act.... difficulty with the argument made by The Chair thinks that under the the distinguished gentleman from present circumstances he should insist Pennsylvania, because, as the Chair that the gentleman consider another understands it, theoretically and le- procedure, because he thinks it can be gally it would be possible to begin the worked out. Therefore, the Chair must payments before October 1, 1976, sustain the point of order. which would be in violation of the The Chair will not rule on the sec- Budget Impoundment and Control Act, ond point of order, on germaneness as the entitlement to those payments grounds, because one point of order might vest prior to October 1. If, as the against the entire conference report Chair understands it, the entitlement has been sustained. to payments only vested after October Will the gentleman undertake to 1, 1976, there would be no violation of work that out within the next day or the Budget Control Act. two? What is the gentleman’s answer to MR. VIGORITO: Mr. Speaker, I ask that? unanimous consent to pull this off so MR. VIGORITO: The intent is only to that we can work this out. begin after October 1, 1976. THE SPEAKER: The conference report THE SPEAKER: Of course, the Chair is no longer before the House. The gen- sees before him language which it tleman can dispose of the Senate seems to the Chair—and the Chair is amendments under another procedure. sympathetic with what the gentleman is trying to do—indicates that: § 4.15 Where a conference re- In carrying out any emergency hay port is considered as having program for farmers or ranchers in been read and then further any area of the United States under section 305 of the Disaster Relief Act proceedings are postponed of 1974 because of an emergency or by unanimous consent, major disaster in such area, the President shall direct the Secretary points of order against the of Agriculture to pay 80 percent of report may still be raised the cost of transporting hay (not to when the report is again be- exceed $50 per ton) from areas in which hay is in plentiful supply to fore the House as unfinished the area in which such farmers or business. ranchers are located. The provisions of this section shall expire on Octo- On Sept. 23, 1976,(9) the chair- ber 1, 1977. man of the Select Committee on This language does not say when the the Outer Continental Shelf called entitlement to payments vests and does not imply when the payments 9. 122 CONG. REC. 32102, 32103, 94th begin. It does say when the payments Cong. 2d Sess.

12098 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4 up the conference report on the THE SPEAKER: Objection is heard. measure S. 521, a bill which had The Clerk will read. been reported by the ad hoc com- The Clerk read as follows: (For Conference Report and state- mittee. The proceedings were as ment see proceedings of the House of follows: September 20, 1976.)...

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1976 ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1976

MR. [JOHN M.] MURPHY of New MR. MURPHY of New York: Mr. York: Mr. Speaker, I call up the con- Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ference report on the Senate bill (S. dispense with further reading of the 521) to increase the supply of energy in report, and that consideration thereof the United States from the Outer Con- be the unfinished business when the tinental Shelf; to amend the Outer House convenes on Tuesday next. Continental Shelf Lands Act; and for THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (11) Is other purposes, and ask unanimous there objection to the request of the consent that the statement of the man- gentleman from New York? agers be read in lieu of the report. MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the The Clerk read the title of the Sen- right to object. ate bill. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to THE SPEAKER: (10) Is there objection object—and I shall not object—I wish to the request of the gentleman from to be sure that I understand the re- New York? quest of the gentleman from New MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of New York. The gentleman is asking that: York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right First, the rest of the report be consid- to object, I should like to ask the chair- ered as read; second, that further con- man of the ad hoc select committee at sideration today be dispensed with; this time if he will withdraw this re- and, third, that it not be considered port from consideration or seek to post- until next Tuesday at the earliest. pone further consideration of the re- Also, Mr. Speaker, I reserve several port. If not, those on this side will be points of order against the conference constrained to object to the request of report, and would ask, is this the un- the gentleman from New York. derstanding with my reservation of Mr. Speaker, the House should not these points of order? squander its precious remaining hours THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The on a bill that is clearly destined, if not points of order will still be in order. designed, to be vetoed. MR. FISH: I thank the Chair. MR. MURPHY of New York: Mr. MR. MURPHY of New York: I would Speaker, I have no intention to with- clarify for my colleague that the unani- draw the conference report. mous-consent request specifically stat- MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: ed that this would be the first order of Mr. Speaker, then I object. business on Tuesday next.

10. Carl Albert (Okla.). 11. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

12099 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. FISH: On Tuesday next? points of order against the MR. MURPHY of New York: Tuesday report. next. MR. FISH: Not before that? The question of consideration of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The a conference report is in order im- first order of unfinished business on mediately after its reading and Tuesday next. before debate begins, and, as the ( ) MR. MURPHY of New York: That is proceedings of Sept. 28, 1976, 12 correct. illustrate, where the reading of a MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, further rereport is, by unanimous consent, serving the right to object, is the dispensed with and then consider- Chairman also of the opinion that the ation postponed, the question of several points of order which I have so consideration remains available reserved will be protected when we when the conference report is take this matter up? called up as unfinished business. MR. MURPHY of New York: If the gentleman will yield, the Chair always CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 521, protects the points of order of the mi- OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS nority. ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1976 MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw THE SPEAKER: (13) The unfinished my reservation of objection. business is the further consideration of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there the conference report on the Senate objection to the request of the gen- bill S. 521, which the Clerk will report tleman from New York? by title. There was no objection. The Clerk read the title of the Sen- ate bill. Consideration of Conference MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of New Report, Precedence Over York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the question of consideration. Point of Order THE SPEAKER: The question is, Will the House now consider the conference § 4.16 Where further consider- report on the Senate bill S. 521. ation of a conference report The question was taken; and the (which had been considered Speaker announced that the ayes ap- as read by unanimous con- peared to have it. MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, on that I de- sent) has been postponed to mand the yeas and nays. a date certain, it is in order The yeas and nays were ordered. to raise the question of con- The vote was taken by electronic de- sideration when the report is vice, and there were—yeas 236, nays again called up as unfinished 150, not voting 44, as follows:...

business, and the question of 12. 122 CONG. REC. 33018, 33019, 94th consideration is disposed of Cong. 2d Sess. before the Chair entertains 13. Carl Albert (Okla.). 12100 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

So consideration of the conference re- clause 6,(14) all conference meet- port was ordered. ings had to be open to the public The result of the vote was an- unless, by roll call vote in the con- nounced as above recorded. ference, a majority of the man- MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, a parliamen- agers of both Houses voted to tary inquiry. close the meeting. This clause was THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will further amended on Jan. 4, state his parliamentary inquiry. 1977,(15) to require a roll call vote MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, my par- in the House to permit the man- liamentary inquiry is as to whether my agers to exercise their discretion reserved points of order are in order at to close a meeting. Another this time? amendment to the rule occurred THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state in the 96th Congress,(16) to pro- that they are. vide that if the conference report is considered as read because it Point of Order Against Failure has been printed and is available To Have ‘‘Open Conference’’ under clause 2(c), a point of order under this ‘‘open conference’’ rule § 4.17 Where the minutes of a must be made immediately when conference meeting indicate the conference report is called up. that an open meeting of the The discussion which occurred House and Senate managers on the House floor on Sept. 28, had been held and that a mo- 1976,(17) illustrates the application tion was adopted which fi- of the current rule and the impor- nally disposed of all matters tance of having a final meeting of in disagreement, as reflected the conferees which complies with by the signatures of a major- this rule. ity of the conferees from The conference report on S. 521, each House, a Member must the Outer Continental Shelf show that there was a subse- Lands Act, had been called up and quent meeting of the con- read on Sept. 23, 1976.(18) ferees in violation of the rule 14. H. Res. 5, 121 CONG. REC. 20–33, requiring open conference 94th Cong. 1st Sess. meetings for a point of order 15. H. Res. 5, 123 CONG. REC. 53–70, to lie. 95th Cong. 1st Sess. Until clause 6 was added to 16. H. Res. 5, 125 CONG. REC. 7–16, Rule XXVIII on Jan. 14, 1975, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1979. 17. 122 CONG. REC. 33019, 33020, 94th conferees often met behind closed Cong. 2d Sess. doors. But with the adoption of 18. See § 4.13, supra.

12101 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

On Sept. 28, 1976, it was before been restricted to germane modifica- the House as unfinished business. tions of the various Senate amend- The question of consideration hav- ments which would have been the only items in disagreement at that time. ing been decided in the affirma- The motion was rushed to a vote and tive, points of order were enter- agreed to by the House managers, and tained. the conference meeting was adjourned. Mr. Speaker, the conference com- MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of New mittee must have met again. It must York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of have met without any notice to the mi- order against the conference report on nority and far from public view. It grounds that it has been reported in must have met in closed session with- violation of Rule XXVIII, clause 6, out first having voted to do so in open which requires that conference meet- session. I must assume that there was ings be open to the public except when a closed session of the conference com- ordered closed by rollcall vote in open mittee, because instead of reporting session. linear Senate amendments, as had Mr. Speaker, on the first day of this been agreed to in open session, the Congress, as one of its first moves to- committee reported a Senate amend- ward reform, the House voted to ment in the nature of a sub- amend its rules and open up constitute.... ferences to public scrutiny. The Senate There must have been one more soon passed a similar measure, and meeting—a closed meeting—in which a the rule took effect. majority of the Senate conferees and a At the first open meeting of the con- majority of the House conferees agreed ference committee, one of the man- to switch from linear amendments to agers on the part of the Senate moved an amendment in the nature of a sub- that the Senate recede from its dis- stitute without giving minority House agreement to the House amendment managers a chance to offer amend- with several amendments which he ments and without being open to the had caused to be printed as part of a public.... conference document. Additional linear THE SPEAKER: (19) Does the gen- amendments were proposed by other tleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) Senate managers in the form of desire to be heard on the point of amendments to the motion, and in due order? course a majority of the Senators voted MR. [JOHN M.] MURPHY of New for the motion as amended. York: I do, Mr. Speaker. The chairman of the conference com- Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I mittee, the gentleman from New York would refer to the recorded minutes of (Mr. Murphy) then moved that the the conference on page 2 of the open- House agree to the amendments of the ing day of the conference. Senator Senate. This motion was presumably Jackson moved that the conference be amendable, although the chairman re- open to the public. The motion was sec- fused to allow any amendments to be offered. If he had, they would have 19. Carl Albert (Okla.).

12102 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4 onded by Senator Jackson and adopted The conference report properly re- by the conference without objection. If flects these actions. my colleague, the gentleman from New Moreover, rules of the House make it York, had been present at all sessions clear that once a conference report is of the conference, I doubt if he would filed by the required number of con- make this point of order. The motion ferees there is a conclusive presump- made by Senator Jackson at the con- tion as to the validity of the conference and on page 8 of the first day’s ference. minutes of the conference is as follows: The Speaker will not look behind the Mr. Chairman, I therefore move signatures as to the procedures in con- the Senate recede from its disagreement with the House and accept the ference. House amendment with the amend- Mr. Speaker, the gentleman’s point ment set forth in the September 13 of order should not be sustained.... conference print, except the technical amendments that occur on page 123 THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared of the print. to rule. The gentleman from New York has Mr. Speaker, if I understand the made a point of order directed against gentleman’s argument, he is asserting conference procedure alleging a viola- that the Chair is to find an implied or ‘‘constructive’’ secret meeting of the tion of clause 6, rule XXVIII. majority of the conferees because the The gentleman’s point of order is conference report is not consistent with that the form of the conference report the gentleman’s interpretation of the does not conform to his understanding procedures of the conference com- as to which motion was agreed to by mittee. the House conferees. The gentleman In the first place, there was no se- contends that there was a further con- cret meeting and thus the rule relied structive meeting of the conferees upon by the gentleman was not vio- which was closed and unannounced. lated. The chief manager of the conference In addition, I would point out that report has reported that in a meeting the conference report is consistent with of the conferees which was open to the the actions of the conference. Senator public, pursuant to the provisions of Jackson moved that the Senate recede clause 6, rule XXVIII, a proper motion from its disagreement and agree to the was made to agree to an amendment amendment of the House with an in the nature of a substitute for the amendment. During the course of the House amendment to the Senate bill, deliberations, the Senate conferees agreed to modify Senator Jackson’s and the signatures of a majority of the proposed amendments. The Senate conferees of both Houses reflecting this conferees then approved the Jackson agreement appear on the conference motion. report. The House conferees then agreed to The Chair does not feel that a viola- adopt the language agreed to by the tion of conference rules has been Senate conferees, to be inserted in lieu shown, and the Chair overrules the of the House amendment. point of order.

12103 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Where Multiple Points of Order THE SPEAKER: (3) The gentleman will Directed Against Conference state it. Report MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the conference § 4.18 The Chair may in his report on the grounds that in section discretion require all points 208 the managers have exceeded their authority in several instances and in of order against a conference section 101 in one instance, and the rereport for alleged violation port, therefore, is in violation of clause of a particular House rule to 3 of rule XXVIII. be stated before he rules on Mr. Speaker, so as not to burden the any, to allow the Chair to de- House with unnecessary discussion, I termine the order in which will ask the Chair to rule on these questions of scope one at a time, be- he will decide the questions cause as soon as one is upheld, consid- of order. eration of the others will not be need- When the voluminous con- ed. ference report on the Outer Conti- THE SPEAKER: The Chair must state nental Shelf Lands Act Amend- that when more than one point of ments of 1976 (S. 521, 94th Cong.) order is going to be made under a par- was called up on Sept. 28, ticular House rule, it is proper under 1976,(20) the Speaker was in- the precedents for the Chair to require formed that several points of all such points of order to be stated order would be lodged against the and for the Chair then to make his de- report. He first heard argument cision on the separate points of order, on and ruled on a point of order and the Chair intends to follow that brought under the ‘‘open con- procedure. ference rule.’’ (1) After overruling MR. FISH: Very good, Mr. Speaker. this point of order, the Chair then THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear turned to arguments based on the all the arguments of the gentleman. ‘‘scope of conference’’ rule.(2) The MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, prior to proceedings are carried in full 1971, managers considering a bill and an amendment in the nature of a sub- below. stitute were free to exercise wide dis- MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of New cretion in discarding language appear- York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of ing in both versions and in making order against the conference report. germane amendments, even beyond the scope of the various issues in dis- 20. 122 CONG. REC. 33020, 33021, agreement. All this was changed by 33023, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1. Rule XXVIII clause 6(a), House Rules 1970. Section 125(B) of that act revised and Manual § 913d (1997). clause 3 of rule 28, so that each spe- 2. Rule XXVIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual § 913a (1997). 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).

12104 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

cific topic, question, issue, or propo- cates whenever a disagreement to a sition must now be looked at individ- bill through an amendment in the na- ually, as if linear amendments had ture of a substitute has been com- been made by one House to the bill of mitted to a conference committee, the the other. Under this rule the con- conference may report a total sub- ferees cannot report new matter not stitute so long as no additional topic, committed by either House. Also, question, issue, or proposition is in- where the two Houses propose dif- cluded and so long as any modification ferent language on a particular issue, suggested by the conference.... the two versions set the boundaries for THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared conference consideration of that issue. to rule. Amendments outside those boundaries The gentleman from New York (Mr. may not be reported, even if germane. Fish) argues in his first point of order Where one House is silent on an issue under clause 3, rule XXVIII, that the proposed by the other, the silent House conferees have exceeded the scope of is deemed to be incorporating current the matter committed to conference by law, if any, on the subject into its removing from the Secretary of the De- version. If both versions contain mat- partment in which the Coast Guard is ter on a given issue, that issue must be operating concurrent responsibility for reported by the conference, in disagree- considering allegations of violations of ment if necessary. Finally, since the safety regulations. It is the Chair’s substitute is being handled as if it opinion that the portions of the con- were several linear amendments, it is ference report dealing with safety reg- not in order for the managers to mod- ulations and enforcement must be read ify or fail to report language which is as a whole. The House and Senate identical in both versions.... versions had differing provisions on the various aspects of that subject and Mr. Fish then proceeded to gave regulatory and enforcement re- make several specific points of sponsibility to differing officials. The order, all charging that the con- conference report compromise gives the ference report violated Rule authority to the Interior and Labor De- XXVIII clause 3, by including partments and makes the conforming change in the provision dealing with matters ‘‘beyond the scope’’ of the consideration of allegations of viola- text submitted to conference. The tions. For the reasons stated by the Speaker heard all the points of gentleman from New York (Mr. Mur- order, all the refutations by the phy) the Chair overrules the point of manager, Mr. Murphy, as shown, order. and then ruled. The gentleman’s second point of order on scope deals with the findings MR. [JOHN M.] MURPHY of New at the beginning of the conference re- York: Mr. Speaker, before reviewing as port, wherein the conferees agreed to the specific points of order, I must re- language finding adverse impacts on view the rules and procedures of the the various States.... The con- House. Rule 28, paragraph three, indi- ference language is no broader than

12105 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

the House language and the Chair Point of Order Against Con- overrules the point of order. ference Reports Entertained In his third point of order on scope, Pending Request That State- the gentleman from New York only ment Be Read in Lieu of Re- points to language in the statement of managers and argues that a statement port of intent by the conferees exceeds the § 4.19 The House rule which scope of conference. Such a point of order must lie against language in the precludes managers on the conference report itself and not in the part of the House at a con- joint statement and the Chair over- ference with the Senate from rules the point of order. agreeing to Senate amend- The gentleman’s fourth point of ments providing for appro- order on scope deals with the section of priations in a conference the conference report relating to judi- agreement absent specific cial review. . . . The conference language clarifies the fact that the limita- authority, applies only to tion on judicial review of the Sec- Senate amendments which retary’s determination does not inhibit are sent to conference and seeking judicial review of the under- not to appropriations con- lying activities on the Outer Conti- tained in Senate legislative nental Shelf and does not exceed the bills which are before the scope of the matter committed to con- conferees. ference. (4) The gentleman makes several addi- On June 30, 1976, when the tional points of order on scope.... conference report on S. 3295, a The last argument of the gentleman bill extending the National Hous- from New York is that the conferees ing Act, was called up for consid- have added the word ‘‘new’’ in a provi- eration in the House, the Member sion that did not contain that word in handling the report asked unani- either the Senate bill or the House mous consent that the statement amendment. A careful reading of the of the managers be read in lieu of Senate bill demonstrates that the two the report. Pending this request, a provisions were not identical, as the Senate bill contained the word ‘‘re-pro- point of order was raised against mulgate,’’ not contained in the House the report on the ground that it amendment. Therefore, the issue contained a provision permitting a whether the regulations were to be new use of previously appro- new regulations or could be existing priated funds. Speaker Carl Al- regulations was a matter before the bert, of Oklahoma, entertained conferees. For the reasons stated, the Chair 4. 122 CONG. REC. 21632–34, 94th overrules all the points of order. Cong. 2d Sess.

12106 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4 the point of order. The arguments The Senate-passed bill contains sec- presented and the Chair’s decision tion 9(a)(2) and 9(b) which in effect are carried herein. provide for expenditures to be made from the various FHA insurance funds MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wis- to honor claims made eligible for pay- consin]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the con- ment by the provisions of section 9 ference report on the Senate bill (S. generally. These amendments are to 3295) to extend the authorization for section 518(b) of the National Housing annual contributions under the U.S. Act and relate to sections 203 and 221 Housing Act of 1937, to extend certain housing programs for which the au- housing programs under the National thority of the Secretary of HUD to pay Housing Act, and for other purposes, claims related to certain structural de- and ask unanimous consent that the fects has expired if the claims were not statement of the managers be read in filed by March 1976. lieu of the report. Both sections 9(a)(2) and 9(b) include The Clerk read the title of the Sen- identical language which states as fol- ate bill. lows: THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to Expenditures pursuant to this sub- the request of the gentleman from Wis- section shall be made from the insur- consin? ance fund chargeable for insurance MR. [GARRY] BROWN of Michigan: benefits on the mortgage covering Reserving the right to object, Mr. the structure to which the expendi- Speaker, I raise a point of order tures relate. against the conference report. The words ‘‘Expenditures pursuant THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will to this subsection shall be made from state his point of order. the insurance fund’’ constitute an ap- MR. BROWN of Michigan: Mr. Speak- propriation within the meaning of er, I make a point of order against the clause 2, rule XX. Based on precedents conference report on S. 3295 on the under clause 5, rule XXI, it is clear basis that the House managers exceed- that payments out of funds such as the ed their authority by agreeing to two FHA insurance fund are within the matters not in the original House meaning of the term ‘‘appropriation’’ amendment to the Senate bill and and that the action taken by the House which violates clause 2, rule XX, of the managers is violative of clause 2, rule House Rules and Precedents of the XX. House. Clause 2, rule XX, reads in part In support of this point of order, I as follows: cite the ruling of the Chair on a point Nor any amendment of the Senate of order raised by H. R. Gross on Octo- providing for an appropriation upon ber 1, 1962, to the conference report on any bill other than a general appro- H.R. 7927. A Senate provision agreed priation bill shall be agreed to by the to in that report provided that— managers on the part of the House unless specific authority to agree to The benefits made payable . . . by such amendment shall first be given reason of enactment of this part by the House by a separate vote on shall be paid from the civil service every such amendment. retirement and disability fund.

12107 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Inasmuch as when the House agreed Since some of my comrades may not to go to conference, it did not give spe- be aware of it, the rules of the House cific authority to agree to such an in clause 5, rule XXI, provide: amendment. I therefore submit that it No bill or joint resolution carrying is not in order for such language to be appropriations shall be reported by included in the conference report. any committee not having jurisdic- The FHA insurance funds are de- tion to report appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an signed to provide the reserves for pay- appropriation be in order during the ments on defaulted mortgages and for consideration of a bill or joint resolu- the operation of HUD related to the tion reported by a committee not various insurance programs and any having that jurisdiction. A question diversion of the use of such funds such of order on an appropriation in any such bill, joint resolution, or amend- as for payment for defects in the struc- ments thereto may be raised at any ture would violate clause 5 of rule XXI. time. In further support of this point of order, and specifically on the point Mr. Speaker, that is a rule of the House. Now, since the House in its that the provisions constitute a diver- rules cannot have extraterritorial effect sion of funds for a separate purpose or extra body effect, in order to protect not within the intention of the legisla- the House from having its rules vio- tion establishing the fund, I cite the lated by the Senate, we adopted clause ruling of the Chair on October 5, 1972, 2 of rule XX which related to action which holds that an amendment allow- that the Senate might take that would ing for the use of highway trust fund be violative of the House rules. But the moneys to purchase buses, would seem very fact that this is not a Senate to violate clause 4 of rule XXI in that amendment on a House bill is insignifi- it would divert or actually reappro- cant if the rules of the House are going priate for a new purpose funds which to have any real meaning because have been appropriated and allocated what we are saying is any time we and are in the pipeline for purposes want to violate the House rules, we specified by the law under the original can have the rule provide that after 1956 act. consideration of the bill it shall be in I say, Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order for the such-and-such Senate bill order against the conference report on to be taken from the Speaker’s desk this basis. and everything after the enacting clause stricken and apply the House I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the language, or we can, when the bill is gentleman from Oklahoma is the one under consideration before the House who sustained the point of order raised get consent to strike everything after by Mr. Gross in the case which I have the enacting clause of the Senate bill referred to. and substitute the House language. In Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to antici- either of those cases that for all intents pate a ruling against my point of and purposes precludes a Member of order, but if that should be the case, this House from saying that the rules Mr. Speaker, I suggest we are making of this House are violated with respect a mockery of the rules of the House. to action by the Senate.

12108 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, Iowa (Mr. Gross) against the con- at this point in time when we are hav- ference report on a foreign military as- ing some questions raised about the in- sistance authorization bill (S. 2819) on tegrity of the House rules and House the ground that the House conferees administration, this is not the time to had exceeded their authority by includ- render a decision on a point of order ing in the conference report an appro- that gives in effect further credence to priation entirely in conflict with clause the fact that we do not intend to main- 2, rule XX. That rule provides, in rel- tain integrity in this House with re- evant part, that ‘‘no amendment of the spect to the rules of the House if the Senate’’—that is the important lan- procedure is carried out in a circuitous guage—no amendment of the Senate way. providing for an appropriation upon THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman any bill other than a general appro- from Ohio care to be heard on the priation bill, shall be agreed to by the point of order? managers on the part of the House. MR. [THOMAS L.] ASHLEY [of Ohio]: The Chair would point out that it Very briefly, Mr. Speaker. was a Senate bill which was sent to Mr. Speaker, clause 2 of rule XX of conference with a House amendment the rules of the House makes out of thereto. The rule is restricted in its ap- order any provision in a Senate plication to Senate amendments and, amendment which provides for an ap- thus, is not applicable in the present propriation. However, the rule does not situation. address itself to provisions in Senate The Chair, therefore, overrules the bills. The conferees accepted the provi- point of order. sion in question, without change, from MR. BROWN of Michigan: Mr. Speak- a Senate bill and not from a Senate er, in view of the ruling of the Chair, amendment. Therefore, no violation of I just would like to point out that in the House rules is involved even if the the conference report the paragraph provision is considered to be an appro- appears: priation. That the Senate recede from its THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to disagreement to the amendment of rule. the House to the text of the bill and The gentleman from Michigan has agree to the same with an amendment. made a point of order against the conference report, referring to the lan- In other words, with a Senate guage of rule XX, clause 2, which amendment. places certain restrictions on the man- Now, I respectfully suggest that for agers on the part of the House in a all intents and purposes, by using the conference with the Senate. circuitous route of taking up the Sen- The Chair has ruled on this matter ate bill and including the House lan- before. guage, we nullify totally the basic di- On January 25, 1972, the Chair rective of the House rules that this ruled in connection with a point of House shall not concur in any appro- order made by the gentleman from priation in a legislation bill not a gen-

12109 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

eral appropriations act, and for the tions to the Senate by asserting Chair to rule that we will accept a cir- the constitutional prerogative of cuitous violation of the House rules, the House to originate ‘‘revenue’’ that we will not accept a direct violation, I think is not in the best interests measures (construed under the of the House. precedents to include at least THE SPEAKER: The Chair just thinks ‘‘general appropriation bills’’). there are other rules that govern and that can protect the House in situa- Points of Order Against Con- tions of this type. The gentleman has sideration of Conference Re- referred to the language of the con- ports ference agreement; and the Chair would point out that the managers § 4.20 A point of order against have proposed that the Senate recede consideration of a con- and concur in the House amendment with an amendment. There is no Sen- ference report based upon ate amendment before the House at the fact that the managers this time. had affixed their signatures Is there objection to the request of prior to their formal appoint- the gentleman from Wisconsin that the ment must be made prior to statement be read in lieu of the report? consideration of the con- There was no objection. ference report in the House. The Clerk read the statement. (5) Parliamentarian’s Note: The On Mar. 25, 1980, the chair- procedural safeguards mentioned man of the Committee on Banking by the Speaker against the inclu- and Currency asked that a con- sion of appropriations in Senate ference report on S. 662, a bill authorizing funds for International bills include: (1) possible points of Banks, be recommitted to the con- order under section 401 of the ference. A series of inquiries fol- Congressional Budget Act, if the lowed which revealed that there Senate provision can be construed had not been a formal, open meet- as new spending authority not ing of the conference as required subject to amounts specified in ad- by Rule XXVIII. The conferees vance in appropriations acts had been meeting informally with where budget authority has not their Senate counterparts and had been provided in advance (in this affixed their signatures about 30 case, the money had already been minutes before their formal ap- appropriated and was in a revolv- pointment. While this informal ing fund, so section 401 was not applicable); and (2) returning Sen- 5. 126 CONG. REC. 6429–31, 96th Cong. ate bills which contain appropria- 2d Sess.

12110 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4 meeting had been in an ‘‘open’’ sit- not comply with rule XXVIII, which re- uation, it could not qualify as an quires an open conference meeting un- ‘‘open meeting’’ since the man- less the House votes otherwise? MR. REUSS: I believe that is the rel- agers had not been appointed. evant section. In any event, whether it MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wis- is rule XXVIII or not, and I do not consin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous have it in front of me, it obviously was consent to recommit the Senate bill, S. unintentionally improper, and we seek 662, to conference. to correct that by doing it right. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (6) Is MR. BAUMAN: Further reserving the there objection to the request of the right to object, I would like to make a gentleman from Wisconsin? parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- If no Member made a point of order land]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right against the consideration of the con- to object, could the gentleman tell me ference report it could be considered; the title of the bill? could it not? MR. REUSS: Yes; this is the bill con- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The taining authorization for the Inter- gentleman is correct. American Development Bank, the MR. BAUMAN: Further reserving the Asian Development Bank, and the Af- right to object, does the gentleman rican Development Fund. from Wisconsin know of anyone who is MR. BAUMAN: Could the gentleman going to make a point of order? from Wisconsin explain to me why the MR. REUSS: No, I do not, but I real- chairman is asking to recommit this ize that a valid point of order would bill? lie, and I did not want to be in the po- MR. REUSS: Yes, though not without sition of having something on the cal- some embarrassment. Technically, it endar for tomorrow or the next day, turned out that the conferees had con- knowing how fragile it is. I cannot ferred and done their business a few speak for 434 other Members. minutes before the House conferees MR. BAUMAN: Further reserving the were, in fact, appointed. That was one right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would of those slips betwixt the cup and the like to make a further parliamentary lip which occur because of the length of inquiry. our corridors. So, the report as it If this request is granted, the House comes back to us is technically imper- is then asking the other body for a con- fect, and it is to correct that imperfec- ference. At that point it allows the tion that I ask this unanimous-consent other body to act first under the rules, request. and that would preclude a motion to MR. BAUMAN: Further reserving the recommit with instructions on the part right to object, I assume what the gen- of any Member of the House. Is that tleman is saying is that the consider- correct? ation of the report in conference did THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: This request would not change the order of 6. John P. Murtha (Pa.). consideration of the new report. It

12111 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

merely asks for a recommital of the whether this request is granted, or conference report to the same con- whether a point of order is made, and ference. the rule automatically recommits the MR. BAUMAN: If the motion is grant- conference report? ed, is a motion to recommit or a motion THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Not in to instruct in order at this time? this case, if the request is granted for THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The recommittal to the same conference. House would still act first on the con- MR. BAUMAN: Well, I would say that ference report. the gentleman from Maryland is trying MR. BAUMAN: Further reserving the to protect the rights of the minority, or right to object, the gentleman from actually the majority who voted on this Maryland, knowing the outcome of the bill and who might seek a way of vin- consideration of the conference, would dicating their position in a motion to very much like to make a motion to in- instruct the conferees, or a motion to recommit. struct but does not have one prepared at this time. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If this request is granted to recommit the con- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ference report, the motion to recommit Chair advises that would not be in would be protected for the minority. order at this time in any event. MR. BAUMAN: But if the other body MR. BAUMAN: That was the question acts, Mr. Speaker, that precludes a mo- the gentleman put to the Chair, wheth- tion to recommit with instructions; er a motion to instruct would be in does it not? order at this time. The Chair says THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If this ‘‘No.’’ If this request is not granted and goes back to the same conference the a point of order is made against the other body, of course, does not have to consideration of the conference report, agree to a request for a new con- as the gentleman from Wisconsin sug- ference. gested, it might be that no motion to MR. BAUMAN: But the other body can instruct would be in order under rule act first, thereby precluding any mo- XXVIII at that time, would it? tion to recommit? THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If a THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the point of order were sustained under papers are traded in conference, that is clause 6 to rule 28 a new conference possible, but not the normal se- would be considered as requested and quence.... conferees appointed without inter- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, further vening motion and the Senate would reserving the right to object, is it with- probably agree to a new conference in the province of the senior conferee and would probably act first on the to return the papers to this House for new conference report. action first, in order to protect a mo- MR. BAUMAN: Further reserving the tion to recommit? right to object, I would inquire of the MR. REUSS: Mr. Speaker, if the gen- Chair, if in either case a motion to re- tleman will yield, that is absolutely commit with instructions would be pre- right. That would be the normal cluded by any Member of the House, course.

12112 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, further point of order, and subsequent reserving the right to object, do I have proceedings are carried below. the guarantee of the gentleman from Wisconsin that that will be his course Mr. Rodino submitted the following of action? . . . conference report and statement on the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there bill (H.R. 6027) to clarify the applica- objection to the request of the gen- tion of the Federal antitrust laws to tleman from Wisconsin? the official conduct of local govern- There was no objection. ments: Procedure for Raising Point of CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. NO. 98–1158) Order Against Nongermane The committee of conference on Provision in Conference Re- the disagreeing votes of the two port; Timing of Motion To Re- Houses on the amendment of the ject Senate to the bill (H.R. 6027) to clarify the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the official conduct § 4.21 Where the Chair sus- of local governments, having met, tains a point of order that after full and free conference, have conferees have agreed to and agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses included in a conference re- as follows: port a nongermane provi- That the House recede from its sion, a motion to reject that disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill and provision is in order under agree to the same with an amend- Rule XXVIII clause 4(b), and ment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to is debatable for 40 minutes, be inserted by the Senate amend- equally divided between the ment insert the following: Member making the motion This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Local and a Member opposed; and Government Antitrust Act of 1984.’’. if the motion to reject is de- SEC. 2. For purposes of this Act— feated, the debate com- (1) the term ‘‘local government’’ mences on the conference re- means— (A) a city, county, parish, town, port itself. township, village, or any other general function governmental unit es- The text of the conference re- tablished by State law, or (7) port on H.R. 6027, the Local (B) a school district, sanitary dis- Government Antitrust Act of trict, or any other special function 1984, considered in the House on governmental unit established by Oct. 11, 1984,(8) the resulting State law in one or more States, (2) the term ‘‘person’’ has the meaning given it in subsection (a) of the 7. 130 CONG. REC. 31441, 98th Cong. first section of the Clayton Act (15 2d Sess., Oct. 10, 1984. U.S.C. 12(A)), but does not include 8. 130 CONG. REC. 32219, 32220, any local government as defined in 32223, 32224, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. paragraph (1) of this section, and

12113 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

(3) the term ‘‘State’’ has the mean- MIKE SYNAR, ing given it in section 4G(2) of the GEO. W. CROCKETT, Jr., Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15g(2)). CHARLES SCHUMER, SEC. 3. (a) No damages, interest on EDWARD FEIGHAN, damages, costs, or attorney’s fees may HAMILTON FISH, be recovered under section 4, 4A, or CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, 4C of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15, 15a, or 15c) from any local govern- HENRY HYDE, ment, or official or employee thereof DANIEL E. LUNGREN, acting in an official capacity. Managers on the Part of the House. (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply STROM THURMOND, to cases commenced before the effec- ORRIN HATCH, tive date of this Act unless the de- HOWARD METZENBAUM, fendant establishes and the court de- Managers on the Part of the Senate.... termines, in light of all the circumstances, including the stage of MR. [PETER W.] RODINO [Jr., of New litigation and the availability of al- Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to ternative relief under the Clayton House Resolution 616, I call up the Act, that it would be inequitable not conference report on the bill (H.R. to apply this subsection to a pending case. In consideration of this section, 6027) to clarify the application of the existence of a jury verdict, district Clayton Act to the official conduct of court judgment, or any stage of liti- local governments, and for other pur- gation subsequent thereto, shall be poses. deemed to be prima facie evidence The Clerk read the title of the bill. that subsection (a) shall not apply. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (9) The SEC. 4. (a) No damages, interest on damages, costs or attorney’s fees may Clerk will read the conference report. be recovered under section 4, 4A, or The Clerk proceeded to read the con- 4C of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15, ference report.... 15a, or 15c) in any claim against a MR. RODINO (during the reading): person based on any official action Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent directed by a local government, or official or employee thereof acting in that the conference report be consid- an official capacity. ered as read. (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there with respect to cases commenced be- objection to the request of the gen- fore the effective date of this Act. tleman from New Jersey? SEC. 5. Section 510 of the Depart- There was no objection. ment of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related POINT OF ORDER Agencies Appropriation Act, 1985 (Public Law 98–411), is repealed. MR. [CHARLES] WILSON [of Texas]: SEC. 6. This Act shall take effect 30 Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. days before the date of the enactment of this Act. I make the point of order that the And the Senate agree to the same. last section of the conference report PETER W. RODINO, contains nongermane matters within JACK BROOKS, the definition of clause 4 of rule DON EDWARDS, XXVIII. JOHN F. SEIBERLING, BILL HUGHES, 9. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).

12114 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does such a case against a local govern- the gentleman from New Jersey desire mental unit. It allows the aggrieved to be heard on the point of order? party to ensure that injunctive relief MR. RODINO: The gentleman from will be available to terminate anti- New Jersey desires to be heard on the competitive activity of a local govern- point of order. ment. MR. WILSON: I would also like to be The fundamental purpose of the sec- heard, Mr. Speaker. tion against which the gentleman raises a point of order is to permit the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Federal Trade Commission to continue Texas. to bring antitrust suits against municipalities. The Federal Trade Commis- MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, if the ob- sion is limited in the remedies that it jectionable section had been offered to may pursue: The FTC cannot seek the House bill, it would have been in damages, only injunctive relief. That is violation of the provisions of clause 7 what this bill is all about, preventing of rule XVI of the House rules. The damage suits while leaving injunctive provision is a repeal of appropriations remedies in place. law. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the provi- That provision deals with spending sions of section 5 are wholly consistent levels for the Federal Trade Commis- with the fundamental purpose of the sion for this fiscal year. The legis- rest of the conference report and are lation is a permanent piece of legisla- therefore germane and the point of tion that amends our antitrust laws. order should not be sustained. These amendments reduce monetary THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does damages that local governments may the gentleman from New York desire be liable for in antitrust suits. to be heard on the point of order? That has nothing to do with the pro- MR. [HAMILTON] FISH [Jr., of New vision of the last section of this con- York]: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. ference report to which my point of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The order is directed. Chair recognizes the gentleman from THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The New York on the point of order. Chair recognizes the gentleman from MR. FISH: Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6027 New Jersey [Mr. Rodino]. protects local governments, as well as MR. RODINO: Mr. Speaker, I rise in its officials and employees, against opposition to the point of order against money damages in suits under our section 5 of the conference report. The antitrust laws. fundamental purpose of this conference However, it implicitly continues to report is to provide for continued en- allow suits for injunctive relief, when forcement of the antitrust laws without no money damages are involved, to en- severely damaging local governments. force these antitrust laws against pos- This legislation before us continues to sible anticompetitive actions by units ensure that antitrust violations will be of local governments. prosecuted; but limits the amount of These suits for injunctive relief may damages which can be assessed in be brought either by a private party or

12115 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

by the antitrust enforcement agencies, priation bill, so its repeal is germane, the Department of Justice, or the FTC. but the fact is that its original enact- The so-called taxicab rider which ment was not germane. would be repealed by section 5 of this THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does bill currently impedes the ability of the the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] FTC to bring the very type of injunc- wish to be heard further on his point of tive relief enforcement which the bill order? before us envisions and presumes. MR. WILSON: No, Mr. Speaker. While removing the threat of money THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If not, damages, we do not intend that local the Chair has had the opportunity of governments be totally immune from reviewing the point of order raised by Federal antitrust laws. Suits for in- the gentleman from Texas that pursu- junctive relief will be a safety net ant to clause 4 of rule XXVIII, the con- against potential anticompetitive ac- ferees on H.R. 6027 have agreed to a tivities by localities. nongermane Senate provision. Section This repeal of section 510 of Public 5 of the conference report on H.R. 6027 Law 98–411 is fully consistent with the contains the substance of section 3 of overall purposes of this bill. To remove the Senate amendment, which re- section 5 from this legislation would, pealed section 510 of Public Law 98– ironically, prevent the FTC enforce- 411, the State, Justice, Commerce Ap- ment when a locality is involved in propriation Act for fiscal year 1985. anticompetitive conduct. The section proposed to be repealed Again, the FTC would not recover prohibits the expenditure of funds in money damages under the structure of that appropriation act for the Federal H.R. 6027, but it could seek an injunc- Trade Commission to conduct antitrust tion to bring anticompetitive activities actions against municipalities or other by localities to a halt. The fair balance units of local government. in this legislation would be distorted if H.R. 6027 as passed by the House the FTC remains unable to exercise its only addresses the issue of antitrust normal statutory responsibilities to en- remedies for claims against local gov- force compliance with our antitrust ernments, and merely limits monetary laws. relief for a Federal or private cause of Section 5 is consistent with the fun- action against a local government damental purposes of this legislation under the Clayton Act. While the and should remain in this bill. It is House bill may limit the remedies germane in a logical, substantive which the FTC may obtain in such sense. This is an antitrust bill. The suits, in the same way it limits any FTC is an antitrust enforcement agen- claimant, the House bill does not ad- cy. H.R. 6027 is an amendment to the dress the general authority of the FTC Clayton Act. The FTC, along with the to prosecute antitrust actions, or the Department of Justice, enforces that conditions under which the FTC may very same Clayton Act. use its appropriated funds for the com- Section 510 of Public Law 98–411 ing fiscal year. The Chair would also was, in reality, legislation on an appro- point out that the conference report

12116 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4 and Senate amendment directly amend So the motion was rejected. a general appropriation act not ad- The result of the vote was an- dressed in the House bill. nounced as above recorded. For the reasons stated, the Chair A motion to reconsider was laid on sustains the point of order. the table. Does the gentleman from Texas have THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (10) The a motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Ro- XXVIII? dino] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WILSON [Mr. Fish] will be recognized for 30 minutes. MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to clause 4(b) of rule XXVIII, The Chair recognizes the gentleman to strike section 5 of the conference re- from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino]. port. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Order of Responding to Points gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] is of Order entitled to 20 minutes in support of his motion. § 4.22 Where a conference re- Does the gentleman from Texas wish port is vulnerable to several to use his time? points of order that sections MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I am pre- included therein are not ger- pared to yield back my time. mane, the Speaker entertains THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Ro- one point of order at a time, dino] is entitled to 20 minutes in oppo- rules on whether it is ger- sition to the motion.... mane, and if he sustains the The question is on the motion offered point of order entertains a by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wil- motion to reject that provi- son]. sion. After a vote on one mo- The question was taken; and on a dition to reject, he then enter- vision (demanded by Mr. Wilson) there were—yeas 8, nays 23. tains the next point of order MR. PHILIP M. CRANE [of Illinois]: under Rule XXVIII clause 4. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the If any motion to reject is ground that a quorum is not present agreed to, the conference re- and make the point of order that a port falls, and a motion to re- quorum is not present. cede and concur in the Sen- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evi- dently a quorum is not present. ate amendment, with an The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- amendment eliminating the sent Members. rejected provisions, is enter- The vote was taken by electronic detained. vice, and there were—yeas 36, nays 298, not voting 98.... 10. Frank Harrison (Pa.).

12117 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The proceedings of Oct. 15, (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The 1986,(11) when the House had be- table of contents is as follows: fore it the conference report on Sec. 1. Short title and table of con- the Commodity Futures Trading tents. Act of 1986, provide a good illus- TITLE I—FUTURES TRADING tration of the steps required by Rule XXVIII clause 4. sec. 101. fraudulent practices. Section 4b of the Commodity Ex- CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4613, change Act (7 U.S.C. 6b) is amend- FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1986 ed—. . .

Mr. de la Garza submitted the fol- MR. [E (KIKA)] DE LA GARZA [of lowing conference report and state- Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the ment on the bill (H.R. 4613) to reau- provisions of House Resolution 590, the thorize appropriations to carry out the rule just adopted, I call up the con- Commodity Exchange Act, and to make ference report on the bill (H.R. 4613) to (12) technical improvements to that Act: reauthorize appropriations to carry out CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 99– the Commodity Exchange Act, and to 995) make technical improvements to that act. The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two The Clerk read the title of the bill. Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4613) to re- POINT OF ORDER authorize appropriations to carry out MR. [CHARLES O.] WHITLEY [of North the Commodity Exchange Act, and to Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point make technical improvements to that of order against the nongermane Act, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to rec- amendment contained in the con- ommend and do recommend to their ference report relating to the transfer respective Houses as follows: of national forest lands in the State of That the House recede from its Nebraska. disagreement to the amendment of THE SPEAKER: (13) The gentleman the Senate and agree to the same from North Carolina (Mr. Whitley) will with an amendment as follows: identify that portion of the bill. In lieu of the matter proposed to MR. WHITLEY: Mr. Speaker, the be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the following: point of order is specifically made against section 207 of title II of the section 1. short title and table of conference report. contents. THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be from Texas desire to be heard on the cited as the ‘‘Futures Trading Act of point of order? 1986’’. MR. DE LA GARZA: Yes, Mr. Speaker, briefly. 11. 132 CONG. REC. 31498, 31499, Mr. Speaker, the committee and the 31502–06, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. conference committee agreed on the 12. See 132 CONG. REC. 30824–26, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 14, 1986. 13. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

12118 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4 text of the legislation which is the of the House rules for the reason that Commodity Futures Trade Commis- it contains a Senate amendment that sion. is in violation of rule XVI, clause 7, be- The other body then added various cause it contains matter nongermane and sundry other bills and we have to to H.R. 4613 as passed by the House. concede the point that they were not H.R. 4613, as reported by the Com- germane and they were extraneous to mittee on Agriculture, and adopted in the matter. Therefore, I find myself in the House, was a bill ‘‘to authorize ap- the situation where I could not but propriations to carry out the Com- otherwise yield to the point of order, modity Exchange Act, and to make Mr. Speaker. technical improvements in that act.’’ THE SPEAKER: The point of order is ... conceded and sustained. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (14) Does Does the gentleman from North the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la Carolina (Mr. Whitley) move to reject Garza) desire to be heard on this point that part of the conference committee of order? report? MR. DE LA GARZA: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. WHITLEY: Mr. Speaker, I do. Mr. Speaker, the House version of the CFTC, as I have explained pre- MOTION OFFERED BY MR. WHITLEY viously, did not contain this item of MR. WHITLEY: Mr. Speaker, I move legislation. The other body amended to delete section 207 from the con- the bill and added other items.... ference report. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: . . . In THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from the opinion of the Chair, section 202 of North Carolina (Mr. Whitley) is recog- the conference report as added in the nized for 20 minutes. Senate would not have been germane MR. WHITLEY: Mr. Speaker, section to the House-passed bill; so the point 207 of title II of the conference report of order is sustained. authorizes the conveyance of approximately 173 acres of land in the Ne- MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MADIGAN braska National Forest to the Ne- MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, I move braska Game and Parks Commission, to reject the matter in the conference to be added to the Chadron State Park report originally contained in section in Nebraska.... 504 of the Senate amendment to H.R. THE SPEAKER: The question is on the 4613 and now contained in section 202 motion offered by the gentleman from of the conference report entitled ‘‘Basis North Carolina (Mr. Whitley). for Computation of Emergency Com- The motion was agreed to. pensation Under the 1986 Wheat Pro- gram’’ (H. Rept. 99–995). POINT OF ORDER THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. [EDWARD R.] MADIGAN [of Illi- gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Madigan) nois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of is recognized for 20 minutes.... order against the conference report to H.R. 4613 under rule XXVIII, clause 4, 14. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).

12119 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, is it cor- to set aside and vacate the proceedings rect that I am entitled to close the de- on the motion of the gentleman from bate? North Carolina (Mr. Whitley) to reject THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The the Senate amendment to section 406 gentleman is not correct. The gen- of H.R. 4613 that is now section 207 of tleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has the conference report. the right to close debate. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the objection to the request of the gentle- Record a letter from the Director of the woman from Nebraska? Congressional Budget Office relative to MR. WHITLEY: Mr. Speaker, reserv- the item of discussion before the House ing the right to object, I want to advise this morning. the Members that earlier in the pro- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there ceedings today I made a point of order objection to the request of the gen- against one of the sections of the bill. tleman from Illinois? I do not have the language in front of There was no objection. me at this moment. My point of order The text of the letter is as follows: ... was sustained, and I moved that that section of the bill be stricken. Speaker THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by O’Neill was in the chair at the time. the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Mad- He ruled that the motion had carried igan). and announced that the section was The question was taken; and the stricken. Speaker pro tempore announced that Subsequent to that time, the gentle- the noes appeared to have it. woman from Nebraska approached me MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Speaker, I object and told me that the proceedings were to the vote on the ground that a somewhat hasty, that she was taken quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not by surprise and did not have an oppor- present. tunity to present arguments in opposi- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evi- tion to my motion. dently a quorum is not present. Mr. Speaker, I will not object to the The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- gentlewoman’s request with the clear sent Members. understanding that I will have the The vote was taken by electronic de- same time to argue in support of my vice, and there were—yeas 162, nays motion that I was originally assigned if 239, not voting 31, as follows:... the proceeding is vacated. [So the motion to reject was not THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If there agreed to.] is no objection and the proceeding is THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Are there any other points of order against vacated, the Chair will resume as if this bill? nothing had happened so that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Whit- VACATING PROCEEDINGS BY WHICH SEC- ley) will be protected and will have his TION 207 OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT time. ON H.R. 4613 WAS DELETED MR. WHITLEY: I thank the Chair. MRS. [VIRGINIA] SMITH of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva- Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent tion of objection.

12120 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there The Clerk read as follows: objection to the request of the gentle- Mr. de la Garza moves that the woman from Nebraska? House recede from its disagreement There was no objection. to the Senate amendment to H.R. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The 4613 and concur therein with an gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. amendment: Whitley) is recognized for 20 min- In lieu of the matter inserted by the utes.... Senate amendment, insert the text of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The the conference report on H.R. 4613 question is on the motion offered by without section 207 thereof. the gentleman from North Carolina THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The (Mr. Whitley). gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la The question was taken; and the Garza) will be recognized for 30 min- Speaker pro tempore announced that utes, and the gentleman from Illinois the ayes appeared to have it. (Mr. Madigan) will be recognized for 30 0MRS. SMITH of Nebraska: Mr. minutes. Speaker, I object to the vote on the The Chair recognizes the gentleman ground that a quorum is not present from Texas (Mr. de la Garza). and make the point of order that a quorum is not present. Points of Order at Conference THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evi- dently a quorum is not present. Stage The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members. § 4.23 A point of order against The vote was taken by electronic de- a conference report on a leg- vice, and there were—yeas 274, nays islative bill on the basis that 130 .... it carries in its text an ap- [The motion to reject was agreed to.] propriation is not valid if the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (15) Pur- appropriation was in the bill suant to clause 4, rule XXVIII, the con- as it passed the House and ference report is considered as rejected. allowed to remain because of The question is on the motion to recede and concur in the Senate amend- waiver or inaction. ment with an amendment consisting of On May 1, 1975,(16) during consider- the text of the conference report with- ation of the conference report on the out section 207.... bill H.R. 6096, the Vietnam Humani- tarian and Evacuation Assistance Act MOTION OFFERED BY MR. DE LA GARZA of 1975, a point of order was raised MR. DE LA GARZA: Mr. Speaker, I against the report on the ground that offer a motion. it carried an appropriation in violation THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The both of clause 2 of Rule XX and clause Clerk will report the motion. 16. 121 CONG. REC. 12752, 12753, 94th 15. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.). Cong. 1st Sess.

12121 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

5 of Rule XXI. After debate, the Speak- the conference report, in speaking of er overruled the point of order. The evacuation programs authorized by the discussion on the point of order and entire act and not just by one section, the ruling follow: exceeds the scope of section 3 of the MR. [THOMAS E.] MORGAN [of Penn- bill and exceeds the waiver that was sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the permitted under the rule. It therefore conference report on the bill (H.R. violates rule XXI, clause 5, and vio- 6096) to authorize funds for humani- lates rule XX, clause 2, which prohibits tarian assistance and evacuation pro- House conferees from accepting a Sen- grams in Vietnam and to clarify re- ate amendment providing for an appro- strictions on the availability of funds priation on a nonappropriation bill in for the use of U.S. Armed Forces in excess of the rules of the House. Indochina, and for other purposes, and Mr. Speaker, last week the Com- ask unanimous consent that the state- mittee of the Whole deliberated on an ment of the managers be read in lieu amendment that exceeded the limita- of the report. tions of the rule granted by the Rules The Clerk read the title of the bill. Committee. That was the Eckhardt THE SPEAKER: (17) there objection to amendment, and it was ruled out of the request of the gentleman from order by the Chairman. The language Pennsylvania? in section 7 of the conference report in MS. [ELIZABETH] HOLTZMAN [of New essence has the same flaw as the York]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to Eckhardt amendment. make a point of order against the con- The last sentence of section 7 of the ference report. conference report would waive various THE SPEAKER: The gentlewoman will provisions of law with respect to $327 state it. million, whereas the last sentence of MS. HOLTZMAN: Mr. Speaker, section section 3 of the House bill waived 7 of the conference report in the last these laws only with respect to $150 sentence refers to evacuation programs million. Section 7 of the conference re- authorized by this act. It permits a port, therefore, is broader than section waiver of a series of laws for the pur- 3 of the House bill. pose of allowing those evacuation pro- Had the language of section 7 been grams to take place. offered as an amendment to the House In the House bill (H.R. 6096), section bill, it would have been subject to a 3 dealt with evacuation programs re- point of order. Since the authority of ferred to in section 2 of the bill and the House conferees is no broader than waived the same series of laws with re- the waiver originally granted to the spect thereto. In order for section 3 to bill by the Rules Committee, section 7 be considered, it required a rule from of the conference report should be the Rules Committee. And a rule was ruled out of order. granted waiving points of order against THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman section 3 of the bill. But section 7 of from Pennsylvania desire to be heard on the point of order? 17. Carl Albert (Okla.). MR. MORGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

12122 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

The point of order has no standing. clude House conferees from agreeing to Section 3 of the House bill and section a Senate amendment containing an ap- 7 of the conference report referred to propriation on a legislative bill, and do use of funds of the Armed Forces of the not restrict their authority to consider United States for the protection and an appropriation which might have evacuation of certain persons from been contained in the House-passed South Vietnam. The language of the version. In this instance, the conferees conference report does not increase have recommended language which is funds available for that purpose. Both virtually identical to section 3 of the the House bill and the conference re- House bill, and they have not agreed to port simply removed limitations on the a Senate amendment containing an ap- use of funds from the DOD budget. propriation. Therefore, clause 2, rule These limitations were not applicable XX, is not applicable to the present to the funds authorized in H.R. 6096. conference report. The scope of the waiver is the same in While clause 5, rule XXI, permits a the conference report and the House point of order to be raised against an bill. appropriation in a legislative bill ‘‘at Mr. Speaker, the changes in lan- any time’’ consistent with the orderly guage are merely conforming changes. consideration of the bill to which ap- Section 2 of the House bill was a sec- plied—Cannon’s VII, sections 2138– tion which authorized the evacuation 39—the Chair must point out that programs in the House bill. The con- H.R. 6096 was considered in the House ference version contains the evacuation under the terms of House Resolution programs authority in several sections 409 which waived points of order plus reference to the entire act rather against section 3 of the House bill as than to one specific section. constituting an appropriation of available funds for a new purpose. Mr. Speaker, the point of order has no standing and I hope it is overruled. The Chair feels that an analogous situation may be found in Deschler’s THE SPEAKER: Does the gentle- Procedure, chapter 25, section 23.11. woman from New York desire to be There, points of order had been waived heard further on the point of order? against portions of a general appro- MS. HOLTZMAN: No, Mr. Speaker. priation bill which were unauthorized THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to by law, and the bill passed the House rule. containing those provisions and was The gentlewoman from New York sent to conference; the conferees were makes the point of order that section 7 permitted to report their agreement as of the conference report constitutes an to those provisions, since the waiver appropriation on a legislative bill in carried over to the consideration of the violation of clause 5, rule XXI, to same provision when the conference re- which the House conferees were not port was before the House. authorized to agree pursuant to clause The gentlewoman from New York 2, rule XX. also has in effect made the point of The Chair would first point out that order that section 7 of the conference the provisions of clause 2, rule XX, pre- report goes beyond the issues in dif-

12123 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

ference between the two Houses com- Gaining Floor for Point of mitted to conference in violation of Order clause 3, rule XXVIII. In the House-passed bill, section 3 § 4.24 The Chair must recog- contained waivers of certain provisions nize a Member to state a of law in order to make available funds already appropriated to the Depart- point of order relative to the ment of Defense to be used for the conduct of debate at any Armed Forces in ‘‘evacuation programs time, and it is not necessary referred to in section 2 of the act.’’ The that the Member having the conferees have recommended that the same waivers of law shall apply to floor yield for that purpose. ‘‘evacuation programs authorized by As the 2d session of the 95th this act.’’ Congress was drawing to a close, In the opinion of the Chair, a con- the Endangered Species Act forming change in phraseology in a Amendments of 1978 was being conference report from language contained in the House or Senate version considered for amendment under to achieve consistency in the language the five-minute rule. Time for de- thereof, absent proof that the effect of bate on the bill and remaining that change is to broaden the scope of amendments was limited to 40 the language beyond that contained in minutes. An amendment was of- either version, does not necessarily fered by Mr. Duncan and he and render the conference report subject to Mr. Dingell, the bill manager, a point of order. In this instance, it appears to the Chair that the only effect were each recognized briefly to de- of the language in the conference re- bate the amendment. The pro- port was to accomplish the same result ceedings of Oct. 14, 1978,(18) were that would have been reached by sec- as indicated below: tion 3 of the House bill, namely to re- MR. [ROBERT L.] LEGGETT [of Cali- move certain limitations on the use of fornia]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike funds in the Defense budget for mili- the last word. tary evacuation programs under this Mr. Chairman, it is my under- bill. standing that we have been consid- The Chair therefore holds that the ering this bill now for 4 hours. It is conferees have not exceeded their au- everybody’s knowledge that we have to thority and overrules the point of complete this bill before the session order. ends. We do not want to take all day Is there objection to the request of on it. the gentleman from Pennsylvania? Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- There was no objection. sent that debate on all amendments The Clerk read the statement. and on the bill close in 30 minutes. (For conference report and statement see proceedings of the House of April 18. 124 CONG. REC. 38153–55, 95th 28, 1975.) Cong. 2d Sess.

12124 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4

THE CHAIRMAN: (19) Is there objection generally incapable of producing fer- to the request of the gentleman from tile offspring through breeding with California? . . . organisms outside this group.’’; MR. LEGGETT: Mr. Chairman, I ask MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- unanimous consent that debate on all gan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve points of amendments and on the bill close in 40 order against the amendment. minutes. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to Michigan (Mr. Dingell) reserves points the request of the gentleman from of order against the amendment. California? MR. DUNCAN of Oregon: Mr. Chair- There was no objection. man, without repeating the signifi- MR. [JOHN] BUCHANAN [of Alabama]: cance of these amendments that I have Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to already discussed in connection with object, those of us who have amend- the first amendment to redefine ‘‘crit- ments printed in the Record would, of ical habitat,’’ this one goes to the defi- course, be protected by the rules under nition of ‘‘species.’’ The committee bill, the scenario? at the top of page 24, defines the term THE CHAIRMAN: Let the Chair state ‘‘species’’ as including any subspecies of that that is correct, 5 minutes on each fish or wildlife or plants, and any dis- side. tinct segment of the population of any MR. BUCHANAN: I thank the Chair. species of vertebrate fish or wildlife THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to which interbreeds when mature.... the request of the gentleman from THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman California? from Michigan desire to insist upon his There was no objection. point of order? THE CHAIRMAN: Members standing MR. DINGELL: No, I do not, I wish to at the time the unanimous-consent speak in opposition to the amendment. agreement was entered into will be THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from recognized for 21⁄2 minutes each. Michigan withdraws his point of order The Chair recognizes the gentleman and is recognized for 21⁄2 minutes.... from New Jersey (Mr. Hughes).... MR. DUNCAN of Oregon: Mr. Chair- MR. [ROBERT] DUNCAN of Oregon: man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. MR. DINGELL: I do not yield. The Clerk read as follows: MR. DUNCAN: of Oregon: Mr. Chair- man, I rise to a point of order. Amendment offered by Mr. Dun- can of Oregon: Page 24, strike out MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I ask line 1 and all that follows down for regular order. through line 4, and insert in lieu MR. DUNCAN: of Oregon: Mr. Chair- thereof the following: man, a point of order. ‘‘(13) The term ‘species’ means a MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I ask group of fish, wildlife, or plants, consisting of physically similar orga- for regular order. I do not yield to the nisms capable of interbreeding but gentleman. He understands the rules. MR. DUNCAN: of Oregon: Mr. Chair- 19. B. F. Sisk (Calif.). man, may I state a point of order.

12125 Ch. 31 § 4 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will minute to the gentleman from Oregon state his point of order. (Mr. Duncan). MR. DUNCAN: of Oregon: Mr. Chair- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- man, the point of order is—— vise the gentleman that he already MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I do used his time under the allocation. not yield for a point of order. MR. HUGHES: Mr. Chairman, I had THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has stat- two amendments at the desk. ed that the gentleman will state his THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has point of order. used his time. MR. DUNCAN: of Oregon: Mr. Chair- The Chair was trying to be fair in man, I have a point of order. The gen- recognizing either the chairman or the tleman is addressing himself and his ranking member, if either desires to argument to the amendment—— comment on the amendment. MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield to the gentleman from Or- Point of Order Against Motion egon. To Recommit Mr. Chairman, I demand the protection of the Chair. This is a frivolous § 4.25 A point of order against point of order. I do not yield for that a motion to recommit must purpose. I ask that the gentleman be be made immediately after instructed to take his seat and behave himself. the motion is read and comes THE CHAIRMAN: Will the gentleman too late after debate thereon. from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) please rec- On May 13, 1982,(20) Mr. Dan ognize that the Chair is trying to con- Glickman, of Kansas, attempted form to the rules. to raise a point of order against a The gentleman has made a point of order; and of course, the Chair must pending motion to recommit. The recognize that point of order. gist of the argument he attempted MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I do to make was that the motion not yield for the point of order. amended an amendment already THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state adopted by the House. The motion that it is not necessary that the gen- in this instance was not protected tleman yield for that purpose. The by language in the special order Chair has a right at any time to recognize a Member on a point of order. providing for consideration of the The gentleman from Michigan will bill and specifying that the motion continue to proceed in order. to recommit could be ‘‘with or MR. DINGELL: I am proceeding in without instructions.’’ In any order, Mr. Chairman. event, the point of order against THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will the motion came too late, the pro- proceed.... MR. [WILLIAM J.] HUGHES [of New 20. 128 CONG. REC. 9838, 97th Cong. 2d Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 Sess.

12126 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 4 ponent having entered into the space program in its entirety, that if five-minute debate permitted by we cannot in a $6.6 billion budget deal the rules. with between us reducing $35 million, then I would have to ask the Members THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (1) of this body, where are we going to Under the rule, the previous question begin to cut? is ordered. The proposal that came from the ad- Is a separate vote demanded on any ministration represented an 11-percent amendment? If not, the Chair will put increase—an 11-percent increase for them en gros. NASA at a time when many other The amendments were agreed to. areas of our Government are being THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The asked to cut back. If we cannot be- question is on the engrossment and tween us find $35 million, then— third reading of the bill. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read MR. GLICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, a par- the third time. liamentary inquiry. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. the gentleman yield for the inquiry? DUNN MR. DUNN: I yield just for an in- MR. [JIM] DUNN [of Michigan]: Mr. quiry. The gentleman will state his Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. parliamentary inquiry. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the MR. GLICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would gentleman opposed to the bill? ask if the numbers in the motion to recommit are in fact the same numbers MR. DUNN: I am, Mr. Speaker. in the committee bill as amended by THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The the Winn amendment? gentleman qualifies. MR. DUNN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. They The Clerk will report the motion to are the same numbers as in the Winn recommit. amendment. The Clerk read as follows: THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Mr. Dunn moves to recommit the Chair will inquire, is the gentleman bill H.R. 5890 to the Committee on from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) raising a Science and Technology with instruc- point of order? tions to report back the same forthwith with the following amendment: MR. GLICKMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I On page 2, line 22, strike am raising a point of order. ‘‘$267,100,000’’ and insert in lieu MR. DUNN: Regular order, Mr. thereof ‘‘$232,700,000’’. Speaker. MR. DUNN: Mr. Speaker, the point of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The this is to say to this body, and even Chair will state that, the gentleman’s though I am a member of the com- point of order is not timely. It comes mittee and a strong supporter of our too late. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 1. Gillis W. Long (La.). Dunn) will proceed.

12127 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

§ 5. Timeliness as Against bill is after the House has re- Bills or Provisions solved itself into the Committee of Therein the Whole and after the paragraph containing such items has The principles governing the been read for amendment.(7) timeliness of points of order But points of order against ap- against bills or provisions therein propriations in legislative bills, and amendments are similar. under Rule XXI clause 5, can be Points of order against a bill are considered by the Chair prior to raised ‘‘at any time,’’ which has recognition of Members to offer been held to mean during consid- amendments; (2) and a point of eration of that portion of the bill, order against a section of a bill or of the amendment, under the must be made immediately after five-minute rule.(8) the section is read and comes too A point of order against a para- late after an amendment to that graph in a general appropriation section has been considered.(3) bill comes too late after the spon- On the other hand, it is not too late to make a point of order sor of an amendment to it is rec- against a paragraph merely be- ognized to debate his amend- cause there has been argument on ment,(9) or after the amendment a point of order against a proviso has been read and agreed to.(10) It within the paragraph.(4) A point of is too late to make such points order against a part of a para- after the Clerk has begun reading graph or section, if sustained, re- the next paragraph.(11) The Chair sults in the elimination of the often displays some leniency, how- whole,(5) unless it is the desire of ever, to Members who missed the offeror of the point of order to limit his point to only part of the their opportunity to raise a point paragraph.(6) of order, when such Members The time for making points of were on their feet seeking recogni- order against unauthorized items tion at the appropriate time.(12) or legislation in an appropriation 7. See §§ 5.12–5.15, infra. 2. See §§ 5.1–5.8, infra. 8. See §§ 5.28, 5.29, infra. 3. See § 5.10, infra. 9. See § 5.18, infra. 4. See § 5.13, infra. 10. See § 5.20, infra. 5. See §§ 1.16–1.18, supra. 11. See § 5.21, infra. 6. See § 1.19, supra. 12. See §§ 5.23, 5.24, infra.

12128 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

Prior to Recognition for MR. [CLEMENT J.] ZABLOCKI [of Wis- Amendments consin]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. ( ) § 5.1 Points of order against a THE CHAIRMAN: 14 The gentleman will state it. paragraph of a bill are con- MR. ZABLOCKI: If a Member desired sidered by the Chairman be- to raise a point of order to paragraph fore Members are recognized (3) on page 2, would he have to wait to offer amendments to that until the Clerk has read the entire paragraph. title? THE CHAIRMAN: No, he would have On June 4, 1970,(13) the Committee to wait only until the Clerk had read of the Whole had under consideration the paragraph carrying the language to H.R. 17867, the foreign assistance ap- which the gentleman wishes to make propriation for fiscal 1971. his point of order. The Clerk read as follows: MR. ZABLOCKI: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order to language appearing ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE on page 2. The gentleman from Wis- Technical assistance: For nec- consin was on his feet. essary expenses as authorized by law THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk has read $310,000,000, distributed as follows: the section to which the gentleman (1) World-wide, $150,000,000 (sec- wishes to make his point of order. tion 212); MR. [RICHARD H.] ICHORD [of Mis- (2) Alliance for Progress, $75,000,000 (section 252(a)); and souri]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary (3) Multilateral organizations, inquiry. $85,000,000 (section 302(a)), of THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will which not less than $13,000,000 state it. shall be available only for the United MR. ICHORD: I wish to offer an Nations Children’s Fund: Provided amendment affecting lines 9, 10, 11, That no part of this appropriation shall be used to initiate any project 12, 13 and 14 on page 2. Is the amend- or activity which has not been justi- ment in order at this time? fied to the Congress, except projects MR. [OTTO E.] PASSMAN [of Lou- or activities relating to the reduction isiana]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamen- of population growth: Provided fur- tary inquiry. ther, That the President shall seek to assure that no contribution to the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will United Nations Development Pro- state it. gram authorized by the Foreign As- MR. PASSMAN: It is my under- sistance Act of 1961, as amended, standing that the Clerk has already shall be used for projects for eco- read that section and has even gone nomic or technical assistance to the Government of Cuba, so long as into a reading of the third page of the Cuba is governed by the Castro re- bill. gime. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Wisconsin was on his feet seeking rec- 13. 116 CONG. REC. 18395, 18396, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. 14. Hale Boggs (La.).

12129 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

ognition, and the Chair will protect his And so forth. rights. That is obviously a directive to the MR. ZABLOCKI: Mr. Chairman, a President of the United States, it is not point of order. limited in application to the funds ap- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from propriated in this bill or any section Missouri will defer offering his amend- thereof, and the Chair sustains the ment. The Chair will hear the gen- point of order. tleman from Wisconsin on his point of The Chair then recognized Mr. order. Ichord to offer an amendment. MR. ZABLOCKI: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the entire § 5.2 Points of order reserved proviso beginning on line 20 and ending on line 25 of page 2 is legislation against a proposition must in an appropriation. I am for its objec- be disposed of before amend- tives, but in effect it simply says that ments thereto are in order. the President should try to enforce ex- On May 14, 1937,(15) it was isting law. The provisions in existing law, section 620 of the Foreign Assist- ruled that one could not reserve a ance Act are stronger and there is no point of order and offer an amend- sense in this useless repetition in an ment simultaneously. appropriation. The Clerk read as follows:... Mr. Chairman, I make the point of MR. [GERALD J.] BOILEAU [of Wis- order that this is legislation on an ap- consin]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the propriation bill. point of order against the proviso.... THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman ( ) THE CHAIRMAN: 16 The time of the from Louisiana wish to be heard on the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired. point of order? Without objection the pro-forma MR. PASSMAN: Yes, sir, Mr. Chair- amendment will be withdrawn. man. The proviso was added by the MR. BOILEAU: I do not withdraw my Committee on Appropriations for the reservation to the point of order, Mr. foreign assistance appropriation bill for Chairman, but I have an amendment fiscal year 1971 in order to insure that that I desire to offer. no U.S. contribution to the UNDP THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order would be used to give any type of eco- will have to be disposed of before an nomical or technical assistance to Cuba amendment is in order. as long as Cuba is governed by the MR. BOILEAU: I reserve the point of Castro regime. order, if that reservation does not con- I would like to interpret this as a tinue. limitation on an appropriation bill and ask for a ruling. 15. 81 CONG. REC. 4596, 4597, 75th THE CHAIRMAN: The language in Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration question is as follows: Line 20, page 2: was H.R. 6958, the Interior Depart- Provided further, That the Presi- ment appropriation for 1938. dent shall seek to assure... 16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).

12130 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

THE CHAIRMAN: The reservation does MR. BLATNIK: Open at any point for not continue if the gentleman wants to amendment. offer an amendment. MR. [WILLIAM C.] CRAMER [of Flor- MR. BOILEAU: It can continue by ida]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right unanimous consent, can it not? to object, that does not preclude the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair thinks it right to raise points of order at any is his duty to protect the bill to that time, does it? extent. THE CHAIRMAN: Of course not. MR. BOILEAU: Mr. Chairman, I with- Is there objection to the request of draw the point of order. the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Blatnik], that the first two titles will Before Amendments Are Of- be considered as read? fered There was no objection. MR. [JOHN F.] BALDWIN [of Cali- § 5.3 Where, by unanimous fornia]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamen- consent, an authorization bill tary inquiry. is considered read and open THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will to amendment at any point, state it. points of order against pos- MR. BALDWIN: Mr. Chairman, do sible appropriations therein, points of order have to be brought up before any amendments are offered? though in order ‘‘at any THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state time,’’ should be stated be- that they should be, but they may be fore amendments are offered. raised. On Oct. 3, 1962,(17) the principle MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. was expressed that points of order Chairman, I ask unanimous consent should be raised before taking up that points of order be in order at any time. amendments to a bill, although in THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to actuality the principle was waived the request of the gentleman from by unanimous consent. Iowa? MR. [JOHN A.] BLATNIK [of Min- There was no objection. nesota]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unani- Parliamentarian’s Note: Since, mous consent that titles I and II be considered as read. under rules in effect in the 87th THE CHAIRMAN: (18) And open for Congress, no other points of order amendment at any point? would have been in order against a provision in a legislative bill ex- 17. 108 CONG. REC. 21883, 87th Cong. cept one directed at an appropria- 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 13273, concerning omnibus tion in violation of Rule XXI river and harbors authorizations for clause 5(a), which would have 1962. been in order at any time, wheth- 18. Francis E. Walter (Pa.). er or not debate or amendments

12131 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS had intervened, this unanimous- Mar. 7, 1991,(19) read, in pertinent consent request was unnecessary. part, as follows:

Had the bill under consideration MR. [MARTIN] FROST [of Texas]: Mr. been a general appropriation bill, Speaker, by direction of the Committee or a highway bill providing for a on Rules, I call up House Resolution 103, and ask for its immediate consid- specific road in violation of eration. present Rule X clause 1(p), then The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- Mr. Gross’ unanimous-consent re- lows: quest would have been relevant. H. RES. 103 Resolved, That all points of order Permitting Points of Order for failure to comply with the provi- Against Portion of Bill Not sions of sections 302(f) and 311(a) of Yet Read the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI and clause 7 of rule XXI are here- § 5.4 Where the Committee of by waived against consideration of the Whole had agreed by the bill (H.R. 1281) making dire emergency supplemental appropria- unanimous consent to con- tions for the consequences of Oper- sider points of order directed ation Desert Storm/Desert Shield, to paragraphs not yet read, food stamps, unemployment compensation administration, veterans the Chair directed the Clerk compensation and pensions, and to report each such provision other urgent needs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1991, and for and entertained points of other purposes. During consideration order as they were pre- of the bill, all points of order against sented. provisions in the bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clauses The special order reported from 2 and 6 of rule XXI are hereby waived, except against the provisions the Committee on Rules which beginning on page 24, line 17 protected legislative provisions in through page 25, line 10; beginning on page 28, lines 14 through 21; and the dire emergency supplemental beginning on page 32, lines 15 appropriation bill, funding ex- through 22.... penses of the Desert Storm mili- During the consideration of the tary operation against Iraq, bill H.R. 1281 in Committee of the waived all points of order against Whole on Mar. 7, 1991,(20) the three provisions, which the Com- chairman of the legislative committee on Public Works and mittee wished to address the un- Transportation had argued should 19. 137 CONG. REC. 5478, 102d Cong. 1st remain vulnerable to points of Sess. order. The special order, adopted 20. Id. at pp. 5496–98.

12132 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5 protected paragraphs as soon as ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL consideration under the five- ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION minute rule began. (TRANSFER OF FUNDS) THE CHAIRMAN: (1) All time for gen- Notwithstanding any other provi- eral debate on this bill has expired. sion of law and subject to approval The Clerk will read. by the Joint Committee on the Li- brary, the Architect of the Capitol is The Clerk read as follows: authorized (1) to procure, through a rental, lease, or other agreement, not H.R. 1281 more than 25,000 square feet of tem- Be it enacted by the Senate and porary storage and warehouse space House of Representatives of the outside the Capitol Grounds for use United States of America in Congress by the Library of Congress during assembled, That the following sums fiscal year 1991, and (2) to incur in- are appropriated, out of any money cidental expenses in connection with in the Treasury not otherwise appro- such use. Subject to approval by the priated, to provide dire emergency Committee on Appropriations of the supplemental appropriations for the House of Representatives and the fiscal year ending September 30, Committee on Appropriations of the 1991, and for other purposes, name- Senate, amounts for the purposes of ly:... the preceding sentence may be transferred from the appropriation ‘‘Li- MR. [ROBERT A.] ROE [of New Jer- brary of Congress, Salaries and ex- sey]: Mr. Chairman, I have three penses’’ to the appropriation ‘‘Archi- tect of the Capitol, Library buildings points of order to paragraphs not pro- and grounds, Structural and me- tected by the rule, and I ask unani- chanical care’’. Amounts so trans- mous consent that the paragraphs be- ferred shall be available for expendi- ginning on page 24, line 17, through ture upon vouchers approved by the Architect of the Capitol. page 25, line 10; page 28, lines 14 through 21; and page 32, lines 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman through 22, be considered at this time from New Jersey [Mr. Roe] have a so I can exercise my rights under the point of order on this paragraph? rule.... MR. ROE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of the request of the gentleman from New order against the provision in title II, Jersey? chapter VI, entitled ‘‘Architect of the Capitol,’’ beginning on page 24, line 17 There was no objection. through page 25, line 10. That provi- THE CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to the sion violates clause 2 of rule XXI be- unanimous-consent order, the Clerk cause it is legislation in an appropria- will report the first paragraph against tion bill. which the gentleman from New Jersey THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- may raise a point of order. nizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. The Clerk read as follows: Smith]. MR. [LAWRENCE J.] SMITH of Florida: 1. Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio). Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gen-

12133 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

tleman would not insist on his point of ginning on page 28, lines 14 through order.... 21. That provision violates clause 2 of THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other rule XXI because it again is recom- Member wish to be heard on the point mending legislation in an appropria- of order raised by the gentleman from tions bill. New Jersey [Mr. Roe]? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- MR. [JOHN PAUL] HAMMERSCHMIDT nizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I would Wolf]. like to be heard.... MR. [FRANK R.] WOLF [of Virginia]: THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- Member wish to be heard on the point sent that the provision entitled ‘‘Gen- of order? eral Services Administration’’ be modi- MR. ROE: Mr. Chairman, may I be fied by inserting in line 21, after the heard further?... word ‘‘the,’’ the words, ‘‘House Com- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- mittee on Public Works and Transpor- pared to rule. tation and the’’.... Based on the reasons asserted by the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Roe], Virginia [Mr. Wolf] seeks unanimous the point of order is sustained, and the consent to modify the language subject paragraph is stricken. to the reservation of the point of order The Clerk will report the next para- of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. graph in dispute. The Clerk read as Roe]. follows: Is there objection to the request of Page 28, beginning on line 13, the gentleman from Virginia? There was no objection. CHAPTER X The remaining unprotected GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION paragraphs were then reported None of the funds made available and points of order were enter- by this or any other Act with respect tained. to any fiscal year may be used by the General Services Administration to obligate or expend any funds for the Where Bill ‘‘Considered Read award of contracts for the construc- and Open to Amendment,’’ tion of the Northern Virginia Naval Systems Command Headquarters the Chair Takes Points of project without advance approval in Order Before Amendments writing of the House Committee on Appropriations. § 5.5 Where the Committee of THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman the Whole agrees to a request from New Jersey [Mr. Roe] wish to be that ‘‘the remainder of the heard on his point of order? paragraphs of the appropria- MR. ROE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the pro- tion bill be considered as vision of title II, chapter X, entitled read and open to amend- ‘‘General Services Administration’’ be- ment,’’ the Chair queries for 12134 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

points of order before enter- (to be known as the ‘‘House of Rep- resentatives Child Care Center’’) to taining amendments to or de- furnish pre-school child care— bate on the paragraphs. (1) for children of individuals whose pay is disbursed by the Clerk During the reading for amend- of the House of Representatives or ment of the legislative branch ap- the Sergeant at Arms of the House propriation bill for fiscal 1992, Mr. of Representatives and children of support personnel of the House of Vic Fazio, of California, sub- Representatives; and . . . committee chairman and manager THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any points of the bill, asked unanimous con- of order against that section of the bill? sent that the remainder of the bill (except the last two lines) be con- POINT OF ORDER sidered read and open to amend- MR. [JOEL] HEFLEY [of Colorado]: ment. There being no objection, Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order the Chairman of the Committee of against section 310 on the ground that the Whole, Brian J. Donnelly, of it violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the House of Representatives by changing Massachusetts, solicited points of existing law.... order to the portion considered THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman read. The following proceedings from California [Mr. Fazio] wish to be occurred on June 5, 1991: (2) heard on the point of order? MR. FAZIO: Mr. Chairman, I thought MR. FAZIO: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Chair had passed the point in unanimous consent that the remainder the bill where this was appropriate to of the bill, except for lines 22 and 23 be offered. That is my understanding, on page 40, be considered as read, that the gentleman has passed that printed in the Record, and open to point, and the gentleman no longer has amendment at any point. the right to offer that. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill is open for the request of the gentleman from amendment at any point. The Chair California? then queries whether there be any There was no objection. points of order. The Chair has re- The text of the remainder of the bill, quested whether there be any points of through line 21 on page 40 is as fol- order against that section of the bill lows: that was open, and that is when the gentleman arose and made his point of SALARIES, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ... order. Does the gentleman from California SEC. 310. (a) The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall main- wish to speak on that point? tain and operate a child care center MR. FAZIO: Not at the moment. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other 2. 137 CONG. REC. 13567, 13571, Members requesting to speak on the 13572, 102d Cong. 1st Sess. gentleman’s point of order?

12135 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

If not, the Chair is then prepared to THE CHAIRMAN: (4) Is there objection rule. For the reasons stated by the to the request of the gentleman from gentleman from Colorado, the point of Michigan? order is sustained. Section 310 is There was no objection. stricken from the bill. Are there any THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any points amendments to that section of the bill? of order? If not, are there any amendments? Points of Order Against Provi- MR. [WILLIAM M.] WHEELER [of sions and Amendments Where Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an Bill ‘‘Open’’ at Any Point amendment. The Clerk read as follows:... § 5.6 Where the Committee of MR. [JAMES P.] SUTTON [of Ten- the Whole agrees that the re- nessee]: Mr. Chairman, a point of mainder of an appropriation order. bill be considered as read THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will and open at any point to state it. MR. SUTTON: Mr. Chairman, I make points of order and amend- the point of order against the language ments, the Chairman asks if on page 19 that it is legislation on an there are any points of order appropriation bill. and then if there are any THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order amendments, and points of comes too late. At the time the further order made against items in reading of the bill was dispensed with the Chair requested Members desiring the bill subsequent to the of- to make points of order to do so at that fering of amendments are time. not recognized. On Aug. 19, 1949,(3) it was empha- § 5.7 Where a general appro- sized that, following the dispensing of priation bill is considered as the reading of the remainder of a bill, read and open to amendment points of order should be made imme- at any point, points of order diately, before the offering of amend- must be made before amendments. ments are offered and cannot MR. [LOUIS C.] RABAUT [of Michi- gan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous be ‘‘reserved’’ pending subse- consent that the remainder of the bill quent action on amendments, be considered as read and be open at since points of order lie sepa- any point to points of order and rately against provisions in amendments. the reported bill and then 3. 95 CONG. REC. 11870, 11876, 81st separately against amend- Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration ments in the reported bill. was H.R. 6008, a supplemental appropriation bill for 1950. 4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).

12136 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

On Dec. 1, 1982,(5) Chairman Don passed the House on November 4, Fuqua, of Florida, was presiding over 1981; and title V, section 528(5) of the Labor, Health and Human Services the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, without regard to sec- appropriation bill, fiscal 1983, when tion 512(b) of the Omnibus Budget the manager of the bill, Mr. William H. Reconciliation Act of 1981, Natcher, of Kentucky, asked unani- $400,990,000: Provided, That mous consent that the bill be consid- $9,000,000 shall be available in con- ered read and open to amendment at nection with the establishment and any point. No objection being heard, a construction of the General Daniel James Memorial Education Center point of order was raised against one at Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, paragraph of the bill. The proceedings Alabama, and such sums shall be were as follows: used for an aerospace science and MR. NATCHER (during the reading): engineering center and shall remain Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- available for obligation until Sep- tember 30, 1988: Provided further, sent that the bill be considered as read That funds made available in Public and open to amendment at any point. Law 96-536, section 110 for the THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to Wayne Morse Chair of Law and Poli- the request of the gentleman from tics shall remain available for obliga- Kentucky? tion until September 30, 1985: Pro- vided further, That $3,000,000 shall There was no objection. be available until expended for the THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any points Carl Albert Congressional Research of order against the bill? and Studies Center: Provided further, That $25,000,000 made avail- POINT OF ORDER able for interest subsidy grants under section 734 of the Higher Edu- MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- cation Act shall remain available sylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have a until expended: Provided further, point of order against a section of the That sections 922(b)(2) and 922(e)(2) bill. of the Higher Education Act shall not apply to funds in this Act. The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is as follows: THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state the point of order. HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, on For carrying out titles III; VI, part page 44, lines 11 through 13, there is A; VIII; IX, parts B, D and E; title X; a section of the bill which is in viola- and sections 417, 420, and 734 of the tion of rule XXI, clause 2, because Higher Education Act; section there is no authorization legislation 406A(2) of the General Education that has been passed by the Congress Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221e– for the funding which is appropriated 1b(2)); section 102(b)(6) of the Mu- in the bill, and I make a point of order tual Educational and Cultural Ex- change Act of 1961; title XIII, part against that language in the bill. H, subparts 1 and 2 of the Education THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman Amendments of 1980; H.R. 3598 as from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) desire to be heard on the point of order? 5. 128 CONG. REC. 28174, 28175, 97th MR. NATCHER: On the point of order, Cong. 2d Sess. yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be

12137 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

heard, but I would like to have a col- MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Not on loquy at this time, with the permission this point of order, no, Mr. Chairman. of the gentleman from Pennsylvania I do have a parliamentary inquiry con- (Mr. Walker). cerning another point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will per- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will pro- mit the gentleman from Pennsylvania tect the gentleman. to yield to the gentleman from Ken- Will the gentleman from Pennsyl- tucky although ordinarily the Chair vania (Mr. Walker) clarify for the controls debate on a point of order. Chair the exact language to which he MR. WALKER: I am glad to yield to objects in insisting on his point of the gentleman from Kentucky. order? MR. NATCHER: Mr. Chairman, let me MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, the say to the gentleman from Pennsyl- language the gentleman objects to vania that, as he knows, this project under the point of order is beginning has been authorized in the House. As at line 11 on page 44, ‘‘That $3,000,000 I understand, it is before the com- shall be available until expended for mittee on the other side. I would hope the Carl Albert Congressional Re- that the gentleman from Pennsylvania search and Studies Center:’’ ending would not insist on his point of order with the colon on line 13. at this time. This facility, as the gen- THE CHAIRMAN: The appropriation is tleman knows, is being utilized at the not yet authorized by law and the present time in honor of one of the Chair sustains the point of order. Are great Members who served in this there any other points of order against body, the Honorable Carl Albert from the bill? Oklahoma, a distinguished Member of the House for many years, later serv- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY ing as Speaker of the House before his MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I retirement. have a parliamentary inquiry. I would hope that the gentleman The portion of the bill to which the would not insist on his point of order. parliamentary inquiry relates is as fol- As the gentleman knows, this project lows: has not yet been authorized on the other side. It has been authorized on SPECIAL PROGRAMS this side. We would hope that the gen- For carrying out the consolidated tleman would not insist on his point of programs and projects authorized order. Then we would see if it could under chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act not be handled quickly on the other of 1981; title IX, part C of the Ele- side by way of authorization, so that mentary and Secondary Education this amount could stay in the 1983 bill Act; title IV of the Civil Rights Act of and not have to wait until the next ap- 1964; the Follow Through Act; sec- propriation bill.... tions 1524 and 1525 of the Education Amendments of 1978; and Public THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman Law 92–506, $538,920,000: Provided from Iowa (Mr. Smith) wish to be That $454,810,000 to carry out chap- heard on the point of order? ter 2 of the Education Consolidation

12138 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

and Improvement Act shall become Chairman suggests that available for obligation on July 1, 1983, and shall remain available points of order be disposed until September 30, 1984: Provided of first since it would be too further, That $29,030,000 for the late to make such points purpose of subchapter D of the Edu- cation Consolidation and Improve- after amendments to the bill ment Act shall become available for have been considered. obligation on October 1, 1982: Pro- vided further, That $3,000,000 of the On Apr. 25, 1947,(6) the fol- amount appropriated above shall be lowing proceedings took place: for the purpose of Public Law 92–506 of which $1,500,000 shall become MR. [ROBERT F.] JONES of Ohio: Mr. available on July 1, 1983, and shall Chairman, I ask unanimous consent remain available until September 30, that the remainder of the bill be con- 1984. sidered as read and that all portions THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from thereof be subject to amendment and Iowa (Mr. Smith) will state his par- to points of order. liamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: (7) Is there objection MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, is to the request of the gentleman from it possible, since the bill is open to Ohio? amendment at any point, to reserve a There was no objection. point of order and to make it at a later THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair suggests time against certain lines in the bill? that the points of order be disposed of first under this procedure, before the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state amendments. that the point of order must be made at this time, before amendments are offered. Points of Order Against Para- MR. SMITH of Iowa: Then, Mr. Chair- graph Not Entertained Dur- man, if it is made at this time, would ing General Debate it be possible to replace the language to which I am making a point of order § 5.9 The proper time for rais- at a later time? ing a point of order that a THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state paragraph in a general ap- to the gentleman that a proper amend- propriation bill violates Rule ment could be offered to replace the XXI clause 2 (legislation on language. an appropriation bill) is § 5.8 Where unanimous con- when the paragraph is sent is granted that the re- reached in the reading for mainder of a general appro- 6. 93 CONG. REC. 4098, 80th Cong. 1st priation bill be considered as Sess. Under consideration was H.R. read and all portions thereof 3123, an Interior Department appro- be subject to amendments priation bill for 1948. and to points of order, the 7. Earl C. Michener (Mich.). 12139 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

amendment under the five- THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be the minute rule, and not during proper time. The proper time would be when those sections are read under the general debate on the bill. 5-minute rule. On June 28, 1989,(8) during gen- MR. [TOM] BEVILL [of Alabama]: Mr. eral debate on the energy and Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. water appropriation bill, fiscal 1990, an inquiry was directed to Point of Order Against Para- the Chair as follows: graph Must Precede Amend-

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ment Accordingly the House resolved itself § 5.10 A point of order against into the Committee of the Whole a section of a general appro- House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2696, priation bill must be made with Mr. Pease in the chair. immediately after the section The Clerk read the title of the bill. is read and comes too late By unanimous consent, the bill was after an amendment to that considered as having been read the section has been considered. first time. On June 3, 1944,(10) Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: (9) Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the gen- William M. Whittington, of Mis- tleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill) will sissippi, ruled that a point of be recognized for 30 minutes, and the order came too late after the of- gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Myers) fending section had been read, will be recognized for 30 minutes. amended, and the next section The Chair recognizes the gentleman read. from Alabama (Mr. Bevill). The Clerk read as follows: PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Sec. 103. This title may be cited as ‘‘Defense Aid Appropriation Act, MR. [JOHN PAUL] HAMMERSCHMIDT 1945.’’ [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a Mr. [Joseph P.] O’Hara [of Minnesota]: parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman, I had a point of order to THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will submit against section 102 which has not state it. been completely read, and which point of MR. HAMMERSCHMIDT: Mr. Chair- order I wish to submit at this time. man, would this be the proper time to THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk has just raise a point of order on section 110 read section 103. and section 112 of the bill? 10. 90 CONG. REC. 5245, 78th Cong. 2d 8. 135 CONG. REC. 13669, 13670, 101st Sess. Under consideration was H.R. Cong. 1st Sess. 4937, the Foreign Economic Admin- 9. Don J. Pease (Ohio). istration Act of 1945.

12140 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

MR. O’HARA: Mr. Chairman, the and agreed to, which amended Clerk was just reading section 102, that section as well as the fol- and I wish to make a point of order lowing section, 315, which had not against that section. been read. Ms. Abzug then offered THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bell] offered an amend- two amendments, designed to ment which was considered by the strike out both sections 314 and Committee and agreed to by the Com- 315. The proceedings transpired mittee, an amendment to section 2 as follows: after it had been read. MS. [BELLA S.] ABZUG [of New York]: MR. O’HARA: Mr. Chairman, I wish Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments. to make a point of order against sec- The Clerk read as follows: tion 102 on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill.... Amendments offered by Ms. Abzug: on page 16, after line 11, THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from strike out sections 314 and 315 and Minnesota makes a point of order that renumber accordingly. section 102 is legislation on an appropriation bill. The point of order comes MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- too late. As the Chair has previously land]: Mr. Chairman, I have a par- announced, the Committee has already liamentary inquiry. (12) considered and agreed to an amend- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman ment to section 102 offered by the gen- will state it. tleman from Missouri [Mr. Bell]. MR. BAUMAN: Have not these sections already been read for amend- The point of order is overruled. ment? THE CHAIRMAN: Only section 314 has Timing of Point of Order been read for amendment. Against Provision in Bill Text MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment § 5.11 A point of order against comes too late. a paragraph of a general ap- THE CHAIRMAN: Section 315 has not propriation bill comes too been read. Therefore, it would not fore- late after amendments have close consideration at this time of a been offered thereto. further amendment offered to section 314. On Apr. 16, 1975,(11) a general The amendment offered by the gen- appropriation bill was being read tlewoman from New York contains an for amendment in Committee of additional part proposing to strike section 315, which has not been read. Ab- the Whole. Section 314 of the bill sent a unanimous-consent agreement, was read, and by unanimous con- she could not offer an amendment to sent an amendment was offered, strike section 315 if it had not been read. 11. 121 CONG. REC. 10377, 10378, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 12. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).

12141 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MS. ABZUG: Mr. Chairman, I ask clause 2, Rule XXI relating to un- unanimous consent that the amend- authorized appropriations. The ments be considered en bloc. first is that where an unauthor- THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from ized appropriation is permitted, New York? by waiver or failure to raise a MR. [FORTNEY H. (PETE)] STARK [of point of order, the paragraph can California]: Mr. Chairman, reserving then be perfected by an amend- the right to object, would this preclude ment which merely changes the my making a point of order against section 314? unauthorized figure in the para- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would ad- graph. Second, the proceedings vise the gentleman that section 314 demonstrate that a point of order has already been read and subject to must be timely and comes too late legislative action in the form of the after the paragraph has been con- amendment offered by the gentleman sidered. from Louisiana and, therefore, a point of order would not be timely against The bill under consideration section 314. The Chair would advise was the Department of Transpor- the gentleman that if he wishes to tation appropriation bill for fiscal make a point of order against section 1978. 315, the moment for that would be after the Clerk has read that section The Clerk read as follows: and before someone offers an amendment and legislative consideration has COAST GUARD taken place. OPERATING EXPENSES Point of Order Too Late After (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) Amendment Offered For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided § 5.12 A point of order against for; purchase of not to exceed twelve a paragraph of a general ap- passenger motor vehicles, for re- propriation bill comes too placement only; and recreation and welfare; $871,865,000 of which late after amendments have $205,977 shall be applied to been offered to that para- Capehart Housing debt reduction: Provided That the number of aircraft graph. on hand at any one time shall not The proceedings in Committee exceed one hundred and seventy- ( ) nine exclusive of planes and parts of the Whole on June 8, 1977, 13 stored to meet future attrition: Pro- illustrate two important principles vided further, That amounts equal to the obligated balances against the relating to the application of appropriations for ‘‘Operating expenses’’ for the two preceding years 13. 123 CONG. REC. 17941, 17942, shall be transferred to and merged 17945, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. with this appropriation, and such

12142 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

merged appropriation shall be avail- a subsequent point of order which I able as one fund, except for account- will offer immediately after this one is ing purposes of the Coast Guard, for settled. the payment of obligations properly THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready incurred against such prior year appropriations and against this appro- to rule. priation. The Chair has before it the amendment which is offered by the gen- MR. [MARIO] BIAGGI [of New York]: tleman from New York (Mr. Biaggi). Madam Chairman, I offer an amend- That amendment simply changes an ment. unauthorized appropriations figure in The Clerk read as follows: the bill, striking that figure and insert- Amendment offered by Mr. Biaggi: ing in lieu thereof another. The gen- On page 3, line 7, strike tleman does not seek, in his amend- ‘‘$871,865,000’’ and insert in lieu ment, to earmark these additional thereof ‘‘$878,865,000’’. funds at all. Under the precedents, then, where MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachu- an amendment only seeks to change an setts]: Madam Chairman, I make a unauthorized amount permitted to re- point of order against the amendment. main in the bill by failure to raise a (14) THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman point of order or by a waiver, and does from Massachusetts will state the not add any legislative language or point of order. earmark for a specific unauthorized MR. CONTE: Madam Chairman, the project, that amendment is in order. amendment under rule XXI, clause 2, (Deschler’s ch. 25, sec. 2311.) the amendment of the gentleman from Therefore, the point of order is over- New York is out of order because it ruled and the gentleman is recognized has not been authorized. The author- for 5 minutes.... ization for this is pending and the The question is on the amendment House has requested a conference on offered by the gentleman from New this. York (Mr. Biaggi). THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman The amendment was agreed to.... from New York desire to be heard on THE CHAIRMAN: Are there other the point of order? amendments to this section? MR. BIAGGI: Yes, Madam Chair- There being none, the Clerk will man.... read.... Madam Chairman, I will address MR. CONTE: Madam Chairman, a myself to the point of order. parliamentary inquiry. The point of order now is whether or THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will not there is any authorization. I will state it. stick to that point of order, and if the MR. CONTE: Madam Chairman, is Chair maintains that the point of order the Clerk through reading ‘‘operating is a valid one, then I would only con- expenses’’? If not, I would like to raise cede that it is valid. If that be a valid a point of order against that section. point of order, then it is precedent for THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk has read the ‘‘operating expenses’’ paragraph of 14. Barbara Jordan (Tex.). the bill.

12143 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. CONTE: Madam Chairman, am I lation on an appropriation bill, not au- in order to raise a point of order thorized by law. against that section? MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Mis- THE CHAIRMAN: Not against the ‘‘op- souri: Mr. Chairman, the point of order erating expenses’’ paragraph, that is comes too late. There has been debate the paragraph which has been read since the paragraph was read. It is and has been amended, and the point now too late to interpose a point of of order would come too late. order. ( ) MR. CONTE: All right, then I am out THE CHAIRMAN: 16 The Chair will of order. remind the gentleman from Missouri THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from that we have not gone beyond the Massachusetts will be seated and the point at which a point of order can be Clerk will read. made. The paragraph is still under consideration. Points of Order Considered Se- Does the gentleman desire to point riatim out to the Chair anything further the Chair may consider in view of the second point of order made against the § 5.13 A point of order against language in the paragraph? a proviso having been dis- MR. CANNON of Missouri: We have posed of, it is not too late to passed the proposition, Mr. Chairman; make a point of order we are now on the proviso. The point against the paragraph of of order made by the gentleman did which the proviso is a part not apply to the first portion, which is a separate entity as against the pro- merely because debate has viso. Inasmuch as the point of order been had on the point of was not interposed at the time, it now order against such proviso. comes too late. On Feb. 26, 1943,(15) a point of THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair advises the gentleman from Missouri that he order was held timely although will hold that the point of order does debate on another point of order not come too late, in view of the fact against a proviso in the paragraph that the proviso is a part of the para- had intervened after the reading graph. of the paragraph. Items in General Appropria- MR. [EDWARD H.] REES of Kansas: tion Bills Mr. Chairman, I make the further point of order against the language in § 5.14 The time for making lines 6 to 13 on page 23 that it is legis- points of order against items 15. 89 CONG. REC. 1369, 78th Cong. 1st in an appropriation bill is Sess. Under consideration was H.R. after the House has resolved 1975, the first deficiency appropriation of 1943. 16. Howard W. Smith (Va.).

12144 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

itself into the Committee of against a paragraph of an ap- the Whole and after the para- propriation bill is not in graph containing such items order until that paragraph is has been read for amend- read for amendment. ment. On Feb. 19, 1970,(19) Chairman On July 4, 1945,(17) after Mr. Chet Holifield, of California, ruled Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, that a point of order was raised moved that the House resolve prematurely. itself into the Committee of the MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Ken- Whole for the consideration of the tucky]: Mr. Chairman, we have a cou- bill at hand, another Member, ple of points of order to make, particu- Vito Marcantonio, of New York, larly as to the Michel amendment. inquired as to when would be the When will it be in order to make the proper time to make points of point of order to the Michel amendment? order against many items in the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ask bill. the gentleman from Kentucky, to what MR. MARCANTONIO: Mr. Speaker, if, section of the bill is the gentleman re- as in this case, the bill contains many ferring? items that are subject to a point of MR. PERKINS: Section 411. order, is it not in order to make a point THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state of order against sending this bill to the that it will not be in order until that Committee of the Whole? section of the bill is read. THE SPEAKER: (18) Under the rules of The Clerk will read. the House, it is not. MR. MARCANTONIO: Then the proce- Timing of Points of Order dure to make the point of order is to Against Paragraph in Bill make it as the bill is being read for amendment? § 5.16 A point of order against THE SPEAKER: As the paragraphs in the bill are reached. a paragraph in a general appropriation bill must be § 5.15 In the Committee of the made immediately following Whole, a point of order the reading of the paragraph or following unanimous-con- 17. 91 CONG. REC. 7226, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 19. 116 CONG. REC. 4012, 91st Cong. 2d 3649, the war agencies appropriation Sess. Under consideration was H.R. for fiscal 1946. 15931, involving the Departments of For further discussion of appro- Labor and Health, Education, and priations bills, see Ch. 25, supra. Welfare, and related agencies appro- 18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.). priations for fiscal 1970.

12145 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

sent permission to consider request were granted, and where and the title of the bill containing when I would have to make the point of order. the paragraph as having THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state been read. that if the unanimous-consent request is granted, the gentleman from Texas The manager of a general ap- (Mr. Eckhardt) will be recognized to propriation bill will often strive to make his point of order immediately expedite the reading of the bill for thereafter. amendment under the five-minute MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, I rule. One device is to ask unani- withdraw my reservation of objection. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to mous consent that portions of the the request of the gentleman from bill be considered as read and West Virginia? open for amendment, rather than There was no objection. proceeding paragraph by para- MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, I graph. Mr. John M. Slack, of West raise a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will Virginia, the subcommittee chair- state his point of order. man and manager of the bill (The portion of the bill to which the under consideration on June 18, point of order refers is as follows:) 1976,(20) employed this tactic. Pro- No part of these funds may be ceedings were as indicated. used to pay the salary of any employee, including Commissioners, of THE CHAIRMAN: (1) The Clerk will the Federal Trade Commission read. who— The Clerk proceeded to read the bill. (1) make any publication based on the line-of-business data furnished MR. SLACK (during the reading): Mr. by individual firms without taking Chairman, I ask unanimous consent reasonable precautions to prevent that title V be considered as read and disclosure of the line-of-business open for amendment at any point. data furnished by any particular THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to firm; or the request of the gentleman from (2) permits anyone other than sworn officers and employees of the West Virginia? Federal Trade Commission to exam- MR. [BOB] ECKHARDT [of Texas]: Mr. ine the line-of-business reports from Chairman, reserving the right to ob- individual firms; or ject, I have a point of order which (3) uses the information provided would be lodged at the provisions con- in the line-of-business program for tained on page 44, starting with line 9, any purpose other than statistical purposes. Such information for car- through line 25 and I should like to be rying out specific law enforcement sure as to whether my position will be responsibilities of the Federal Trade jeopardized if this unanimous-consent Commission shall be obtained under existing practices and procedures or 20. 122 CONG. REC. 19308, 94th Cong. as changed by law. 2d Sess. MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, I 1. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.). have a point of order which I make at

12146 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5 lines 9 through 25 on page 44 in that a duty now accepted by that commis- the provisions contained therein con- sion, to place it as a duty in law constitute legislation on an appropriation stitutes specific legislation on an Ap- bill in that new duties are imposed propriation Act. upon the Federal Trade Commission, I cite here in support of the point of particularly with respect to the lan- order provisions in Deschler’s proce- guage beginning on lines 12 through dure, page 305 and the following 16. It is provided that no part of these pages, chapter 26, paragraphs 11 et funds may be used to pay the salaries of any employee who makes any publi- sequentia. I may say that I do level the cation based on line of business data point of order at lines 9 through 25. furnished by individual firms without MR. SLACK: Mr. Chairman, may I be taking reasonable precautions to pre- heard on the point of order. vent disclosure of the line of business The language which the gentleman data furnished by any particular firm. refers to was designed to protect the The only thing that limits or controls privacy and the security of data ob- the question of divulging information tained in the line of a business pro- respecting such line of business infor- gram. However, if the gentleman in- mation is contained in the Freedom of sists on the point of order, of course, Information Act, and this is only to we will concede the point of order. provide an exception from the Freedom of Information Act which would em- THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is brace such material, but the Freedom conceded and sustained and the para- of Information Act leaves it wholly to graph is stricken. the Federal Trade Commission to de- Are there any other points of order vise whatever systems it desires with against the remainder of title V? respect to such information. The provisions in the appropriations When Point of Order Comes bill to which I have referred would re- Too Late in Reading Bill for quire a standard of reasonable pre- Amendment cautions to prevent disclosure of the line of business data furnished by any particular firm, and in so doing would § 5.17 Where a chapter of a create a new and different standard general appropriation bill is from that which exists in existing law. considered read by unani- Second, the point of order is specifi- mous consent and open to cally lodged to lines 22 through 25 in amendment at any point, and which it is said: no amendments are offered, Such information for carrying out specific law enforcement responsibil- the Clerk begins to read the ities of the Federal Trade Commis- next chapter, and it is then sion shall be obtained under existing too late to raise a point of practices and procedures or as changed by law. order against a paragraph in the chapter passed in the It has been held that even though a duty imposed on a commission may be reading.

12147 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

On June 11, 1985,(2) during the There was no objection. reading of a general appropriation THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Are bill in Committee of the Whole, there any points of order against chap- Chairman Pro Tempore Philip R. ter X? Are there any amendments to chap- Sharp, of Indiana, in response to a ter X? point of order from the floor, ruled The Clerk will read. that it was too late to lodge a MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachu- point of order against a provision setts]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point in the preceding chapter of the of order. bill. THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The Chair has asked if there are any THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE:... amendments to chapter X. The Clerk will read. Hearing no requests, the Clerk will The Clerk read as follows: read. MR. CONTE: Reserving a point of CHAPTER X order, the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania [Mr. Walker] wanted to reserve DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION a point of order on page 65, I believe, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY on the bottom there. WORKING CAPITAL FUND THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Would the gentleman from Massachusetts in- The ‘‘Limitation on working capital dicate what he is trying to indicate to fund’’ is reduced to $65,470,000.... the Chair? MR. CONTE: The gentleman from RAILROAD-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] made a request. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I have For an additional amount for a point of order on page 65. ‘‘Railroad-highway crossings demonstration projects’’, to remain avail- MR. [WILLIAM] LEHMAN of Florida: able until expended, $5,300,000, of Mr. Chairman, I think that chapter which $3,533,333 shall be derived has been passed already. from the Highway Trust Fund.... THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Florida is making the MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mis- sissippi] (during the reading): Mr. point of order that the chapter has al- Chairman, I ask unanimous consent ready been passed in the reading and that chapter X be considered as read, that no one raised a timely point of printed in the Record, and open to order; is that the gentleman’s point of amendment at any point. order? THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Is MR. LEHMAN of Florida: It is, Mr. there objection to the request of the Chairman. gentleman from Mississippi? THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Does anyone contest that point? 2. 131 CONG. REC. 15181, 15182, 99th If not, the Chair will sustain the Cong. 1st Sess. gentleman’s point of order.

12148 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

A Point of Order Comes Too close in 20 minutes, the last 5 minutes Late—After Amendment Has to be reserved to the committee. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to Been Offered the request of the gentleman from Mis- souri? § 5.18 A point of order against MR. MILLER of Nebraska: Mr. Chair- a paragraph in an appropria- man, reserving the right to object, I tion bill comes too late after wish to make a point of order against an amendment to it has been the last part of the paragraph. reported and the sponsor of MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chair- man, the gentleman’s point of order such amendment is recog- comes too late. nized to debate it. MR. MILLER of Nebraska: I asked for On Nov. 28, 1945,(3) it was ruled recognition on the point of order, Mr. that a point of order came too late Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from even though the Member, Arthur West Virginia has already been recog- L. Miller, of Nebraska, had been nized, and the gentleman from Ne- standing to make the point of braska made no remarks prior to that order when the sponsor of an time. amendment rose to speak.(4) MR. MILLER of Nebraska: I asked for recognition, and I was standing here. R LEVELAND AILEY M . [C M.] B [of THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer know for what purpose the gentleman an amendment. had risen. The point of order comes too The Clerk read as follows: . . . late. THE CHAIRMAN: (5) The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Vir- —After Amendment Has Been ginia. Adopted MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Mis- souri: Mr. Chairman, will the gen- § 5.19 A point of order against tleman yield for a unanimous-consent request? legislation in a paragraph of MR. BAILEY: I yield to the gentleman a general appropriation bill from Missouri. must be lodged immediately MR. CANNON of Missouri: I ask after the paragraph is read unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, and comes to late after an that all debate on this amendment amendment has been adopt-

3. 91 CONG. REC. 11128, 79th Cong. 1st ed thereto. Sess. Under consideration was H.R. The proceedings of Nov. 30, 4805, the Defense appropriation bill 1982,(6) illustrate the importance for fiscal 1946. 4. But see §§ 6.22–6.24, infra. 6. 128 CONG. REC. 28057, 28058, 5. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.). 28060, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.

12149 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS of being timely when pressing a may be used for administrative expenses in connection with the pro- point of order during the reading posed redirection of the Equal Em- of a general appropriation bill for ployment Opportunity Program. amendment. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CONTE THE CHAIRMAN: (7) The Clerk will MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachu- read. setts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an The Clerk read as follows: amendment. UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: SALARIES AND EXPENSES On page 4, line 22, strike out For necessary expenses of the ‘‘$528,700,000,’’ and insert in lieu United States Customs Service, in- thereof the following: ‘‘$548,700,000, cluding purchase of two hundred of which not to exceed $30,000,000 passenger motor vehicles for replace- shall be available for Project Exodus, ment only, including one hundred and’’.... and ninety for police-type use; acquisition (purchase of 1), operation and THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on maintenance of aircraft; hire of pas- the amendment offered by the gen- senger motor vehicles and aircraft; tleman from Massachusetts (Mr. and awards of compensation to in- Conte), as amended. formers, as authorized by section 1 The amendment, as amended, was of title VI of the Act of June 15, 1917 agreed to. (22 U.S.C. 401); $528,700,000, of MR. [BILL] FRENZEL [of Minnesota]: which not to exceed $150,000 should be available for payment for rental Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order space in connection with against the language in lines 6 preclearance operations: Provided, through 10 on page 5 of H.R. 7158. That none of the funds made avail- These lines constitute legislation on an able by this Act shall be available for appropriation bill and are, therefore, in administrative expenses to pay any violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. If the employee overtime pay in an amount Chair will permit me, I would like to in excess of $25,000: Provided fur- be heard on my point of order. ther, That the Commissioner or his THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- designee may waive this limitation in individual cases in order to pre- vise the gentleman from Minnesota vent excessive costs or to meet emer- that the paragraph in question has al- gency requirements of the Service: ready been read and amended. There- Provided further, That none of the fore, a point of order to the paragraph funds made available by this Act comes too late. shall be available for administrative expenses to reduce the number of PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Customs Service regions below nine during fiscal year 1983 without ad- MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Chairman, I have vance approval from both House and a parliamentary inquiry. Senate Committees on Appropria- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will tions: Provided further, That none of state it. the funds made available by this Act MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Chairman, at what point would a point of order have 7. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.). been timely?

12150 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]: vise the gentleman that a point of Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. order would be in order between the The Clerk read as follows:... time when the paragraph had been MR. [GEORGE W.] ANDREWS [of Ala- read by the Clerk and the time when an amendment to that paragraph had bama]: Mr. Chairman, the committee been offered or the Committee had accepts the amendment. gone to another paragraph. THE CHAIRMAN: (9) The question is on MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Chairman, I was the amendment offered by the gen- on my feet when the previous amender tleman from Texas. was recognized, and I do not recall The amendment was agreed to. having heard that language being The Clerk read as follows: . . . read. Can the Chair give me some assurance on that? MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. vise the gentleman that the first THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will amendment offered to the paragraph state it. in question was offered by the gen- MR. GROSS: Is a point of order to the tleman from Massachusetts (Mr. language on page 29 in order? Conte). The Chair observed the gen- THE CHAIRMAN: If it is to language tleman on his feet, although not pressing a point of order, at the time that preceding line 5 on page 29 it is not in the amendment to the amendment was order. offered, but not at the time the original MR. GROSS: It does precede line 5 on amendment was offered. page 29. The Clerk did not read the MR. FRENZEL: And to be timely, my language on page 29, lines 1 to 5. point of order would have to have been THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk has read made before the gentleman from Mas- and an amendment has been adopted sachusetts offered his amendment? to the paragraph starting on page 28, THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is correct. line 8, and ending on page 29, line 5. MR. FRENZEL: I thank the Chair. MR. GROSS: Then a point of order to THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will read. the language on page 29, line 5, is not in order? § 5.20 A point of order against THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- language in a paragraph of vise the gentleman it comes too late at an appropriation bill comes this time. too late after the paragraph —After Next Paragraph Is has been read and an amend- Read ment thereto has been agreed to. § 5.21 Points of order must be On June 13, 1961,(8) a Member made immediately after a was advised that his point of order came too late. H.R. 7577, making appropriations for the executive office and Depart- 8. 107 CONG. REC. 10178, 87th Cong. ment of Commerce for fiscal 1962. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).

12151 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

paragraph of an appropria- paragraph and had reached line 17 on tion bill is read, and it is too page 23. MR. FULMER: I think, Mr. Chairman, late to make such points of I made my point of order in time. order after the Clerk has Maybe the Clerk had started the fol- begun reading the next para- lowing paragraph, but I was on my graph. feet and feel that I made my point of order in time. (10) On Apr. 15, 1943, Chairman THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has ruled William M. Whittington, of Mis- that the reading of the paragraph had sissippi, ruled that a point of been completed. Under the rules it is order against a paragraph came essential that a point of order against a paragraph be made immediately too late after the Clerk had com- after the reading of the paragraph. pleted reading the next paragraph, even though the Member —After Debate protested that he was on his feet seeking recognition during the § 5.22 After debate has been reading. had on a paragraph of an appropriation bill it is too late MR. [HAMPTON P.] FULMER [of South Carolina]: I make the point of order to make a point of order that the language on page 22 begin- against that paragraph. ning in line 19 and ending in line 25 On Mar. 15, 1945,(11) certain . . . is legislation on an appropriation Members debated the subject of a bill. paragraph before one of them MR. [MALCOLM C.] TARVER [of Geor- gia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. made a point of order, but the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will delay was fatal to the point of state it. order. MR. TARVER: I make the point of MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: order that the point of order comes too Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the late inasmuch as the portion of the bill last word. against which the point of order is made has been read and the Clerk was 11. 91 CONG. REC. 2306 et seq., 79th reading the next paragraph. Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair sustains was H.R. 2603, the State, Justice, the point of order raised by the gen- Commerce, Judiciary, and Federal tleman from Georgia. The Clerk had Loan Agency appropriation bill for read a substantial part of the following 1946. See also 88 CONG. REC. 754, 77th 10. 89 CONG. REC. 3420, 3421, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 27, 1942. Under Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration consideration was H.R. 6460, the was H.R. 2481, an agricultural ap- Navy Department appropriation for propriation bill. 1943.

12152 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

I do this for the purpose of asking MR. HINSHAW: Mr. Chairman, a par- the majority leader a question. I am liamentary inquiry. wondering if the majority leader can THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will tell us what is to be the program for state it. the balance of this week and the first MR. HINSHAW: Did not the Clerk fin- part of next week?... ish reading it? MR. [CARL] HINSHAW [of California]: THE CHAIRMAN: The subject matter Mr. Chairman, I have asked for this of the paragraph was discussed under time in order to inquire of the chair- the gentleman’s amendment to strike man of the committee regarding the out the last word [and] also under the language appearing in the bill begin- amendment offered by the gentleman ning in line 17 on page 23 and ending from New York. Business having inter- in line 23 on page 24. I do not see vened the point of order comes too late. where any money item is included. Is The Chair therefore overrules the point this intended to be an authorization for of order.(13) construction or is it an appropriation? MR. [LOUIS C.] RABAUT [of Michi- gan]: That is just the preamble, gen- Diligence of Members in Seek- eral language. ing Recognition MR. HINSHAW: Is that in the nature of an authorization to do this work, or § 5.23 In a few instances, a is there any law cited that would au- Member who was on his feet thorize it? seeking recognition at the MR. RABAUT: It is based on law and proper time to make a point on a treaty. of order has been recognized MR. HINSHAW: There is no law quoted in this language to which I even though the Clerk had refer, and I do not know of any treaty read past the paragraph to that authorizes it; none is stated here. which the point of order was Mr. Chairman, I am forced to make directed. a point of order against the language contained in the lines beginning in line Although failure to raise a point 17 on page 23 and ending in line 23 on of order immediately after the page 24, as not being authorized by law. 13. For similar rulings, see 103 CONG. MR. RABAUT: It is language that has REC. 5032, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. always been carried, I may say to the 3, 1957 [H.R. 6287, making appro- gentleman. priations for the Departments of MR. HINSHAW: That may well be; but Labor and Health, Education, and I insist on the point of order. Welfare]; 89 CONG. REC. 3485, 78th THE CHAIRMAN: (12) The Chair must Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 16, 1943 [H.R. inform the gentleman from California 2481, an agriculture appropriation that his point of order comes too late. for 1944]; and 89 CONG. REC. 3421, 3422, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 14, 12. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.). 1943 [H.R. 2481].

12153 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS reading of a paragraph by the funds they have earned by virtue of Clerk is usually fatal to the point that operation. Will not my friend of order, an exception to this rule withdraw it? MR. GROSS: No. may be invoked where a Member MR. THOMAS: Well I am not going to was on his feet, actively seeking press my point of order that his point recognition at the time the Clerk came too late. was reading the paragraph. For MR. [WAYNE L.] HAYS [of Ohio]: Mr. example, on Sept. 15, 1961,(14) Chairman, I make the point of order Chairman Oren Harris, of Arkan- that the gentleman’s point of order came too late. sas, entertained such a point of THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair observed order under the following cir- that the gentleman was on his feet cumstances: seeking recognition while the Clerk was reading. The Clerk read as follows:... Does the gentleman from Texas con- MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. cede the point of order? Chairman, I make the point of order MR. THOMAS: I do, Mr. Chairman. against the language on page 9, line 8 through line 12, on the same ground, THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is that it changes existing law. It is, sustained. therefore, in violation of the rules. § 5.24 A point of order against THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard on the language in a paragraph of a point of order? bill is not precluded by inter- MR. [ALBERT] THOMAS [of Texas]: vening debate where the Mr. Chairman, the objection came too Member raising the point of late. We will waive that point of order order was on his feet, seek- because the Clerk started reading the ing recognition before debate next paragraph, and we will not press that point that his objection came too began. late. The point is well taken, but I On May 11, 1959,(15) inter- would remind my friend again that not vening debate did not preclude a 1 penny of that expenditure is tax- point of order against language in payers’ money. It is a limitation on the an appropriation bill.

14. 107 CONG. REC. 19729, 87th Cong. MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: I must 1st Sess. Under consideration was insist on my point of order in protec- H.R. 9169, making supplemental ap- tion of the committee and in protection propriations for fiscal 1962. To the of the Civil Service Commission. same effect, see 116 CONG. REC. 18395, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 4, 15. 105 CONG. REC. 7905, 86th Cong. 1st 1970. Under consideration was H.R. Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 17867, a foreign assistance appro- 7040, the independent offices appropriation bill for fiscal 1971. priation for 1960.

12154 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

MR. [ALBERT] THOMAS [of Texas]: I language in the proviso in the para- oppose the point of order because the graph entitled ‘‘School Assistance in paragraph was read. Federally Affected Areas.’’ The point I THE CHAIRMAN: (16) The Chair thinks make goes to the language which ap- the gentleman from Iowa was within pears on line 6, page 2, extending his rights to make the point of order. down through and including all of line He observed the gentleman standing 12. I make the point of order, it is in when unanimous consent was granted violation of rule XXI of the rules of the to go back to the previous section. House. MR. THOMAS: Well, the point of order THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman is good, then. We admit it, then. from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood), care to THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair sustains be heard on the point of order? the point of order. MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD: Yes, Mr. § 5.25 The mere fact that a Chairman, I do. Member was on his feet does I do not like to operate this way, but I am the chairman of the sub- not entitle him to make a committee and obviously I must object, point of order where he has and make a point of order because the not affirmatively sought rec- point of order comes much, much too ognition of the Chair at the late. We have passed that point in the time the language com- bill. plained of was read for THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state that the Clerk had read past that amendment. paragraph of the so-called title I, and On Apr. 14, 1970,(17) in the stopped at line 14 on page 3. The gen- Committee of the Whole, despite tleman was not on his feet seeking rec- the assertion of Mr. William D. ognition at the time the first section, Ford, of Michigan, that he had down through line 12 on page 2, was been on his feet seeking recogni- read. MR. WILLIAM D. FORD: Mr. Chair- tion, Chairman Chet Holifield, of man, the paragraphs are not being California, ruled that his point of read. The bill is being read by para- order came too late. graph headings. I was on my feet at THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose the beginning of the reading. As a mat- does the gentleman from Michigan ter of fact, I moved from there to here (Mr. William D. Ford) rise? as soon as the Clerk began to read. I MR. WILLIAM D. FORD: Mr. Chair- was never off my feet from the moment man, I make a point of order as to the he started the reading. I was trying to get to the point in the bill. 16. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.). THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot 17. 116 CONG. REC. 11648, 91st Cong. 2d observe the movements of the Mem- Sess. Under consideration was H.R. bers from place to place. The gen- 16916, Office of Education appro- tleman was not seeking recognition at priations, fiscal 1971. the time when he should have been,

12155 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

under the rules. He should have been MR. WALKER: That is correct, Mr. seeking recognition vocally, not by Chairman. standing. MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mis- The Chair sustains the point of order sissippi]: Mr. Chairman, I would point made by the gentleman from Pennsyl- out that the Clerk had read the first vania (Mr. Flood). two sections. We would concede the point of order Reading General Appropria- to the remainder. tion Bill for Amendment THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Mississippi is correct, the first two § 5.26 General appropriation paragraphs of that section had been bills are read by paragraphs, read and hence the gentleman’s point and where one section of the of order comes too late with regard to bill contains several para- those two sections. graphs, a point of order must MR. WALKER: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of be made immediately after a order. paragraph is read and can- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman with- not be delayed until the en- draws his point of order. tire section is read. The Clerk will read. On July 29, 1982,(18) during consideration of the supplemental ap- Proper Time To Determine propriation bill, fiscal 1982, the Whether Bill Requires a Clerk had proceeded to read two Three-fifths Vote Because It paragraphs in a particular section Carries a Tax Rate Increase of the bill. Mr. Robert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, wished to lodge a § 5.27 In response to a par- point of order against the first two liamentary inquiry, the paragraphs. The proceedings Chair stated that the proper which denied him that oppor- time to raise a point of order tunity are carried herein. under Rule XXI clause 5(c) MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, on that a bill carries a ‘‘federal page 17 under Administrative Provi- sions now being read by the Clerk, I income tax rate increase’’ is raise a point of order against those sec- when the question is put on tions, that they are legislation on an final passage. appropriations bill and therefore violate clause 2 of rule XXI. H.R. 1215, the Contract with THE CHAIRMAN: (19) Does the gen- American Tax Relief Act of 1995, tleman make his point against all four paragraphs on page 17 in that section? was to be considered in the House on Apr. 5, 1995.(20) The Speaker 18. 128 CONG. REC. 18626, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 20. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th 19. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.). Cong. 1st Sess.

12156 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5 was asked by Mr. James P. quiry under advisement and rule on it Moran, of Virginia, if the provi- at the appropriate time. sions of the bill did in fact carry a MR. MORAN: Mr. Speaker, I would tax rate increase which would re- ask, when would be the appropriate quire a three-fifths vote, and time for a ruling on this parliamentary inquiry? while the Chair stated that the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pend- question was premature, he did ing final passage of the legislation. indicate that the proper time to MR. MORAN: Mr. Speaker, when press a point of order on that would I be able to get a division of the basis would be when the question question on that issue? of final passage was before the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The House. Chair will state that the rule relates to the vote on passage. The question be- MR. MORAN: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. comes ripe for the House upon passage THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (1) The of the legislation.... gentleman will state his parliamentary If the gentleman will suspend. At inquiry. this point the Chair is merely not re- MR. MORAN: Mr. Speaker, it is my sponding to an anticipatory parliamen- recollection that this body passed legis- tary inquiry. The Chair will rule at the lation earlier this term, in fact, on the appropriate time. first day of this session, that required MR. [KWEISI] MFUME [of Maryland]: that any tax increase be passed with a When is the appropriate time, Mr. three-fifths vote of this body. Speaker? When is the appropriate Since there is a tax increase to be time? leveled on Federal employees, in the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ap- case of the Federal Employees Retire- propriate time is upon final passage. ment System, a 313 percent increase on their retirement contribution; in the case of the Civil Service Retirement Points of Order Which May Be System there was a 35 percent in- Raised ‘‘at Any Time’’ crease in their retirement contribution. This is clearly a tax increase, Mr. § 5.28 A waiver of points of Speaker. order against an appropria- Therefore, it seems to me, to be con- tion in a legislative bill does sistent with the legislation this body not inure to the protection of previously passed, it would require a three-fifths vote. I would reserve my an amendment containing an point of order, but I would make that identical appropriation, as parliamentary inquiry at this time. under Rule XXI clause 5, a THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point of order against any Chair will take the gentleman’s in- such bill or amendment can 1. Robert W. Goodlatte (Va.). be raised ‘‘at any time.’’

12157 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

On Apr. 23, 1975,(2) the House MR. EDGAR: Mr. Chairman, I make a had under consideration, in Com- point of order. mittee of the Whole, the Vietnam THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his point of Humanitarian and Evacuation As- order. sistance Act (H.R. 6096). The bill MR. EDGAR: Mr. Chairman, I make was called up under a special rule the point of order that my substitute is reported from the Committee on not in order at this time because of the Rules which waived points of Eckhardt substitute, and I reserve a order against appropriations in point of order according to rule XXI of the language of the bill but did our rules. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from not explicitly protect amendments Pennsylvania will have to state his which contained appropriation point of order at this time. The point of language. In a case of ‘‘first im- order, as the Chair understands, was pression,’’ Chairman Otis G. Pike, against the Edgar amendment in the of New York, sustained a point of nature of a substitute, as amended by order against an amendment, as the Eckhardt substitute? amended. Proceedings were as fol- MR. EDGAR: That is correct. lows: I make that point of order for two reasons: In the original rule that THE CHAIRMAN: . . . Are there any brought the committee bill to the floor, other amendments? all points of order against section 3 If not, the question is on the sub- and section 6 were waived. Our rules stitute offered by the gentleman from say that no general appropriation bill Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amend- or amendment thereto shall be re- ment in the nature of a substitute of- ceived or considered if it contains a fered by the gentleman from Pennsyl- provision reappropriating unexpended vania (Mr. Edgar). balances of appropriations; except that The question was taken; and the this provision shall not apply to appro- Chair announced that the ayes ap- priations in continuation of appropria- peared to have it. tions for public works. MR. [ROBERT W.] EDGAR [of Pennsyl- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman vania]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a re- from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) desire to be corded vote. heard on the point of order? A recorded vote was ordered. MR. [BOB] ECKHARDT [of Texas]: I The vote was taken by electronic de- do, Mr. Chairman. vice, and there were—ayes 272, noes Mr. Chairman, I first wish to point 146, not voting 14, as follows:... out that the point of order comes too So the substitute amendment for the late, and I assert that the point of amendment in the nature of a sub- order may not be timely considered stitute was agreed to.... after the vote has occurred. In addition to that, of course, this is 2. 121 CONG. REC. 11512, 11513, 94th not an appropriation bill. This is an Cong. 1st Sess. authorization bill, as I understand it.

12158 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

MR. EDGAR: Mr. Chairman, if the The Chair will state that the Chair gentleman will yield, I might say that believes that what the gentleman from we checked with our legal counsel Pennsylvania read was clause 4 of rule when we originally drafted the bill, XXI in the old version. and we had in my substitute some of Is the gentleman now referring to the things contained in the original the same language which the Chair House bill, and we were informed that has just read? those parts of the House bill were not MR. EDGAR: We are referring to the same language which the Chair has in order in my substitute simply be- read. cause we did not have a waiver. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman MS. [BELLA S.] ABZUG [of New York]: from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) desire to be Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from heard further? Texas will yield, the point of order MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, I raised has been that an amendment only want to make it clear that I am which provides funds for certain pur- raising the point of order that this poses derived from funds previously point of order is made too late. I wish appropriated is in violation of clause 5 to reiterate the statement that I made of rule XXI. before. The point of order is too late and, therefore, it is itself not in order. THE CHAIRMAN: Did the gentlewoman say clause 5 of rule XXI? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready to rule. MR. [ROBERT N.] GIAIMO [of Con- The Chair did not read the entirety necticut]: Mr. Chairman, a point of of that section. The section ends order. I make a point of order against the A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill, joint resolu- point of order as coming too late. tion, or amendment thereto, may be THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state raised at any time. that the Chair desires to hear the Accordingly, the rule under which point of order before the Chair is able this legislation was considered waived to rule on the question of its timeli- points of order against the original bill. ness. It did not waive points of order against The Chair will read clause 5 of rule the amendment. The rule does provide XXI of the 94th Congress. The Chair that the point of order may be raised will state that the Chair does not be- at any time (Deschler chapter 25, sec- lieve it is that which was cited by the tion 3.2). gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. The point of order is sustained. The Edgar): Edgar amendment, as amended, is now ruled out of order. No bill or joint resolution carrying The Clerk will read. appropriations shall be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report appropriations, nor ‘‘At Any Time’’ Means While the shall an amendment proposing an Amendment Is Pending appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee not § 5.29 The provision in Rule having that jurisdiction.... XXI clause 5, that a point of 12159 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

order against an amendment the applicable family size income level of the income guideline for free containing an appropriation lunches prescribed by the State edu- to a legislative bill can be cational agency in accordance with made ‘‘at any time’’ has been the third and fourth sentences of this paragraph and (B) 100 per cen- interpreted to require the tum above the applicable family size point of order to be raised income levels in the income poverty guideline prescribed by the Sec- during the pendency of the retary, shall be served a reduced amendment under the five- price lunch at a price not to exceed minute rule. 20 cents.’’ . . . ( ) On Apr. 28, 1975,(3) where the THE CHAIRMAN: 4 The question is on Committee of the Whole had com- the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) to pleted consideration of a measure, the amendment in the nature of a sub- had adopted an amendment in the stitute offered by the gentleman from nature of a substitute, and re- Michigan (Mr. O’Hara). ported the bill, as amended back The amendment to the amendment to the House, the following events in the nature of a substitute was occurred: agreed to. . . . THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Ken- the committee amendment in the na- tucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an ture of a substitute, as amended. amendment to the amendment in the The committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute. nature of a substitute, as amended, The Clerk read as follows: was agreed to. Amendment offered by Mr. Per- THE CHAIRMAN: Under the rule, the kins to the amendment in the nature Committee rises. of a substitute offered by Mr. O’Hara: Page 7, line 17, strike out Accordingly the Committee rose; and ‘‘the following new paragraph:’’ and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. O’Neill) insert in lieu thereof ‘‘the following: having assumed the chair, Mr. Evans, Beginning with the fiscal year end- of Colorado, Chairman of the Com- ing June 30, 1976, the income guide- mittee of the Whole House on the lines prescribed by each State educational agency for reduced price State of the Union, reported that that lunches for schools in that State Committee, having had under consid- under the fifth sentence of this para- eration the bill (H.R. 4222) to amend graph shall be 100 per centum above the National School Lunch and Child the applicable family size income lev- Nutrition Acts in order to extend and els in the income poverty guideline revise the special food service program prescribed by the Secretary, and any child who is a member of a house- for children and the school breakfast hold, if that household has an an- program, and for other purposes re- nual income which falls between (A) lated to strengthening the school lunch and child nutrition programs, pursuant 3. 121 CONG. REC. 12043, 12044, 12048, 12049, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 4. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).

12160 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 5

to House Resolution 352, he reported Perkins) desire to be heard on the the bill back to the House with an point of order? amendment adopted by the Committee MR. PERKINS: Mr. Speaker, I desire of the Whole. to be heard on the point of order. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (5) Mr. Speaker, the point of order made Under the rule, the previous question by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. is ordered. Bauman), comes too late, would be my There was no objection. first point. But, Mr. Speaker, on the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is a merits of the bill, the point of order is separate vote demanded on any not well taken because, on page 22 of amendment to the committee amend- the amendment in the nature of a sub- ment in the nature of a substitute stitute offered by the gentleman from adopted in the Committee of the Michigan (Mr. O’Hara) we find this Whole? If not, the question is on the language: amendment. (b) In order to carry out the pro- The amendment was agreed to. gram provided for under subsection (a) of this section during each of the MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- fiscal years ending June 30, 1976, land]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of September 30, 1977, and September order. 30, 1978, there is authorized to be THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The appropriated the sum of gentleman will state his point of order. $250,000,000 for each such fiscal year. MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against further consider- So that the authorization is plain, ation of the bill on the ground that the and the only thing we do is to mandate amendment offered by the gentleman some regulations to the effect if the from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) on page money is appropriated that the Sec- 17, line 7, constitutes an appropriation retary may be required to spend the in a legislative authorization bill in money. that it gives to the Secretary of Agri- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I be culture the duty of providing all nec- heard further on the point of order? essary funds to carry out and maintain THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The certain other programs to be used as gentleman from Maryland will proceed. sources of these funds, but leaves to MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, under his discretion the other programs that the rules of the House, specifically, this might possibly be used as sources for point of order lies at any time, and it these funds and, therefore, constitutes does not come too late. The rules of the an appropriation of moneys in a legis- House provide that it may be made at lative authorization bill. any time prior to the final consider- Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I make a ation of the bill. point of order against the bill. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I refer THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the Chair to the question that was the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. ruled on last week on either Wednes- day or Thursday in regard to the Viet- 5. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.). namese war.

12161 Ch. 31 § 5 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: No; the Chair will state that the point of order rulings are consistent. raised by the gentleman from Mary- MR. WAGGONNER: I thank the Speak- land (Mr. Bauman) comes at a time er. when the amendment is not being con- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The sidered, and cannot be directed against question is on the engrossment and consideration of the bill itself. In view third reading of the bill. of the fact that the gentleman from Maryland did not raise his point of order at the time of the consideration of the amendment the Chair holds that § 6. Timeliness as Against the point of order is out of order. Amendments MR. BAUMAN: But, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House directly provide for Generally, a point of order this. against an amendment is properly THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair again will state that the point of made immediately after the read- ( ) order is not well taken. ing thereof by the Clerk. 6 At the The Chair has already ruled. Chair’s discretion, the point of MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of order may be raised even before Louisiana]: A parliamentary inquiry, the Clerk has finished the read- Mr. Speaker. ing, when enough of the text has THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The been read to show that it is out of gentleman will state his parliamentary (7) inquiry. order. While there is a require- MR. WAGGONNER: My parliamentary ment that copies of an amend- inquiry is this: Does the Chair rule ment be made available to Mem- this way in view of the decision of the bers, no point of order lies against Chair last week when the gentleman the failure of the Clerk to comply from New York (Mr. Pike) was the with this instruction.(8) A point of Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and who ruled that a point of order against an amendment is order could be made at any time? not entertained where some busi- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ness has intervened between the Chair will state it can be made at any reading of the amendment and time that the House is in the Com- the making of the point of order. mittee of the Whole, and the amend- Such disqualifying business may ment is pending. The House is not in the Committee of the Whole at this consist of the granting of a unani- ( ) time, and the amendment has been mous-consent request, 9 a res- agreed to. MR. WAGGONNER: The words ‘‘at any 6. See §§ 6.1, 6.2, infra. time,’’ then, may be interpreted in a 7. See § 6.10, infra. different way today than they were 8. See § 6.12, infra. last week? 9. See § 6.17, infra.

12162 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6 ervation of objection against a looked by the Chair while he was unanimous-consent request,(10) ex- on his feet seeking recognition at cept one to dispense with reading the appropriate time, then a point of the amendment,(11) the inter- of order may be permitted not- vention of a parliamentary inquiry withstanding its lateness.(17) after a Member has been recog- A Member seeking to raise a (12) nized for debate, but not the point of order must actively seek intervention of another point of recognition, by standing and ad- order if no debate has inter- dressing the Chair.(18) vened.(13) The making of a point of order against an amendment after the ‘‘mere recognition’’ for debate of In General the Member who has proposed the § 6.1 A point of order against amendment has been per- an amendment is properly mitted,(14) although there are rulings to the effect that points of made immediately after the order may be held too late if the reading thereof. Chair has already recognized the On Mar. 29, 1966,(19) Chairman Member who offered the amend- James G. O’Hara, of Michigan, ment to make his remarks on the ruled that it was not too late for amendment and some intervening Mr. Joseph L. Evins, of Ten- business, such as a unanimous- nessee, to make a point of order consent request to revise and ex- immediately following the Clerk’s tend or to proceed for more time, reading of an amendment, al- has been conducted.(15) Where a Member begins speaking on his 17. See §§ 6.38–6.42, infra. amendment, before being recog- 18. See § 6.8, infra. nized, a point of order may still be 19. 112 CONG. REC. 7118, 89th Cong. 2d timely.(16) Sess. Under consideration was H.R. Where a Member has exhibited 14012, the second supplemental appropriations bill of fiscal 1966. A due diligence and has been over- unanimous-consent request had been agreed to that debate on the pending 10. See § 6.19, infra. paragraph and all amendments 11. See §§ 6.5, 6.6, 6.18, infra. thereto be concluded in 15 minutes. 12. See §§ 6.20, 6.21, infra. See also 86 CONG. REC. 2904, 13. See § 6.22, infra. 2905, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Mar. 14, 14. See §§ 6.23, 6.24, infra. 1940. Under consideration was H.R. 15. See §§ 6.27–6.29, infra. 7079, dealing with the appointment 16. See § 6.30, infra. of additional federal judges.

12163 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS though the Chairman had been tion bill, and not germane to the para- about to put the question. graph. The point of order is sustained. MR. [ELFORD A.] CEDERBERG [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an § 6.2 A point of order may be amendment. made or reserved against an The Clerk read as follows: amendment only when the Amendment offered by Mr. amendment has been offered Cederberg: On page 4, line 22, after ‘‘program’’ and before the period add, and read by the Clerk. ‘‘Provided further, That no part of (20) these funds shall be obligated until On Mar. 10, 1971, Chairman funds made available for the con- George W. Andrews, of Alabama, indi- struction of family housing for the cated that a Member could not logi- Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air cally reserve a point of order against Force, and Defense agencies in Pub- an amendment which had not yet been lic Law 89–202, have been obli- offered. gated.’’ THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state MR. EVINS of Tennessee: Mr. Chair- that the Clerk has not read the amend- man, I make a point of order. ment as yet. MR. [MELVIN R.] LAIRD [of Wis- MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]: consin]: Mr. Chairman, the point of Then I will reserve a point of order, order comes too late. The Chair was Mr. Chairman. about to state the question. MR. [H.R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. THE CHAIRMAN: The question had Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. not yet been put. The Chair was about THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will to state the question, but the question state his parliamentary inquiry. had not yet been put. The gentleman MR. GROSS: My parliamentary in- will state his point of order. quiry is this, Mr. Chairman. How can MR. EVINS of Tennessee: Mr. Chair- a point of order be reserved to an man, I make a point of order against amendment that has not been read? the amendment on the ground that it THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state relates to funds previously appro- to the gentleman from Iowa that the priated and which are not carried in gentleman is correct. The Chair has al- this bill and interferes with executive ready stated that the Clerk has not discretion given to the President under read the amendment as yet. existing law to do what he wishes with However, the Chair will state to the the funds.... gentleman from Texas that if the gen- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- tleman has a point of order to raise pared to rule on the point of order. The amendment offered by the gen- 20. 117 CONG. REC. 5857, 92d Cong. 1st tleman from Michigan places an unre- Sess. Under consideration was H.R. lated contingency upon the use of 4246, extending laws relating to in- funds provided in this paragraph, and terest rates, mortgage credit con- as such is legislation in an appropria- trols, and cost-of-living stabilization.

12164 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

concerning the amendment, the gen- amendments made by this title may tleman can raise his point of order at be made available for assistance for the proper time after the Clerk has Nigeria unless the President deter- read the amendment. mines, and reports to the Congress, that assistance for Nigeria is in the national interest of the United Chair’s Observations on Ger- States. maneness of Amendment (Mr. Harsha asked and was given § 6.3 Although the Chair may permission to revise and extend his re- indicate in response to a par- marks.)... MR. [JOHN] BUCHANAN [of Alabama]: liamentary inquiry that a If the gentleman added the other coun- pending amendment might tries, that would improve the amend- not be germane to the propo- ment; but in my judgment, it would sition to which offered, he still constitute a mistake and it is un- likely that I would support it. will not declare the amend- MR. [JOSEPH G.] MINISH [of New Jer- ment out of order unless a sey]: Mr. Chairman, will the gen- proper point of order is tleman yield? made. MR. BUCHANAN: Certainly, I would be glad to. On Apr. 4, 1979,(1) an amend- MR. MINISH: Mr. Chairman, I will ment in the second degree was of- satisfy the gentleman’s wishes, because fered during consideration of the I have an amendment that deals with International Development Co- all the OPEC countries. operation Act. Before the amendment was offered, its proponent PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY asked if his contemplated amend- MR. MINISH: Mr. Chairman, a par- ment would be in order. Chairman liamentary inquiry. Elliott H. Levitas, of Georgia, re- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will sponded to parliamentary inquir- state it. ies immediately before and then MR. MINISH: Mr. Chairman, would after the amendment was read. my amendment be in order as a substitute for the Harsha amendment? MR. [WILLIAM H.] HARSHA [of Ohio]: THE CHAIRMAN: If the gentleman de- Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. sires to offer his amendment, the Chair The Clerk read as follows: will be better able to respond to the Amendment offered by Mr. gentleman’s inquiry when the amend- Harsha: Page 18, after line 25, insert ment is offered. the following: AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MINISH AS ASSISTANCE FOR NIGERIA A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE AMENDMENT SEC. 127. None of the funds au- OFFERED BY MR. HARSHA thorized to be appropriated by the MR. MINISH: Mr. Chairman, I offer 1. 125 CONG. REC. 7242, 7245, 96th an amendment as a substitute for the Cong. 1st Sess. amendment.

12165 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The Clerk read as follows: THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not in Amendment offered by Mr. Minish a position to interpret the effect of the as a substitute for the amendment amendment. offered by Mr. Harsha: Page 18, immediately after line 25, insert the § 6.4 While the Chair will or- following new section: dinarily not render antici- PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO MEM- patory rulings on whether an BERS OF THE ORGANIZATION OF PE- amendment might be in TROLEUM EXPORTING COUNTRIES order, he has responded to a SEC. 127. Funds authorized to be appropriated by this title may not be parliamentary inquiry about used to provide assistance to any the germaneness of an country which is a member of the amendment printed in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Record and whether it could be in order as a substitute THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will respond to the gentleman’s parliamen- for a pending amendment. tary inquiry. Where a perfecting amendment The subject matter of the gentle- relating to the budget for one fis- man’s amendment is broader than the cal year was pending to a concur- specific subject matter of the amend- rent resolution on the budget, the ment of the gentleman from Ohio and, therefore, technically might not be ger- Chair indicated that a noticed mane. However, unless a point of order amendment in the nature of a is made against it, the Chair will not substitute, encompassing other rule on that question. fiscal years, would not be germane MR. HARSHA: Mr. Chairman, reserv- at that point in the proceedings. ing a point of order, and I shall not in- The pertinent excerpts from the sist upon my point of order, does the Record of May 9, 1979,(2) are car- gentleman’s amendment strike out the amendment that I offered? ried below. THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment of MRS. [MARJORIE S.] HOLT [of Mary- the gentleman from New Jersey is a land]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a per- substitute for the amendment of the fecting amendment. gentleman from Ohio and applies to The Clerk read as follows: any country which is a member of the Perfecting amendment offered by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Mrs. Holt: Strike out sections 1 Countries. through 5 and insert in lieu thereof MR. HARSHA: In the event the gen- the following: tleman’s amendment were adopted it That the Congress hereby deter- would take the place of my amendment mines and declares, pursuant to sec- and Nigeria would not be in it, if Nige- ria is not an OPEC country. Is that not 2. 125 CONG. REC. 10485, 10486, 96th correct? Cong. 1st Sess.

12166 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

tion 301(a) of the Congressional after the amendment is read, Budget Act of 1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, and where unanimous con- 1979— . . . sent is granted that the

MR. [PARREN J.] MITCHELL of Mary- amendment be considered as land: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary read, the point of order must inquiry. be raised following the dis- THE CHAIRMAN: (3) The gentleman position of that request. from Maryland (Mr. Mitchell) will (4) state his parliamentary inquiry. On Mar. 29, 1972, Chairman MR. MITCHELL of Maryland: Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, informed Mr. Chairman, this gentleman had planned H. John Heinz, III, of Pennsyl- to offer his amendment as a substitute vania, that a point of order could for the Holt-Regula amendment. be reserved after the disposition of It is my understanding that when a unanimous-consent request fol- the gentlewoman spoke to her amendment, the gentlewoman called it a per- lowing the reading of the amend- fecting amendment. I do not know ment by the Clerk: whether that embraces fiscal year 1979 MR. HEINZ (during the reading): Mr. and 1980. My amendment does. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to This inquiry is whether mine can be dispense with the reading of the offered as a substitute to the Holt-Reg- amendment and ask that it be printed ula amendment. at this point in the Record. HE HAIRMAN T C : The Chair will ad- MR. [WILLIAM H.] HARSHA [of Ohio]: vise the gentleman from Maryland Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to (Mr. Mitchell) that since the gentle- object, I want to make a parliamentary man’s amendment which is at the desk inquiry. would go to the fiscal years 1979 and THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will 1980 and is in the nature of a sub- state it. stitute for the entire resolution, it MR. HARSHA: Mr. Chairman, I in- would not be germane or otherwise in tend to make a point of order against order, since the amendment offered by this amendment and, if the unani- the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Holt) is perfecting in nature and only mous-consent request is granted, do I goes to the fiscal year 1980. then waive my right to make that point of order at the appropriate time? Timing of Point of Order THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will not waive his right if he makes it im- Against Offered Amendment mediately after the unanimous consent is granted. § 6.5 A point of order against an amendment must be made 4. 118 CONG. REC. 10749, 92d Cong. 2d or reserved immediately Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 11896, to amend the Federal Water 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.). Pollution Control Act.

12167 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. HARSHA: I reserve a point of ‘‘productivity, and reasonable price order against the amendment, and if stability’’. the waiver of the reading of the Page 64, line 22, before ‘‘and’’ insert ‘‘reasonable price stability, amendment will not waive my right to which shall be set at a rate which a point of order—— would, within five years, bring the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman can annual rate of inflation, as measured make his point of order immediately by the Consumer Price Index as determined by the Bureau of Labor following the granting of the unani- Statistics in the Department of mous-consent request. Labor, to not more than 3 percent’’. Page 69, after the period in line 6 § 6.6 A point of order may be add the following new sentence: ‘‘Be- ginning with the third Economic Re- made or reserved against an port submitted after the date of the amendment after it is ‘‘con- enactment of the Full Employment sidered as read’’ but before and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, the President shall set forth in each the proponent of the amend- Economic Report the programs and ment has been recognized to policies being used to reduce inflation and the degree of progress debate it. made.’’. On Mar. 9, 1978,(5) during the Strike out line 13 on page 73 and all that follows down through line 5 reading of an amendment which on page 75, and insert in lieu thereof he had offered, Mr. James M. Jef- the following: fords, of Vermont, asked unani- ‘‘SEC. 9. (a) The Congress determines that reasonable stability as mous consent that it be consid- described in section 3(a)(3) and sec- ered as read. The following in- tions 4(a) and 4(b)(2) will be achieved under the procedures and quiry follows: requirements of section 5(b). . . .

AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. JEF- MR. JEFFORDS (during the reading): FORDS AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. sent that the amendments offered as a substitute be considered as read and SARASIN printed in the Record. ( ) MR. JEFFORDS: Mr. Chairman, I offer THE CHAIRMAN: 6 Is there objection amendments as a substitute for the to the request of the gentleman from amendments offered by the gentleman Vermont? MR. [AUGUSTUS F.] HAWKINS [of from Connecticut (Mr. Sarasin). California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a The Clerk read as follows: point of order on the amendments. Amendments offered by Mr. Jef- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from fords as a substitute for the amend- California reserves a point of order on ments offered by Mr. Sarasin: Page the amendments. 64, line 16, strike out ‘‘and produc- MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- tivity’’ and insert in lieu thereof land]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. 5. 124 CONG. REC. 6285, 6286, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

12168 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will THE CHAIRMAN: (8) The gentleman state it. from Mississippi. MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Chairman, as the MR. [LINDSAY C.] WARREN [of North gentleman from Vermont has already Carolina]: Mr. Chairman—— made the request that the amendment be considered as read and that request THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose was granted, therefore I think the does the gentleman from North Caro- point of order comes too late. lina rise? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would ad- MR. WARREN: I rise to make the vise the gentleman from Maryland point of order that [the appropriation] that the point of order can still be is not authorized by law. made or reserved before the gentleman MR. FRED M. VINSON [of Kentucky]: proceeds with his remarks. Therefore, The point of order comes too late, Mr. the reservation is in order. Chairman.... § 6.7 A point of order may be THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman had not begun his remarks.... made against an amendment The Chair does not believe that the before debate on the amend- point of order comes too late. The gen- ment begins. tleman from North Carolina was on his On Mar. 31, 1937, after the feet seeking recognition at the time the Clerk’s reading of an amendment, gentleman rose. but prior to debate on it, a Mem- ber sought to make a point of A Point of Order Against an order, which was challenged as Amendment Must Be Timely coming too late.(7) § 6.8 A point of order against The Clerk read as follows: an amendment comes too Amendment by Mr. [Ross] Collins late after the proponent has [of Mississippi]: Page 19, after line 19, insert a new paragraph, as fol- made his introductory com- lows: ments in explanation of the ‘‘For additional services in the office of each Member and Delegate amendment. and the Resident Commissioner from A point of order against an Puerto Rico, in the discharge of his official and representative duties, at amendment must be made or re- a rate not to exceed $1,800 per served as soon as the amendment annum, as to each such office, $783,000.’’ is read or its reading is dispensed with. When the Chamber is MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I ask recognition. crowded and noisy, due diligence requires the Member wishing to 7. 81 CONG. REC. 2980, 2981, 75th make the point of order to address Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration the Chair, and merely being on was H.R. 5966, the legislative appropriation bill for 1938. 8. Scott W. Lucas (Ill.).

12169 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS his feet does not protect his right. MR. ROBERT F. SMITH [of Oregon]: The events of Oct. 1, 1985,(9) dur- Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of ing the reading of the Food Secu- order on this amendment. rity Act of 1985, show how a THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would point out to the gentleman from Or- Member may lose his opportunity egon that it is too late to reserve a to raise a point of order. point of order. The point of order has MR. [BARNEY] FRANK [of Massachu- to be reserved before the gentleman setts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an from Massachusetts begins his re- amendment as a substitute for the marks. amendment. MR. ROBERT F. SMITH: If I may, Mr. The Clerk read as follows: Chairman, it was very difficult to hear. Amendment offered by Mr. Frank I did not even hear the amendment as a substitute for the amendment proposed and I was timely in my res- offered by Mr. Dorgan of North Da- ervation of my point of order, Mr. kota: Page 70, strike out line 19 and Chairman. I was attempting to get all that follows thereafter through order, as the Chair was. I suggest that page 71, line 19, and insert in lieu I did not even hear the amendment of- thereof the following: fered. ‘‘(C) The established price for wheat shall be $4.38 per bushel for THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair asked if the 1986 crop; $4.16 per bushel for there was objection to the waiving of the 1987 crop; $3.96 per bushel for the reading of the amendment and the the 1988 crop; $3.76 per bushel for Chair did not hear an objection. the 1989 crop; and $3.57 per bushel MR. ROBERT F. SMITH: Mr. Chair- for the 1990 crop, respectively. man, with due respect, I did not even MR. FRANK (during the reading): Mr. hear the amendment offered, and it Chairman, I ask unanimous consent has never been read. I was standing that the amendment be considered as here before you, sir. read and printed in the Record. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would ( ) THE CHAIRMAN: 10 Is there objection note that there were literally dozens of to the request of the gentleman from people standing. The Chair was not ad- Massachusetts? dressed by the gentleman from Oregon There was no objection. and there was a waiving of the reading MR. FRANK: Mr. Chairman, I realize of the amendment. that this bill, in its short stay on the floor, has apparently already outlasted the membership’s attention span, but Chair’s Responsibility Where this is a very important amendment Amendment Improperly Read which I choose to offer anyway. This is an amendment which em- § 6.9 The Chairman of the bodies the position of the Reagan ad- Committee of the Whole may ministration on this particular bill. direct the re-reporting of an

9. 131 CONG. REC. 25439, 25440, 99th amendment where it was not Cong. 1st Sess. read in its entirety when of- 10. David E. Bonior (Mich.). fered. 12170 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

When an improper reporting of ered to me. I wonder if the Clerk might an amendment by the Clerk is read the amendment again so that we called to the Chair’s attention, he know what we are talking about. THE CHAIRMAN: (12) Without objec- may direct it to be reported again tion, the Clerk will re-report the so that Members have a proper amendment. reference for deciding whether to There was no objection. raise a point of order. An amend- The Clerk read as follows: ment must be read in full unless Amendment offered by Mr. Burton: the further reading is dispensed On page 12, between lines 17 and with by special rule or unanimous 18, insert the following new paragraph. consent. When part of the amend- (14) Commodities provided under ment was omitted by the Clerk, this Act shall be distributed by the Chair correctly directed that it means of a system developed by the Secretary of Agriculture and State be read again, in full. The pro- agencies. ceedings of June 16, 1983,(11) are Eligible organizations must ac- illustrative. knowledge receipt of such commodities. Eligible individual recipients MR. [DAN] BURTON [of Indiana]: Mr. shall be provided such commodities Chairman, I offer an amendment. by means of commodity coupons distributed under the food stamp pro- The Clerk read as follows: gram pursuant to rules and regula- Amendment offered by Mr. Burton: tions issued by the Secretary of Agri- On page 12, between lines 17 and culture as authorized by the Food 18, insert the following new para- Stamp Act of 1977, as amended. graph: MR. EMERSON: I thank the Chair. (14) Commodities provided under this Act shall be distributed by MR. [E (KIKA)] DE LA GARZA [of means of a system developed by the Texas]: Mr. Chairman, will the gen- Secretary of Agriculture and State tleman yield to me? agencies. MR. EMERSON: I yield to the chair- MR. BURTON: Mr. Chairman, I think man of the committee. we all want to help the truly needy, MR. DE LA GARZA: Mr. Chairman, I but we also want to make sure we do appreciate the fact the amendment has not at the same time hurt the private been read, but there is some confusion sector.... here. Is this a re-reporting of the MR. [BILL] EMERSON [of Missouri]: amendment or just a re-reading of the Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the amendment? last word. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state Mr. Chairman, the amendment as that it is a re-reporting. The Clerk did read by the Clerk does not conform not report the entire amendment. with the amendment that was deliv- MR. DE LA GARZA: Mr. Chairman, I make that inquiry because, as the gen- 11. 129 CONG. REC. 16031, 16032, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 12. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).

12171 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

tleman from Texas recollects, there MR. [BOB] ECKHARDT [of Texas] (dur- was no unanimous consent to dispense ing the reading): Mr. Chairman, a par- with further reading. Therefore, the liamentary inquiry. amendment was not read in its en- THE CHAIRMAN: (14) The gentleman tirety, and I would have raised a point will state his parliamentary inquiry. of order at that time had the amend- MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, ment been correctly read. would it be in order for me to press my Mr. Chairman, I will inquire, is it point of order at this time? proper at this point, if the amendment THE CHAIRMAN: Did the Chair un- has been re-reported, to raise a point derstand the gentleman to say, to of order? press his point of order? Mr. Chairman, since there was some MR. ECKHARDT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. confusion, I felt obligated to bring the matter before the House, but I will Would it be in order for me to urge state now that I would not raise a my point of order at this time? point of order at this time, and we may THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair feels that proceed on the amendment. the reading of the amendment should Mr. Chairman, I thank the gen- be concluded. tleman for yielding to me. The Chair, on His Own Initia- Discretion of Chair tive, May Rule Out an Amend- ment Which Is Not in Proper § 6.10 While a point of order Form may be pressed in the Chair’s discretion against an amend- § 6.11 The Chair may examine ment when enough of the an offered amendment to de- text has been read to show termine its propriety and that it is out of order, the may rule it out of order even Chairman may decline to where no point of order is rule on the point of order raised. until the entire amendment On May 8, 1980,(15) when the has been read. Committee of the Whole resumed On Dec. 14, 1973,(13) a Member consideration of the Food Stamp sought to press his point of order Amendments of 1980, the Chair during the reading of an amend- announced that amendments to ment with the following result: section 1 were in order. Mr. Rob- The Clerk continued to read the ert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, of- amendment. fered what he termed ‘‘an amend-

13. 119 CONG. REC. 41717, 93d Cong. 1st 14. Richard Bolling (Mo.). Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 15. 126 CONG. REC. 10421, 96th Cong. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act. 2d Sess.

12172 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6 ment in the nature of a sub- THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to stitute.’’ Mr. Walker asked that the request of the gentleman from reading be dispensed with and Pennsylvania? was recognized to begin his expla- There was no objection.... nation. The Chair interrupted his THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will suspend for just a moment. The Chair presentation to inform him that is advised by the Parliamentarian that the amendment offered was not ‘‘a the gentleman has not offered a proper proper amendment in the nature amendment in the nature of a sub- of a substitute.’’ stitute here. An amendment in the nature of a substitute would strike every- THE CHAIRMAN: (16) When the Com- mittee of the Whole rose on Wednes- thing after the enacting clause. This is day, May 7, section 1 had been consid- an amendment adding a new title III. ered as having been read and open to MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, it was amendment at any point. It shall be in my understanding that the amend- order to consider an amendment to ment was prepared in the form of a title I of said substitute printed in the substitute. Congressional Record on April 30, THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment at 1980, and said amendment shall not be the desk is not prepared in that form, subject to amendment except for the the Chair is advised. When the com- offering of pro forma amendments for mittee reaches title II, the first part of the purpose of debate. No further the gentleman’s amendment would be amendments are in order which fur- in order. The Chair will rule that the ther change or affect the Internal Rev- amendment is not pending at this enue Code. time. Are there any amendments to sec- MR. WALKER: I thank the Chairman, tion 1? and I am sorry for that confusion. AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. WALKER amendments to section 1? MR. [STEVEN D.] SYMMS [of Idaho]: MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a sub- Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. stitute.... THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from The Clerk read as follows: Idaho has an amendment to section 1. This is the short title of the bill. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Walker: MR. SYMMS: It is on page 24, Mr. Page 39, after line 22 insert the fol- Chairman. lowing new title: THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair doubts that that is an amendment to section MR. WALKER (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- 1. The amendment of the gentleman sent that the amendment be consid- from Idaho (Mr. Symms) is not to sec- ered as read and printed in the Record. tion 1, but to title I. The Clerk will read title I. 16. Paul Simon (Ill.). The Clerk read as follows:

12173 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

TITLE I—REDUCTION IN FOOD has been interpreted as an assign- STAMP ERROR AND FRAUD AND ment of responsibility to the Clerk REVISION OF DEDUCTIONS but not as a provision which in- Points of Order Against hibits the consideration of an Amendments Because Copies amendment. The proceedings of Unavailable Mar. 25, 1976,(19) are illustrative. § 6.12 While the rules impose a MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- land]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend- duty on the Clerk to transmit ment. copies of an amendment to The Clerk read as follows: the majority and minority, a Amendment offered by Mr. point of order does not lie Bauman: On page 6, line 3 insert the based on the Clerk’s inability following new section, and renumber to comply with this require- the succeeding sections: ‘‘SEC. 9. Notwithstanding any ment. other provision of law the Director of the National Science Foundation Rule XXIII clause 5(a), specifies shall keep all Members of Congress that ‘‘Upon the offering of any including the members of the Com- amendment by a Member, when mittee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the House is meeting in the Com- the Committee on Labor and Public mittee of the Whole, the Clerk Welfare of the Senate fully and cur- shall promptly transmit to the rently informed with respect to all the activities of the National Science majority committee table five cop- Foundation. Upon the receipt of a ies of the amendment and five written request from any Member of copies to the minority committee Congress for information regarding the activities, programs, grants, or table. Further, the Clerk shall de- contracts of the National Science liver at least one copy of the Foundation, the Director shall furnish such information within 15 amendment to the majority cloak days.... room and at least one copy to the minority cloak room.’’ (17) This rule MR. [JAMES W.] SYMINGTON [of Mis- was added as part of the Legisla- souri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. tive Reorganization Act of We do not have five copies of the amendment as far as I can tell. 1970,(18) but from its inception it THE CHAIRMAN: (20) That is not a 17. Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules point of order, although the Chair and Manual § 870 (1997). hopes the copies will be provided. 18. The concept was included in Sec. 124, 84 Stat. 1140 and was included 19. 122 CONG. REC. 7997, 94th Cong. 2d in Rule XXIII in the 92d Cong., H. Sess. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144. 20. George E. Danielson (Calif.).

12174 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

No Point of Order Where Cop- to offer an amendment to the ies of Offered Amendment Are challenged language. Not Available On May 18, 1966,(1) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, in- § 6.13 No point of order lies formed Mr. Wright Patman, of against an amendment on Texas, that his substitute amend- the ground that copies there- ment was premature until the of have not been made avail- pending point of order against a able to Members by the pending committee amendment Clerk. was disposed of. Rule XXIII clause 5, places up- MR. [CHARLES R.] JONAS [of North on the Clerk the responsibility of Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. making copies of an offered THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from amendment available to the ma- North Carolina will state the point of jority and minority tables and to order. the cloakrooms. This portion of MR. JONAS: Mr. Chairman, I make a clause 5 was adopted as part of point of order.... THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman the Legislative Reorganization Act from Texas desire to be heard on the of 1970, and from its inception, it point of order? has been held that noncompliance MR. PATMAN: Yes. I have a sub- does not inhibit the consideration stitute amendment, and I hope it will be acceptable. of an amendment. The Chair has THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state consistently held that failure or to the gentleman from Texas that we inability of the Clerk to comply are under the obligation of disposing of does not state a point of order. the point of order. For an example of such a ruling, § 6.15 Points of order raised see the proceedings of Sept. 15, against a proposition must 1977, during consideration of the be disposed of before amend- Fair Labor Standards Act of 1977 ments to the challenged lan- (H.R. 3744) carried in § 1.35, guage are in order. supra. On May 14, 1937,(2) a Member Timeliness of Ruling on Pend- unsuccessfully attempted to re- ing Points of Order 1. 112 CONG. REC. 10894, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was § 6.14 A pending point of or- H.R. 14544, the Participation Sales der against certain language Act of 1966. must be decided prior to rec- 2. 81 CONG. REC. 4596, 4597, 75th ognition of another Member Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 12175 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS serve a point of order and offer a MR. [JOHN F.] SEIBERLING [of Ohio]: substitute amendment at the Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment same time. as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Da- MR. [GERALD J.] BOILEAU [of Wis- kota (Mr. Andrews). consin]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the The Clerk read as follows: point of order against the proviso and move to strike out the last word, to ask Amendment offered by Mr. Seiber- the gentleman from Oklahoma the rea- ling as a substitute for the amend- son for the language in lines 17 and ment offered by Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: page 194, line 9, 18.... adopt the sentence starting on line 9, I do not withdraw my reservation of but change ‘‘35’’ to ‘‘50’’. the point of order, Mr. Chairman, but I have an amendment that I desire to MR. SEIBERLING: Mr. Chairman, the offer. effect of my substitute is simply to THE CHAIRMAN: (3) The point of order adopt the language presently appear- will have to be disposed of before an ing on line 9 in the sentence beginning amendment is in order. in that line on page 194 with the change offered by the gentleman from Timing of Point of Order North Dakota but with an additional Against Amendment change. I would simply change the rate that § 6.16 A point of order against appears on line 11 from 35 cents per an amendment must be ton to 50 cents per ton. raised immediately after the POINT OF ORDER reading of the amendment MR. [SAM] STEIGER of Arizona: Mr. and before there is any de- Chairman, I raise a point of order. bate on the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: (5) The gentleman Where a substitute amendment will state it. was offered in Committee of the MR. STEIGER of Arizona: Mr. Chair- Whole to a bill under consider- man, I am afraid that the gentleman ation, a point of order was raised from Ohio has made a parliamentary error. His intention is not compatible after the proponent of the amend- with the substitution of his amendment had begun the explanation ment for that of the gentleman from of this amendment. The pro- North Dakota. (4) ceedings of Mar. 17, 1975, were THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman’s as indicated: point of order comes too late. MR. [MARK] ANDREWS of North Da- was H.R. 6958, the Interior Depart- kota: A parliamentary inquiry. ment appropriation for 1938. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.). state it. 4. 121 CONG. REC. 6798, 6799, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 5. Neal Smith (Iowa).

12176 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

MR. ANDREWS of North Dakota: My of New York, that his point of amendment is on page 194, line 15. order, which was untimely be- I would point out that the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio cause of intervening business be- would probably be better standing on tween the point of order and read- its own, since it affects strip mining all ing of the amendment, could be over the country and my amendment perfected by seeking unanimous affects strip mining only in two or consent to have the intervening three States. business vacated. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state that the amendment of the gentleman [Mr. William Steiger, of Wisconsin, from North Dakota beginning on page after his amendment was read, asked 194, line 15, while it might have been and was given permission to revise and subject to a point of order earlier, it is extend his remarks.] not subject to a point of order at the MR. RYAN: Mr. Chairman, I make a present time. point of order against the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state Intervention of Unanimous- that the gentleman’s point of order consent Request comes a little late. MR. RYAN: Mr. Chairman, I was on § 6.17 A point of order against my feet. an amendment is not enter- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state tained where business (the that the gentleman from Wisconsin granting of a unanimous-con- (Mr. Steiger) had obtained a unani- sent request) has intervened mous-consent request prior to the gentleman from New York being observed between the reading of the by the Chair. amendment and the making The Chair will ask the gentleman if of the point of order; but if, the gentleman was on his feet prior to by unanimous consent, the the unanimous-consent request made intervening business is va- by the gentleman from Wisconsin? cated, the Chairman may MR. RYAN: The gentleman was on then entertain the point of his feet at the point the amendment was read. order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from On June 24, 1969,(6) Chairman New York was on his feet during the John S. Monagan, of Connecticut, reading of the amendment? suggested to Mr. William F. Ryan, MR. RYAN: That is correct. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state 6. 115 CONG. REC. 17081, 91st Cong. that the gentleman was simply not ob- 1st Sess. Under consideration was served by the Chair prior to the grant- H.R. 12307, the independent offices ing of the unanimous-consent request and housing and urban development of the gentleman from Wisconsin. Un- appropriation bill for fiscal 1970. less the gentleman from Wisconsin de-

12177 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

sires to make a unanimous-consent re- TITLE IV—NATIONAL COMMISSION ON quest that his previous unanimous- REDUCING CAPITAL COSTS FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGY consent request be vacated, the Chair will state that there is no way the gen- SEC. 401. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON REDUCING CAPITAL COSTS FOR tleman from New York can be heard EMERGING TECHNOLOGY. on his point of order. (a) ESTABLISHMENT AND PUR- MR. STEIGER of Wisconsin: Mr. POSE.—There is established a Na- Chairman, I do not wish to make such tional Commission on Reducing Cap- a request. ital Costs for Emerging Technology (hereafter in this section referred to as the ‘‘Commission’’), for the purpose Timeliness of Point of Order; a of developing recommendations to increase the competitiveness of United Mere Request for Permission States industry by encouraging in- To Revise and Extend Not vestments in research, the develop- ‘‘Intervening Business’’ ment of new process and product technologies, and the production of those technologies.... § 6.18 The mere making of a unanimous-consent request AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WALKER to dispense with further MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I offer reading of an amendment an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: and that the proponent be Amendment offered by Mr. Walk- permitted to revise and exer: Page 40, after line 7, insert the tend is not ‘‘intervening busi- following new title:

ness’’ or ‘‘debate’’ which TITLE V—COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL would render a point of POLICY FOR COMMERCIALIZATION OF order against the amend- EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ment as untimely. SEC. 501. COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL POLICY FOR COMMERCIALIZATION OF During the reading of an EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES. amendment to the American It is the sense of the Congress that in order to improve the competitive- Technology Preeminence Act of ness of United States industry— 1991, Mr. Robert S. Walker, of (1) the research and experimen- Pennsylvania, offered an amend- tation tax credit should be raised to 25 percent and made permanent; ment and during the reading by (2) the capital gains tax should be the Clerk made a request. The reduced to levels comparable to that ( ) of our major trading partners; and proceedings of July 16, 1991, 7 (3) the National Cooperative Re- are shown herein. search Act of 1984 should be extended to include joint production ventures. 7. 137 CONG. REC. 18391, 18392, 102d Redesignate existing titles V and Cong. 1st Sess. VI as titles VI and VII, and redesig-

12178 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

nate the sections in such titles ac- MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, cordingly. I was seeking recognition. I was on my feet. I reserved the point of order. MR. WALKER (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Pennsylvania sent that the amendment be consid- the point of order is timely. Debate has ered as read and printed in the Record, not yet begun on the amendment. and I ask unanimous consent to revise MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I asked and extend my remarks. unanimous consent to revise and ex- (8) THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection tend my remarks, which means that to the request of the gentleman from debate had in fact begun and the Pennsylvania? unanimous consent was agreed to, which means that the point of order POINT OF ORDER does not come timely. MR. [DAN] ROSTENKOWSKI [of Illi- THE CHAIRMAN: No order of the nois]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point Committee has been entered on that of order against the amendment. manner. The point of order has been THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will reserved. state his point of order. The Chair recognizes the gentleman MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] on the I raise the point of order that the point of order. amendment is not germane to the bill under consideration. § 6.19 After an amendment has been read by the Clerk and a PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY reservation of objection has MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I have been made against a unani- a parliamentary inquiry. mous-consent request for an THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will additional five minutes’ de- state it. bate, it is too late to raise a MR. WALKER: The point of order comes too late. point of order against the THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman amendment. reserve his point of order? Does the On Feb. 1, 1938,(9) a point of gentleman wish to make the point of order against an amendment was order? ruled untimely by Chairman Wil- MR. ROSTENKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, I intended to make a point of order liam J. Driver, of Arkansas. against the gentleman’s amendment. MR. [EVERETT M.] DIRKSEN [of Illi- MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, the nois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend- point of order comes too late. Business ment. has taken place in the House that would preclude the point of order from 9. 83 CONG. REC. 1364, 75th Cong. 3d being made. Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appro- 8. Pat Williams (Mont.). priation for 1939.

12179 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Ben- nett as a substitute for the amend- Amendment offered by Mr. Dirk- ment offered by Mr. Bevill: strike sen: On page 57, in line 19, strike lines 12 through 23 and insert: out ‘‘$900,000’’ and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘$1,900,000.’’ ‘‘d. The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 is amended by adding at MR. DIRKSEN: Mr. Chairman, I ask the end of section 2 the following unanimous consent to proceed for an new subsection: additional 5 minutes. ‘‘ ‘Sec. 4. The provisions of this law MR. [ROSS A.] COLLINS [of Mis- shall not apply to one-bank holding sissippi]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the companies with bank-assets of less right to object—— than $30,000,000 and non-bank as- MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: sets of less than $10,000,000.’ ’’ Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the amendment that this PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY increase is not authorized by law. MR. [BENJAMIN B.] BLACKBURN [of THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamen- the gentleman from New York comes tary inquiry. too late. A request has already been THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will presented, and there has been a reservation of objection to it. state his parliamentary inquiry. MR. BLACKBURN: Mr. Chairman, do I Intervention of Parliamentary understand we are preparing to vote, and if so, what will we be voting upon? Inquiry I understand there is another amendment now.... § 6.20 A point of order against MR. [GARY E.] BROWN of Michigan: an amendment is properly Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order raised immediately after the on the amendment offered by the gen- reading thereof and comes tleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) in too late after the Chairman that it is not germane to the bill. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman has entertained and re- wish to be heard on his point of order? sponded to a parliamentary MR. BROWN of Michigan: Yes, Mr. inquiry from another Mem- Chairman; I would like to be heard on ber. my point of order.] (10) MR. [CHARLES E.] BENNETT: Mr. On Nov. 5, 1969, immediately Chairman, I make a point of order that after the reading of a substitute I think the point of order . . . is too amendment, Chairman Chet late, but I think the amendment is ger- Holifield, of California, responded mane, anyway. to a parliamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state The Clerk read as follows: that the point of order raised by the gentleman from Michigan is too late. 10. 115 CONG. REC. 33133, 91st Cong. The gentleman from Georgia had aris- 1st Sess. Under consideration was en for a parliamentary inquiry. H.R. 6778, amending the One Bank MR. BROWN of Michigan: Mr. Chair- Holding Company Act of 1956. man, if I could be heard on that, as I

12180 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

recall the activity of the House at that comes too late if a parliamentary in- time the amendment was offered, it quiry intervenes. was read, the parliamentary inquiry was made as to what was before the Intervention of Another Point Committee, the Chair explained what of Order was before the Committee at that time, and at that time I made my point of § 6.22 After a point of order order. against an amendment has THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state that the gentleman’s point of order been overruled, the Chair- comes too late because we have had a man may entertain a further parliamentary inquiry in the mean- point of order if the Member time, and the Chair has responded. offering the amendment has not yet begun debate there- § 6.21 A point of order must be on. made immediately after the ( ) reading of an amendment On Nov. 17, 1971, 12 Chairman and comes too late if a par- Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illi- liamentary inquiry inter- nois, entertained a further point venes. of order after overruling the first, as nothing else had intervened. On Dec. 11, 1947,(11) Chairman Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: answered an inquiry suggesting Mr. Chairman, am I recognized? the importance of making a point THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes. of order immediately after the MR. [JOHN J.] RHODES [of Arizona]: reading of an amendment. Mr. Chairman, a further point of order. MR. [JAMES G.] FULTON [of Pennsyl- MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, I under- vania]: Mr. Chairman, may I have a stand the point of order has been over- specific ruling as to whether a par- ruled. liamentary inquiry made before a point THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has over- of order makes a point of order out of ruled the point of order of the gen- order? tleman from Texas, but the gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: A point of order from Illinois has not yet begun his re- must be made immediately after the marks. reading of the amendment. No busi- MR. RHODES: Mr. Chairman, a par- ness must intervene between the read- liamentary inquiry, is not a further ing of an amendment and the raising point of order in order? of the point of order. A point of order 12. 117 CONG. REC. 41801, 41802, 92d 11. 93 CONG. REC. 11279, 80th Cong. 1st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration Sess. Under consideration was H.R. was H.R. 11731, the Department of 4604, a foreign aid bill. Defense appropriations for 1972.

12181 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear setts (Mr. Macdonald) for 5 minutes in the gentleman from Arizona on the support of his amendment. parliamentary inquiry. MR. FLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I make a MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, I thought point of order against the amendment. I had been recognized. MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: MR. RHODES: Mr. Chairman, a par- Mr. Chairman, the point comes too liamentary inquiry is whether or not a late. further point of order can be made at MR. FLOOD: Mr. Chairman, I make a this time? point of order against the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will the point of order. state the point of order.... MR. MACDONALD of Massachusetts: Effect of Recognition for De- Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary in- bate quiry. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will § 6.23 Mere recognition for de- state it. bate does not preclude a MR. MACDONALD of Massachusetts: point of order against an Could I be enlightened as to when a amendment if no debate has Member who has been recognized and intervened. starts to talk has given up his right of recognition? (13) On July 30, 1969, following THE CHAIRMAN: A point of order can the reading of the amendment by intervene before debate is conducted on the Clerk, Chairman Chet an amendment, particularly when the Holifield, of California, recognized chairman of the subcommittee is on his the proponent, Mr. Torbert H. feet seeking recognition. There had Macdonald, of Massachusetts, to been no debate on the merits of the amendment. speak on it, but, before Mr. Mac- donald could begin his remarks, § 6.24 Mere recognition by the Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsyl- Chairman of a Member pro- vania, raised a point of order, posing an amendment does which led to the following ex- not preclude a point of order change: being raised by a Member THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- who has shown due dili- nizes the gentleman from Massachu- gence. ( ) 13. 115 CONG. REC. 21458, 21459, 91st On Mar. 31, 1937, 14 Mr. Ross Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration A. Collins, of Mississippi, had was H.R. 1311, the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and 14. 81 CONG. REC. 2980, 2981, 75th Welfare appropriations for fiscal Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 1970. But see 99 CONG. REC. 2106, was H.R. 5966, an appropriations 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 18, 1953. bill fixing compensation of employees

12182 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6 been recognized to speak on his MR. COLLINS: And I make the fur- amendment when Chairman Scott ther point of order that I had secured W. Lucas, of Illinois, permitted recognition from the Chair before the point of order was made, and therefore another Member, Lindsay C. War- the point of order comes too late. ren, of North Carolina, to raise a THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman had point of order that the amend- not begun his remarks. The Chair will ment was an unauthorized appro- hear the gentleman from Mississippi priation on a general appropria- on the point of order. tion bill. The Chairman allowed MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order to be made be- the point of order that the point of order comes too late. I was on my feet cause Mr. Warren had been on his and had been recognized by the Chair, feet seeking recognition at the as will be shown by the stenographic time Mr. Collins rose. notes. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send believe that the point of order comes to the desk. too late. The gentleman from North Carolina was on his feet seeking rec- The Clerk read as follows:... ognition at the time the gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from rose. Mississippi. MR. COLLINS: On the contrary, I had MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman—— secured recognition from the Chair and THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose was approaching the Well of the House does the gentleman from North Caro- for the purpose of speaking to my lina rise? amendment before the gentleman ad- MR. WARREN: I rise to make the dressed the Chair, all of which will be point of order that it is not authorized shown by the stenographic notes. by law. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from MR. FRED M. VINSON [of Kentucky]: Mississippi had not begun debate on The point of order comes too late, Mr. the amendment, and even though the Chairman. Chair had recognized the gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from Mississippi, the gentleman from make the point of order? North Carolina was on his feet at prac- MR. WARREN: I make the point of tically the same time, and the Chair order, Mr. Chairman. does not believe that the point of order has been raised too late. of the legislative branch for fiscal 1938. § 6.25 Points of order against See also 101 CONG. REC. 12408, proposed amendments come 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1955. too late after a Member has Under consideration was H.R. 6857, authorizing the General Services Ad- been recognized to debate ministration to convey realty to the his amendment and a unani- city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. mous-consent request has 12183 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

been granted on that Mem- is now before the Committee is to be ber’s time. amended and, further, Reorganization Plan No. 1 is not before the Committee On Mar. 18, 1953,(15) Chairman at this time. Kenneth B. Keating, of New York, THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman’s recognized the proponent of an point of order comes too late. The gentleman from Illinois had already been amendment, William L. Dawson, recognized. of Illinois, but, before the Member could speak, Mr. Clare E. Hoff- Point of Order Precluded by man, of Michigan, made a unani- Proponent’s Requests To Re- mous-consent request that the vise and Extend and That the amendment be reread, which re- Amendment Be Reread quest was granted. Mr. Hoffman then attempted to make a point of § 6.26 Where a Member had order, still before Mr. Dawson had been recognized to debate commenced his remarks, but the his proposed amendment, Chair ruled the point of order had asked permission to re- came too late. vise and extend, and had re-

THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from ceived unanimous consent to Illinois is recognized in support of his have the amendment reread amendment. (since a quorum call inter- MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr. vened between the offering Chairman, I ask unanimous consent of the amendment and his that the amendment be read again. recognition), the Chair stat- THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from ed that it was too late to Michigan? raise a point of order. There was no objection. Until Jan. 4, 1977, it was still pos- The Clerk reread the Dawson sible to make a point of order that a amendment. quorum of the Committee of the Whole MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr. was not present at any time during the Chairman, I make a point of order five-minute rule.(16) In the proceedings against the amendment. MR. DAWSON of Illinois: Mr. Chair- 16. Rule XXIII clause 2, was amended in man, the point of order comes too late. the 95th Congress to permit a point MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: It does of no quorum, after a quorum of the not specify wherein the resolution that Committee has once been established on that day, only when the 15. 99 CONG. REC. 2106, 83d Cong. 1st Chair has put the question on a Sess., relating to H.J. Res. 223, pro- pending proposition. See House viding that Reorganization Plan No. Rules and Manual § 863 and annota- 1 of 1953 take effect within 10 days. tion thereto (1997).

12184 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

of June 26, 1975,(17) when an amend- Pursuant to rule XXIII, clause 2, fur- ment was offered at a point when few ther proceedings under the call shall Members were on the floor, Mr. Robert be considered as vacated. E. Bauman, of Maryland, made the The Committee will resume its busi- point that a quorum was not present. ness. A call of the Committee followed, and The Chair recognizes the gentleman after one hundred Members responded, from Kentucky (Mr. Snyder). the Chair terminated proceedings (Mr. Snyder asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- under the call and recognized the pro- marks.) ponent of the amendment for debate. MR. SNYDER: Mr. Chairman, in view The Congressional Record shows the of the fact that there are a few Mem- following exchange: bers on the floor who were not here a MR. [M. G. (GENE)] SNYDER [of Ken- while ago, I ask unanimous consent tucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an that the Clerk reread my amendment. amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to The Clerk read as follows: the request of the gentleman from Kentucky? Amendment offered by Mr. Sny- There was no objection. der: On page 16, after line 14, add THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will the following new section: reread the amendment. ‘‘Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used The Clerk reread the amendment. for the purposes of negotiating the MR. [ROBERT L.] LEGGETT [of Cali- surrender or relinquishment of any fornia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a par- U.S. rights in the Panama Canal liamentary inquiry. Zone.’’ THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Chairman, I make MR. LEGGETT: Mr. Chairman, is it the point of order that a quorum is not too late to make a point of order with present. respect to the amendment? ( ) THE CHAIRMAN: 18 The Chair will THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair informs count. Thirty-six Members are present, the gentleman from California (Mr. not a quorum. Leggett) that it is too late. The Chair announces that he will vacate proceedings under the call when § 6.27 A point of order against a quorum of the Committee appears. an amendment came too late Members will record their presence after the proponent of the by electronic device. amendment had been recog- The call was taken by electronic de- nized and had been granted vice. permission to revise and ex- THE CHAIRMAN: One hundred Mem- bers have appeared. A quorum of the tend his remarks. Committee of the Whole is present. On July 26, 1973,(19) in the Committee of the Whole, Chair- 17. 121 CONG. REC. 20945, 20946, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 19. 119 CONG. REC. 26191, 26192, 93d 18. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio). Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration

12185 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS man Charles M. Price, of Illinois, THE CHAIRMAN: (1) The Chair recog- ruled a point of order raised by nizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Emery) for 5 minutes in support of his Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Penn- amendment. sylvania, came too late. (Mr. Emery asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- MR. [ANDREW] YOUNG of Georgia: marks.) Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- The Clerk read as follows:... gan]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve Parliamentarian’s Note: Mr. a point of order against the amend- Young had been recognized and ment. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state had asked and was given permis- to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. sion to revise and extend his re- Dingell) that his reservation comes too marks. late. The Chair had already recognized the gentleman from Maine (Mr. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman, I just Emery), and the point of order comes wonder if this section is the proper too late. place for this amendment. I would like The Chair recognizes the gentleman to reserve a point of order until we from Maine for 5 minutes in support of find out whether this is the proper lo- his amendment. cation. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from § 6.29 After a Member had Georgia has already been recognized. been granted 15 minutes to § 6.28 A point of order against address the Committee of the the germaneness of an Whole on his amendment, it amendment must be made or was held to be too late to reserved immediately after make a point of order the amendment is read and against the amendment. comes too late after the pro- On Apr. 17, 1943,(2) a point of ponent of the amendment order raised by Mr. Usher L. Bur- has been recognized and has dick, of North Dakota, against an asked and received permis- amendment to an agricultural ap- sion to revise and extend his propriation bill was ruled untimely. remarks. MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis- The proceedings of Sept. 17, souri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous ( ) 1975, 20 which illustrate the consent to speak for 15 minutes .... above headnote, are as follows: 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.). was H.R. 9360, the Mutual Develop- 2. 89 CONG. REC. 3510, 78th Cong. 1st ment and Cooperation Act of 1973. Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 20. 121 CONG. REC. 28937, 94th Cong. 2481, the agricultural appropriation 1st Sess. for 1944.

12186 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

There was no objection. Amendment offered by Mr. Collins: THE CHAIRMAN: (3) The gentleman is On page 68, line 20, after the period, recognized for 15 minutes. insert a new paragraph, as follows: MR. BURDICK: Mr. Chairman, I re- ‘‘Street lighting: For purchase, in- serve a point of order on the amend- stallation, and maintenance of public ment.... lamps, lampposts, street designa- tions, lanterns, and fixtures of all THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order comes too late. The gentleman has kinds on streets, avenues, roads, alleys, and for all necessary expenses been recognized and has been granted in connection therewith, including permission to proceed for 15 minutes. rental of storerooms, extra labor, operation, maintenance, and repair of Effect of Failure To Obtain motor trucks, this sum to be ex- Recognition To Debate pended in accordance with the provisions of existing law, $765,000: Pro- vided, That this appropriation shall § 6.30 Recognition of a Mem- not be available for the payment of ber by the Chair to offer an rates for electric street lighting in amendment does not give excess of those authorized to be paid in the fiscal year 1927, and payment such Member the privilege of for electric current for new forms of debating his amendment; street lighting shall not exceed 2 cents per kilowatt-hour for current consequently a point of order consumed.’’ against an amendment may MR. [ROSS A.] COLLINS [of Mis- be made in a proper case sissippi]: Mr. Chairman, the language even though a Member has that is incorporated in the started debate thereon if he amendment—— did not obtain recognition MR. [JACK] NICHOLS [of Oklahoma]: for that purpose (the Com- Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order mittee overruling the Chair against the amendment. MR. COLLINS: Eliminates the lan- on appeal). guage against which the gentleman On Feb. 1, 1938,(4) during con- made the point of order. sideration of amendments to H.R. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 9181, the District of Columbia ap- order that the gentleman’s point of propriations bill of 1939, it was order comes too late. contended that a point of order THE CHAIRMAN: (5) The gentleman against an amendment was un- from Oklahoma makes a point of order timely in that it had been made on the amendment, and the gentleman after debate had begun. The pro- from Mississippi makes the point of ceedings were as follows: order that the point of order made by the gentleman from Oklahoma comes The Clerk read as follows: too late. The point of order of the gentleman 3. William M. Whittington (Miss.). from Mississippi is sustained.... 4. 83 CONG. REC. 1372, 1373, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. 5. William J. Driver (Ark.).

12187 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. NICHOLS: If the Chair did recog- amendment was offered and the time nize the gentleman from Mississippi I the gentleman from Oklahoma made may say the Chair recognized him his point of order, and therefore the while I was on my feet taking the only point of order was not dilatory. opportunity presented to me to address THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair desires, the Chair, in order that I might direct in all fairness, to make this statement my point of order to the Chair. to the Committee, as well as directly to THE CHAIRMAN: That may be true. the gentleman from Michigan. Not only The Chair does not care to indulge in was the gentleman from Mississippi any controversy on that question with recognized, but he began an expla- the gentleman from Oklahoma. The nation of his amendment, and the Chair is merely stating what occurred. Chair certainly presumes that the gen- The Chair may state further to the tleman being on the floor at the time gentleman from Oklahoma, in def- heard that; and when that occurred, erence to the situation which has de- the Chair does not think the gen- veloped here, that if that had been tleman will disagree with the Chair true, under the rules it would have about the fact that the Chair is re- been the duty of the Chair to have rec- quired, under the rules, to rule in def- ognized a member of the committee in erence to the situation that developed. preference to any other Member on the The Chair does not desire to forestall floor. The Chair was acting under the proceedings and would be pleased to limitations of the rule.... hear points of order, but the Chair MR. [JESSE P.] WOLCOTT [of Michi- must act within the definition of the gan]: Mr. Chairman, the rule, as I un- rule. derstand it, is that if any action is MR. WOLCOTT: If the Chair will in- taken on the amendment, then the dulge me for a moment in that respect, point of order is dilatory. The only ac- the point I wish to make is this. The tion that could have been taken was gentleman from Mississippi had no au- recognition by the Chair of the gen- thority to address this Committee until tleman from Mississippi to debate his he had been recognized by the Chair, amendment. and if the gentleman from Oklahoma I want to call the attention of the made his point of order during a brief Chair to the fact the only manner in sentence by someone which had no which the Chair can recognize a Mem- right under the rules of this House ber to be heard on this floor is to refer even to be reported by the official re- to the gentleman either by name or by porter, then he cannot be estopped, the State from which the gentleman under those circumstances, from mak- comes, and I call the attention of the ing his point of order. The Chair of ne- Chair to the fact that the Chair in this cessity must have recognized the gen- particular instance did not say he rec- tleman from Mississippi to debate the ognized the gentleman from Mis- amendment. sissippi or the gentleman [Mr. Collins], The offering of an amendment is not and for that reason there was no offi- a proceeding which will estop the gen- cial proceeding and no official action tleman from Oklahoma from making taken between the time that the his point of order. It is recognition by

12188 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

the Chair of another gentleman to dis- made by Mr. John J. Rooney, of cuss the amendment, and the gen- New York, against an amendment tleman could have discussed the offered by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, amendment only after recognition was given.... of Michigan, came too late, as Mr. MR. NICHOLS: If the Chair has made Hoffman had already begun his a final ruling, I would, in the most re- remarks on the amendment. spectful manner I know, request an ap- MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. peal from the decision of the Chair. Chairman, I offer an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from The Clerk read as follows: Oklahoma appeals from the decision of the Chair on the ruling of the Chair on Amendment offered by Mr. Gross of Iowa: ‘‘On page 7, strike out all of the point of order, as stated. lines 21 through 25 and on page 8, The question before the Committee strike all of lines 1 through 3.’’ . . . is, Shall the ruling of the Chair stand The amendment was rejected. as the judgment of the Committee? MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr. The question was taken, and the Chairman, I offer an amendment. Chair announced that the noes had it. The Clerk read as follows: So the decision of the Chair does not stand as the judgment of the Com- Amendment offered by Mr. Hoff- mittee. man of Michigan: ‘‘On page 8, lines 2 and 3, strike all after the semicolon.’’ After Debate on Amendment Parliamentarian’s Note: Mr. Hoffman asked and was given § 6.31 A point of order against permission to revise and extend an amendment comes too his remarks.

late after there has been de- MR. HOFFMAN of Michigan: Mr. bate on the amendment. Chairman, being a realist I On June 1, 1961,(6) Chairman understand—— MR. ROONEY: Mr. Chairman, a point W. Homer Thornberry, of Texas, of order. indicated that a point of order THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state it. 6. 107 CONG. REC. 9349, 9350, 87th MR. ROONEY: Mr. Chairman, I make Cong. 1st Sess. [H.R. 7371]. the point of order that the amendment See also 113 CONG. REC. 32662, now offered by the gentleman from 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15, 1967 Michigan is the same in effect as that [S. 2388]; 113 CONG. REC. 19417, which was offered by the gentleman 90th Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1967 from Iowa and just defeated. [H.R. 421]; 101 CONG. REC. 3947, MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, I make 3948, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 29, the point of order that the point of 1955 [H.R. 3659]; and 93 CONG. REC. order comes too late. The gentleman 4079, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 25, from Michigan had been recognized 1947 [H.R. 3123]. and started to speak.

12189 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: While the point of supplementary assistance that this bill order does come too late, the amend- now provides for mass transportation ment does strike out language different to highway transportation. from that stricken out by the amend- MR. FALLON: Mr. Chairman, will the ment offered by the gentleman from gentleman yield? Iowa. MR. BINGHAM: the gentleman can get me additional time, I shall be glad to § 6.32 A point of order against yield. MR. FALLON: It will take less than a an amendment must be made minute. or reserved immediately MR. BINGHAM: I yield to the chair- after it is read by the Clerk, man of the committee. and comes too late after de- MR. FALLON: Would the gentleman’s bate has begun on the amendment transfer money out of the trust fund to be used for any other amendment. purpose? On Nov. 25, 1970,(7) Chairman Chet MR. BINGHAM: I cannot answer that Holifield, of California, ruled that a question that way, Mr. Chairman. If reservation of a point of order by Mr. the chairman would allow me to George H. Fallon, of Maryland, came proceed—— too late. MR. FALLON: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. MR. [WILLIAM H.] HARSHA [of Ohio] THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman rises (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I too late for that purpose. The gen- ask unanimous consent that further tleman from New York will proceed. reading of the amendment [offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. § 6.33 A point of order against Bingham] be dispensed with, since the germaneness of an both the majority and the minority have copies of the amendment, and amendment must be raised that it be printed in the Record. prior to debate thereon, and THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to comes too late if the pro- the request of the gentleman from ponent has commenced his Ohio? remarks. There was no objection. On June 16, 1975,(8) a point of order THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from was held to come too late where the New York is recognized. amendment had been read, the pro- Mr. [JONATHAN B.] BINGHAM [of New ponent had received permission to re- York]: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of vise and extend and had begun his the amendment, which is to section brief remarks. The Record excerpt is as 142 of the bill, is to strike out certain follows: words in that section which limit the MR. [WILLIAM L.] ARMSTRONG [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 7. 116 CONG. REC. 38991, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 8. 121 CONG. REC. 19073, 94th Cong. 19504, the Federal Highway Act. 1st Sess.

12190 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

amendment to the amendment offered gency price supports for 1975 crops. as a substitute for the amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of the The Clerk read as follows: Whole declared that the attempted reservation came too late, the proponent An amendment offered by Mr. of the amendment having uttered a Armstrong to the amendment offered by Mr. Burke of Massachusetts as a few words in explanation of his amend- substitute for the amendment offered ment. The proceedings were as shown by Mr. Vanik: Amend the Burke below. amendment by adding the following: and on line 6, strike the word ‘‘tem- AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JEFFORDS porarily.’’ Mr. [JAMES M.] JEFFORDS [of (Mr. Armstrong asked and was given Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an permission to revise and extend his re- amendment. marks.) The Clerk read as follows: MR. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Chairman, I Amendment offered by Mr. Jef- will take only a moment. fords: Page 3, after line 6 strike out ‘‘the support price of milk shall be POINT OF ORDER established at no less than 80 per centum of the parity price therefor, MR. [HERMAN T.] SCHNEEBELI [of on the date of enactment, and the Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I re- support price shall be adjusted serve a point of order, that the amend- thereafter by the Secretary at the ment is not germane. beginning of each quarter beginning (9) with the second quarter of the cal- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman’s endar year 1975,’’ and insert ‘‘the point of order comes too late. The gen- support price of milk shall be estab- tleman from Colorado has already com- lished at no less than 80 per centum menced his statement. of the parity price therefor, on the date of enactment, and the support price shall be adjusted thereafter by § 6.34 A point of order against the Secretary to no less than 82 per an amendment must be made centum of the parity price therefor, or reserved immediately fol- at the beginning of each quarter, beginning with the third quarter of the lowing the reading of the calendar year 1975,’’. amendment, and comes too MR. JEFFORDS: Mr. Chairman, this late after the proponent of amendment merely does this. It says the amendment has begun that the 80 percent—— his remarks. MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Wash- ington]: Mr. Chairman, I was on my ( ) On Mar. 20, 1975, 10 a Member at- feet earlier when the amendment was tempted to reserve a point of order read. I would like to reserve a point of against an amendment offered during order. consideration of a bill providing emer- THE CHAIRMAN: (11) The Chair must advise the gentleman from Washington 9. James J. Delaney (N.Y.). that his point of order comes too late. 10. 121 CONG. REC. 7665, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 11. John Brademas (Ind.).

12191 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

§ 6.35 A point of order against rereading of the amendment an amendment cannot be re- by unanimous consent after served after the proponent of there has been debate does the amendment has been rec- not permit the intervention ognized and has begun his of a point of order against explanation of the amend- the amendment. ment. On Nov. 4, 1971,(13) debate had al- On May 27, 1969,(12) Chairman John ready begun on an amendment when H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, ruled that Mr. Hugh L. Carey, of New York, an attempted reservation of a point of sought, and obtained, a rereading of order by Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massa- the amendment. Chairman Pro Tem- chusetts, came too late after the pro- pore Edward P. Boland, of Massachu- ponent of the amendment had been setts, then advised Mr. Gerald R. Ford, recognized and started his remarks. of Michigan, that he could not then MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. make a point of order against the Chairman, I offer an amendment. amendment. The Clerk read as follows: MR. CAREY of New York: Mr. Chair- man, I ask unanimous consent that the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes. amendment be read again. THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Is MR. SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, this is really a simple amendment. there objection to the unanimous-consent request that the amendment be MR. CONTE: Mr. Chairman— read again? THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Chair- does the gentleman from Massachu- man, reserving the right to object, may setts rise? I make a parliamentary inquiry? MR. CONTE: I reserve a point of THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The order to the amendment. gentleman will state it. MR. SMITH of Iowa: The reservation MR. GERALD R. FORD: If the amend- comes too late. I object. ment is read again it will not then be HE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is of the T subject to a point of order if it is not opinion that the request of the gen- germane? tleman from Massachusetts comes a THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The little too late. The gentleman from Chair will state that a point of order Iowa is proceeding. relative to the germaneness of this § 6.36 A point of order against amendment would come too late.

an amendment comes too 13. 117 CONG. REC. 39302, 39303, 92d late after debate has begun Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration on the amendment, and the was H.R. 7248, to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 12. 115 CONG. REC. 14074, 91st Cong. and other acts dealing with higher 1st Sess. education.

12192 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

§ 6.37 A point of order against Effects of Diligence in Seeking an amendment in the House Recognition comes too late after there has been debate thereon and § 6.38 A point of order against the previous question has an amendment does not been ordered. come too late where the Member raising the point (14) On Mar. 1, 1967, after an amend- was on his feet, seeking rec- ment was offered, debated for an hour, and the previous question on the ognition, at the time the amendment voted upon, the following amendment was read. exchange took place: On Sept. 29, 1969,(16) after rec- The result of the vote was as above ognition of the proponent of an recorded. amendment, Chairman Charles E. MR. [PHILLIP] BURTON of California: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order. Bennett, of Florida, permitted Mr. THE SPEAKER: (15) The gentleman will John P. Saylor, of Pennsylvania, state his point of order. to make a point of order that MR. BURTON of California: In view of would otherwise have come too the fact that this resolution, among late, when Mr. Saylor explained other things, states that the Member that he had been on his feet try- from New York is ineligible to serve in ing to obtain recognition. the other body, and therefore clearly beyond our power to so vote; and in ad- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in dition to that fact it anticipates elec- support of his amendment. tion results in the 18th District of New MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]: York, a matter upon which we cannot Mr. Chairman—— judge at this time, I raise the point of MR. SAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I make order that the resolution is an im- a point of order against the amend- proper one for the House to consider, ment. and that it clearly exceeds our author- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman ity. makes his point too late. The gen- THE SPEAKER: The Chair will ob- tleman from Texas was recognized. serve to the gentleman that if the MR. SAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I was point of order would be in order it on my feet trying to get recognition. would have been at a previous stage in THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman the proceedings, and the gentleman’s states he was on his feet at the time point of order comes too late. the amendment was read?

14. 113 CONG. REC. 5020, 5036–38, 90th 16. 115 CONG. REC. 27351, 91st Cong. Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 1st Sess. Under consideration was was H. Res. 278, relating to the right H.R. 13369, extending the authority of Representative-elect Adam Clay- of the Administrator of Veterans’ Af- ton Powell to be sworn. fairs to set interest rates on mort- 15. John W. McCormack (Mass.). gages.

12193 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. SAYLOR: I have been on my feet Roosevelt was on his feet actively for the last 5 minutes.... seeking recognition at the time Mr. Chairman, my point of order is the proponent, Mr. Robert P. Grif- that the gentleman’s amendment comes too late. The committee amend- fin, of Michigan, started his re- ment has been adopted. marks: THE CHAIRMAN: The committee THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from amendment, as amended, is still pend- Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes ing and the Chair has not put the on his amendment. question thereon. The gentleman from MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, these Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in are conforming amendments to draw support of his amendment. the bill in accordance with the previous amendment and to make sense § 6.39 A point of order against in the legislation. I ask that they be an amendment is not pre- adopted. cluded by the Chairman’s MR. ROOSEVELT: Mr. Chairman, I recognition of the Member make a point of order against the offering the amendment if amendments. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will the Member raising the point state his point of order. of order was on his feet, MR. GRIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I make seeking recognition, before the point of order that the point of debate on the amendment order comes too late. began. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from California was on his feet. On Aug. 30, 1961,(17) following MR. GRIFFIN: The amendment was the reading of an amendment to a offered and I was recognized to explain bill dealing with the prevention the amendment, and I proceeded to ex- and control of juvenile delin- plain the amendment. quency, Mr. James Roosevelt, of THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from California, sought to make a point California was on his feet seeking rec- of order, although the proponent ognition. The gentleman from Cali- fornia will state his point of order. had already been recognized and started his remarks. Chairman Time of Making or Reserving Francis E. Walter, of Pennsyl- Point of Order vania, nevertheless permitted the point of order to be raised as Mr. § 6.40 A point of order against an amendment may be made 17. 107 CONG. REC. 17612, 87th Cong. or reserved immediately 1st Sess. [H.R. 8028]. See also 115 CONG. REC. 21458, after an amendment is read; 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1969 but where several Members [H.R. 13111]. are on their feet, and the 12194 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 6

Chair recognizes the offeror PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY of the amendment, another MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, I Member who has exercised have a parliamentary inquiry. due diligence and persists in THE CHAIRMAN: (19) The gentleman his attempt to gain the atten- will state it. tion of the Chair can still be MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, did the Chair recognize the gentleman’s recognized to reserve a point interposition of a point of order? of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state It is the duty of the Chair to that the gentleman from Indiana was on his feet and he has properly main- protect the rights of Members tained his right to reserve a point of seeking recognition. He did so, order. over objections, when he allowed a MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, may I point of order to be reserved pursue my parliamentary inquiry? against an amendment offered by THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman may proceed. Mr. Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas, MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, it is ( ) on June 11, 1987. 18 my recollection that I had been recognized by the Chair on my amendment, AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GONZALEZ at which time the gentleman inter- TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. posed his objection. HILER In my opinion and according to the MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, I precedents I have listened to, that is offer an amendment to the amend- not in a timely fashion interposing a ment. motion. The Clerk read as follows: THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair states that the gentleman was on his feet at Amendment offered by Mr. Gon- the time that the gentleman from zalez to the amendment offered by Mr. Hiler: In the matter proposed to Texas was recognized. The matter of be inserted by the amendment— precedent does not lie on this case. (1) strike ‘‘in excess of’’ and insert Does the gentleman from Indiana in- ‘‘, the amounts provided shall not ex- sist on his point of order? ceed’’; and MR. HILER: Mr. Chairman, I would (2) strike ‘‘as passed’’ and all that like to reserve my point of order. follows through ‘‘applicable level.’’ (3) strike ‘‘or subfunction’’ the first THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from place it appears. Indiana reserves his point of order.... MR. [JOHN] HILER [of Indiana]: Mr. Does the gentleman from Indiana Chairman, I reserve a point of order on (Mr. Hiler) press his point of order? the amendment. MR. HILER: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order. 18. 133 CONG. REC. 15541, 15543, 100th Cong. 1st Sess. 19. Brian J. Donnelly (Mass.).

12195 Ch. 31 § 6 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Chairman, withdrawn. these two amendments—— MR. HILER: Mr. Chairman, I move to MR. PERKINS: Mr. Chairman, a point strike the requisite number of words, of order. and I rise in opposition to the gentle- I hate to raise the question, but I do man’s amendment. make the point of order that the amendments are not germane. § 6.41 Although the proponent My point of order being that we are of an amendment had been now by these amendments trying to recognized and had begun reach other acts and exclude. MR. GERALD R. FORD [of Michigan]: his discussion, the Chairman Mr. Chairman, I make the point of entertained a point of order order that the gentleman’s point of against the amendment by a order comes too late. Member who stated he had The gentleman from Louisiana had been on his feet, seeking rec- started his discussion of the amendment, and there was no previous point ognition for that purpose of order made prior to the discussion. when the discussion began. MR. PERKINS: Mr. Chairman, I was On Sept. 26, 1967,(20) Chairman on my feet seeking recognition at the Charles E. Bennett, of Florida, al- time the gentleman commenced to address the Chair. lowed Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of THE CHAIRMAN: Was the gentleman Kentucky, to make a point of from Kentucky on his feet seeking rec- order after the time therefor had ognition? passed, because Mr. Perkins had MR. PERKINS: I was, Mr. Chairman. been on his feet seeking recogni- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair then tion. overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from Michigan, and the MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of Chair will hear the gentleman from Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer two Kentucky on his point of order. amendments, and I ask unanimous MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Chair- consent that they be considered en man, a parliamentary inquiry. bloc. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to state his parliamentary inquiry. the request of the gentleman from Lou- MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Chair- isiana [Mr. Waggonner]? man, how far in the discussion of a There was no objection. man who offers an amendment can The Clerk read as follows: such a point of order be made, then? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state 20. 113 CONG. REC. 26878, 90th Cong. that the gentleman from Kentucky was 1st Sess. Under consideration was on his feet seeking recognition, and so H.R. 12120, the Juvenile Delin- stated. Therefore, the gentleman from quency Prevention and Control Act Kentucky will be recognized to make of 1967. his point of order.

12196 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

§ 6.42 A member who has and the Chair normally refuses to shown due diligence is recog- allow Members to yield to other nized to make a point of Members during arguments on (2) order against a proposed points of order. amendment even though the It is clear from the precedents that debate on a point of order is sponsor of the amendment limited to it and may not go to the had commenced his remarks. merits of the legislative propo- On June 23, 1945,(1) Chairman sition involved.(3) Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, al- Although a Member, even one lowed Mr. Brent Spence, of Ken- sponsoring an amendment against tucky, to make a late point of which a point of order has been order because Mr. Spence had raised, may concede a point of order, the Chair still rules on the been on his feet seeking recogni- ( ) tion when the Chair recognized point of order. 4 Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Da- The time consumed in argument kota, to explain the amendment on a point of order is not charged which he had proposed. against that allotted to the proponent of an amendment,(5) but MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr. where a limitation is imposed on Chairman, this amendment total debate time, or time is fixed proposes—— ‘‘by the clock,’’ argument on a MR. SPENCE: Mr. Chairman, a point point of order may reduce the of order.... time an individual Member may MR. CASE of South Dakota: Mr. (6) Chairman, I think the gentleman’s be allotted. point of order comes too late, because I The Chair does not permit had been recognized and started to de- Members to ‘‘revise and extend’’ bate the amendment. their remarks on a point of ( ) THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from order, 7 and since the 104th Con- Kentucky was on his feet, and the gress, the Chair’s ability to edit point of order does not come too late. his own ruling has been cur- tailed.(8) § 7. Debate 2. See §§ 7.1, 7.2, 7.4–7.7, infra. 3. See §§ 7.9–7.11, infra. The Chair allows debate on a 4. See § 7.20, infra. point of order at his discretion 5. See §§ 7.12, 7.20, infra. 6. See § 7.19, infra. 1. 91 CONG. REC. 6597, 79th Cong. 1st 7. See § 7.22, infra. Sess. Under consideration was H.J. 8. See Rule XIV clause 9(a) House Res. 101, extending the Price Control Rules and Manual §§ 764a, 764b and Stabilization Acts. (1997); and see § 7.23, infra.

12197 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Discretion of the Chair On Sept. 30, 1976,(12) during consideration of the conference re- § 7.1 Debate on a point of port on H.R. 13367, to extend the order is within the discretion State and Local Fiscal Assistance of the Chair. Act of 1972, a point of order was On Apr. 13, 1951,(9) there was made, as follows: an exchange in the Committee of MR. [BROCK] ADAMS [of Washington]: the Whole, which exemplifies the Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order discretionary power of the Chair against the conference agreement on in permitting debate on a point of H.R. 13367, to extend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. order. The conference agreement contains a THE CHAIRMAN: (10) Does the gen- provision, not included in the House tleman from Connecticut desire to be bill, which provides new spending au- heard on the point of order? thority for fiscal years 1978 and 1979 over the amounts provided for fiscal MR. [ANTONI N.] SADLAK [of Con- necticut]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamen- year 1977. This new entitlement increment for succeeding fiscal years vio- tary inquiry. lates section 303(a) of the Congres- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will sional Budget Act.... state it. MR. SADLAK: Mr. Chairman, how After some debate on the point much time will be allotted to me for of order, the following exchange that purpose? occurred: THE CHAIRMAN: That is in the dis- MR. ADAMS: I yield to the gentleman cretion of the Chair. The gentleman’s from Ohio (Mr. Brown). argument must be confined to the MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: I point of order.(11) thank the gentleman for yielding. § 7.2 Recognition and time for Mr. Speaker, I refer to Public Law 93–344, the language that exists on debate on a point of order page 22(d)(2). are within the discretion of MR. ADAMS: Would the gentleman the Chair, and a Member refer to the motion, please? I am using speaking on a point of order both the conference report and the does not control a fixed statute. MR. BROWN of Ohio: Section 401. amount of time which he can MR. ADAMS: Is the gentleman refer- reserve or yield. ring to the statute or the conference report? 9. 97 CONG. REC. 3910, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. 12. 122 CONG. REC. 34075, 94th Cong. 10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.). 2d Sess. See also 124 CONG. REC. 11. See also 102 CONG. REC. 6891, 84th 4451, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 23, Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 24, 1956. 1978.

12198 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

MR. BROWN of Ohio: Section 401 of Amendment offered by Mr. Gon- the statute. zalez: On page 338, after line 25, in- ( ) sert a new section. THE SPEAKER: 13 The Chair has been liberal in enforcing the rules on ‘‘Sec. 507. An additional $100,000,000 is authorized for the arguing on a point of order. The Chair Energy Research and Development controls the time and each individual Administration for a high priority Member desiring to be heard should program exclusively geared to the address the Chair and not yield to practical application of fusion en- other Members. ergy.’’ MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- Securing Time To Oppose gan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to reserve a Point of Order point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from § 7.3 The proper method for Michigan reserves a point of order. opposing a point of order is MR. [MIKE] MCCORMACK [of Wash- for a Member to seek rec- ington]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to re- ognition from the Chair for serve a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from that purpose at the proper Washington reserves a point of order. time, not by making a point (Mr. Gonzalez asked and was given of order against the point of permission to revise and extend his re- order. marks.) (14) MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, I On Sept. 18, 1975, during have a parliamentary inquiry. consideration under the five- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will minute rule of the Energy Con- state it. servation and Oil Policy Act of MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, is 1975, two points of order were re- there such a thing as a point of order served immediately after an against a point of order? amendment was read. The pro- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman can ceedings and inquiries were as in- oppose the point of order when it is dicated below: made for any proper reason. The gentleman could insist that the point of THE CHAIRMAN: (15) Are there further order be made now. amendments to title VI? MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, I MR. [HENRY B.] GONZALEZ [of would like to have my say that I have Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an been recognized for.... amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman The Clerk read as follows: from Washington (Mr. McCormack) insist on his point of order? 13. Carl Albert (Okla.). MR. MCCORMACK: I do insist on my 14. 121 CONG. REC. 29333, 29334, point of order, Mr. Chairman. May I 29335, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. speak on my point of order at this 15. Richard Bolling (Mo.). time?

12199 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear it is contrary to the clear indication in the gentleman on his point of order. Deschler’s Procedure, one of which de- MR. MCCORMACK: Mr. Chairman, my cisions I quoted yesterday, on page 73, point of order is that the amendment which says that one does not look to comes to the wrong bill and to the the material content of the general wrong committee. The authorization purposes of the bill to determine the for nuclear research should come to the specificity-there is a good Watergate Joint Committee on Atomic Energy word-the specificity of the pending and the Energy Research and Develop- amendment.... ment Administration.... THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready to rule. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) also reserved a The title of title VI is exceptionally point of order against the amendment. broad, in the opinion of the Chair. Does the gentleman wish to be heard If the content of title VI were as broad as the title, the Chair believes on his point of order? that the arguments of the eloquent MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I do gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) wish to be heard. might bear more weight. But it is the I would like to commend my good content of the pending title and not its friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. heading against which the germane- Gonzalez) for offering what I think is a ness of the amendment must be very well written amendment. Unfor- weighed. tunately, no hearings have been held The Chair has had the opportunity on it, and it has not been consid- to examine with some care all of title ered.... VI and also language on pages 17 and THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear 18 of the committee report which deals the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gon- with title VI. The Chair will not read zalez) on the points of order. from those words except to say that MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, it is the Chair only refers to those words in almost getting monotonous. Almost ex- that they support his view that title VI actly 24 hours ago I heard the same actually deals with the conversion from trite argument in the name of ger- oil or gas to coal and thus the scope of maneness. the title is quite narrow. The amend- In arguing the point of germaneness, ment therefore does not fit the rule of I will address myself first to the re- germaneness despite the eloquence of marks of the gentleman from Wash- the gentleman from Texas and the ington (Mr. McCormack). Chair feels compelled to rule that the amendment is not germane to title VI I in no way intended to transgress and therefore sustains the various on the jurisdiction of his committee. I points of order. know he has developed and he wants to have these 10,000 little electric cars running around, but what I am saying Controlling Argument on Point is that we need more than that. That of Order is not what the country needs. If we are going to debate on a point § 7.4 Recognition and time for of order the merits of the amendment, debate on a point of order 12200 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

are within the discretion of (2) The United States executive director to the Fund shall not be com- the Chair, and a Member pensated by the Fund at a rate in speaking on a point of order excess of the rate provided for an in- can neither yield or reserve dividual occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under time. section 5315 of title 5, United States Code. The United States alternate During consideration of a bill executive director to the Fund shall providing supplementary financ- not be compensated by the Fund at ing for the International Monetary a rate in excess of the rate provided (16) for an individual occupying a posi- Fund, on Feb. 23, 1978, under tion at level V of the Executive the five-minute rule there were Schedule under section 5316 of title several amendments offered. 5, United States Code. ‘‘(3) The Secretary of the Treasury Some of the amendments were shall instruct the United States ex- adopted which had the effect of ecutive director to the Fund to pre- narrowing the scope of the meas- sent to the Fund’s Executive Board a comprehensive set of proposals, con- ure, thus making it possible to sistent with maintaining high lev- challenge some anticipated els of competence of Fund personnel and consistent with the Articles of amendments as not germane. Agreements with the objective of as- When an amendment was offered suring that salaries of Fund employ- by Mr. Tom Harkin, of Iowa, a ees are consistent with levels of similar responsibility within national point of order was in fact raised government service or private indus- on this basis. A portion of the try. The Secretary shall report these amendment process is shown proposals together with any measures adopted by the Fund’s Execu- below, as well as the argument on tive Board to the relevant commit- the point of order. tees of the Congress prior to July 1, 1978. COMMITTEE AMENDMENT MR. [STEPHEN L.] NEAL [of North THE CHAIRMAN: (17) The Clerk will Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an report the next committee amendment. amendment to the committee amend- The Clerk read as follows: ment. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: On page 2, after line 15, insert: Amendment offered by Mr. Neal to SEC. 2. Section 3(c) of the Bretton the committee amendment: Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. Page 2, strike out line 20 and in- 286a(c)) is amended by inserting sert in lieu thereof ‘‘The individual ‘‘(1)’’ immediately after ‘‘(c)’’ and by who represents the United States in adding at the end thereof the fol- matters concerning the Supple- lowing: mentary Financing Facility’’. Page 2, lines 24 and 25, strike out ‘‘The United States alternate execu- 16. 124 CONG. REC. 4426, 4427, 4451, tive director to the Fund’’ and insert 4452, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. in lieu thereof ‘‘The alternate to the 17. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.). individual who represents the

12201 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

United States in matters concerning tleman from Nebraska (Mr. the Supplementary Financing Facil- Cavanaugh). ity’’. The amendment was agreed to. Page 3, line 5, strike ‘‘United MR. HARKIN: Mr. Chairman, I offer States executive director to the an amendment. Fund’’ and insert in lieu thereof ‘‘in- The Clerk read as follows: dividual who represents the United States in matters concerning the Amendment offered by Mr. Har- Supplementary Financing Facility’’. kin: Page 3, immediately after line 14, insert the following: MR. [M. DAWSON] MATHIS [of Geor- SEC. 3. The Bretton Woods Agree- gia]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition ments Act (22 USC 286–286k–2), as to the amendment to the committee amended, is further amended by amendment. . . . adding at the end thereof the fol- So the amendment to the committee lowing new section: amendment was agreed to. ‘‘SEC. 29. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United The result of the vote was an- States Executive Director on the Ex- nounced as above recorded. ecutive Board of the International THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on Monetary Fund to initiate a wide the committee amendment, as amend- consultation with the Managing Di- ed. rector of the Fund and other member The committee amendment, as country Executive Directors with regard to encouraging the IMF staff to amended, was agreed to. formulate stabilization programs MR. [JOHN J.] CAVANAUGH [of Ne- which, to the maximum feasible ex- braska]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an tent, foster a broader base of produc- amendment. tive investment and employment, es- The Clerk read as follows: pecially in those productive activities which are designed to meet basic Amendment offered by Mr. human needs. Cavanaugh: At the end of the bill ‘‘(b) In accordance with the unique add the following: character of the International Mone- The Bretton Woods Agreements tary Fund, the Secretary of the Act (22 U.S.C. 286–286k–2), as Treasury shall direct the U.S. Execu- amended, is further amended by tive Director to take all possible adding at the end thereof the fol- steps to the end that all Fund trans- lowing new section: actions, including economic programs SEC. 29. The Secretary of the developed in connection with the uti- Treasury shall instruct the United lization of Fund resources, do not States Executive Director to seek to contribute to the deprivation of basic assure that no decision by the Inter- human needs, nor to the violation of national Monetary Fund on use of basic human rights, such as torture, the Facility undermines or departs cruel or inhumane treatment or de- from United States policy regarding grading punishment, prolonged de- the comparability of treatment of tention without charge, or other fla- public and private creditors in cases grant denials of life, liberty and the of debt rescheduling where official security of person; and to oppose all United States credits are in- such transactions which would con- volved.... tribute to such deprivations or violations. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on ‘‘(c) In order to gain a better un- the amendment offered by the gen- derstanding of the social, political

12202 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

and economic impact of the Fund’s the U.S. Executive Director of the IMF stabilization programs on borrowing to do certain positive things about ini- countries, especially as it relates to tiating wide consultations, and so the poor majority within those countries, the U.S. Governor of the Fund forth, which would help to promote shall prepare and submit, not later those kinds of programs that would than 180 days after the close of each help meet the basic human needs in calendar year, a report to the Con- other countries. This is a directive to gress. Such report shall evaluate, our Director on the Board of the Inter- with respect to countries to which loans are made by the Fund during national Monetary Fund. the year, the effects of the policies of The last part of my amendment, sub- those countries which result from paragraph (c) also mandates that the the standby agreement(s) on the Executive Director do other positive ability of the poor in such countries things by submitting a report to the to obtain: Congress not later than 180 days after ‘‘(1) an adequate supply of food with sufficient nutritional value to the close of each calendar year out- avoid the debilitating effects of mal- lining the effects of the policies that nutrition; were followed on the Fund which were ‘‘(2) shelter and clothing; designed to meet these basic human ‘‘(3) public services, including needs of people in other countries. health care, education, clean water, energy resources, and transpor- As far as the Fund or the Witteveen tation; Facility itself is concerned, by subpara- ‘‘(4) productive employment that graph (b), which is the human rights provides a reasonable and adequate section, speaks directly to the wage.’’. . . Witteveen Facility and directs the U.S. MR. NEAL: Mr. Chairman, I make a Executive Director to make sure that point of order against the amendment. the basic human rights of people are not violated. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear the gentleman. MR. MATHIS: Mr. Chairman, will the MR. NEAL: Mr. Chairman, we have gentleman yield to me on the point of just established that we are only con- order? sidering the so-called Witteveen Facil- MR. HARKIN: Yes, I yield to the gen- ity of the International Monetary tleman from Georgia. Fund, and this amendment goes far be- MR. MATHIS: Mr. Chairman, I thank yond that. the gentleman for yielding, and I THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman would like very much to have the at- from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) desire to be tention of the Chair while the point of heard on the point of order? order is being argued. MR. HARKIN: Yes, I do, Mr. Chair- The gentleman from North Carolina man. (Mr. Neal) is attempting now to say I would respond to that argument by that the legislation before us has been saying that my amendment is entirely narrowed in scope to the point where it in order because, if we look at the dif- only deals with the Witteveen Facility, ferent sections, the first section of my and that has been the thrust of the amendment goes toward instructing previous committee amendments that I

12203 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

have argued against, because I knew THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. The gentle- we were going to arrive at a point man will be recognized to debate his where the gentleman was going to amendment if the point of order is not raise this point of order. sustained. Mr. Chairman, the clumsy attempt MR. HARKIN: No. Mr. Chairman, I to do that has obviously failed in this want to speak further before the Chair fashion because subsection (3) of sec- rules on the point of order. tion 2 of the bill still deals with the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear question of the Secretary of the Treas- the gentleman. ury instructing the Executive Director MR. HARKIN: Mr. Chairman, I think of the Fund to present a comprehen- the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. sive set of proposals that do not deal Mathis) has raised an interesting with that issue. So the committee point. In the bill, under paragraph (3) amendment, which has already been on page 3, it does in fact provide that adopted, very clearly deals with the the U.S. Executive Director to the original Bretton Woods Act, and it is Fund has to do a certain positive not restrictive in its scope. thing. He has to present to the Fund’s MR. [HENRY S.] REUSS [of Wis- Executive Board a comprehensive set consin]: Mr. Chairman, will the gen- of proposals, et cetera. So it does not tleman yield on his point of order? speak simply about the Witteveen Fa- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rec- cility. ognize the gentleman on the point of I think that my amendment, which order. mandates that the Executive Director Has the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. do other positive things, fits in very Harkin) concluded? nicely with subparagraph (3). MR. HARKIN: Mr. Chairman, I have I am not making any kind of argu- not concluded. I would like to reserve ment for any other amendments that the balance of my time to speak fur- might be offered or I am not speaking ther on the point of order. about any other amendments that THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to might go beyond the scope of instruct- reserve debate time on a point of order. ing the Executive Director of the IMF The gentleman has no dock of time to to do certain things. That would be for reserve. the Chair to rule later on, on the ger- MR. HARKIN: Then I would like to maneness of those. In terms of in- continue, Mr. Chairman. structing the Executive Director to do THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is hearing certain things, my amendment is quite arguments on the point of order at the germane. present time. The gentleman from MR. MATHIS: Mr. Chairman, will the Iowa (Mr. Harkin) will be recognized gentleman from Iowa yield further on in support of his amendment at a sub- the point of order? sequent time if the point of order is not THE CHAIRMAN: Has the gentleman sustained. from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) concluded his MR. HARKIN: Then, Mr. Chairman, statement on the point of order? do I understand I will be recognized MR. HARKIN: Mr. Chairman, I would further? like to yield to the gentleman.

12204 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

THE CHAIRMAN: There is no yielding ment. If the distinguished chairman of on a point of order. the committee is going to make a point MR. HARKIN: Mr. Chairman, I yield of order, he should have made it on the back the balance of my time. Cavanaugh amendment, because that THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- went back to the Executive Director of nizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. the Fund. Mathis). MR. NEAL: Mr. Chairman, I would MR. MATHIS: Mr. Chairman, I think, say that the amendment before us is after consultation with the Parliamen- not germane because it is not germane tarian, I am now told that the amend- to the fundamental purpose of the bill ment that was offered by the gen- nor does it relate exclusively to the tleman from North Carolina (Mr. Neal) subject matter under consideration. has been changed beyond what was Under the Rules of the House, no read into the Record to go to page 3, motion or proposition on a subject dif- line 5, where the language of the ferent from that under consideration amendment very clearly says page 2, shall be admitted under disguise of an line 5, as it was read by the Clerk at amendment. the time. MR. HARKIN: Mr. Chairman, will the THE CHAIRMAN: That is the gentle- gentleman yield? man’s copy and not the copy which was THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from handed to the desk. Iowa is recognized. MR. MATHIS: Mr. Chairman, I do not MR. HARKIN: Mr. Chairman, I am in- know what the procedure is for having terested in why there was not a point words read back. But I think this is an of order raised against the amendment attempt to try to close off amendments offered by the gentleman from Ne- which are going to be offered. The Par- braska (Mr. Cavanaugh). He speaks of liamentarian now explains to me that ‘‘Executive Director,’’ just as I do. changing the words ‘‘Executive Direc- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- tor’’ can preclude this amendment on pared to rule and perhaps clarify that the basis of germaneness. question for the gentleman from Iowa. If that is so, I would point out that The gentleman from North Carolina this House has just adopted an amend- (Mr. Neal) made a point of order that ment offered by the gentleman from the amendment offered by the gen- Nebraska (Mr. Cavanaugh) that con- tleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is not tains the words ‘‘Executive Director.’’ germane to the bill H.R. 9214 in its So we are still talking about the Exec- perfected form. In its perfected form utive Director to the Fund. the bill, while amending the Bretton It is a clumsy attempt to try to pre- Woods Agreement Act, relates only to vent the Members of this House from the authority of the United States to offering amendments. participate in the supplementary fi- Very clearly, Mr. Chairman, the nancing facility of the International amendment offered by the gentleman Monetary Fund and to the salaries of from Iowa is germane to the bill, just the IMF employees who are employees as much as the Cavanaugh amend- who administer that supplemental fi-

12205 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

nancing facility, the so-called Argument on Points of Order; Witteveen Facility, but it does not deal Chair’s Discretion with the other operations of the Inter- national Monetary Fund. § 7.5 Discussion on a point of The precedents indicate: order is within the discretion To a bill amending one section of of the Chair, and a Member existing law to accomplish a par- recognized to argue on a ticular purpose, an amendment proposing changes in another section of point of order may not yield that law in a matter not within the to other Members. terms of the bill is not germane. (Deschler’s Procedure, chapter 28, Where a point of order is raised section 32.1, section 32.14.) against consideration of a con- In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chairman conference report, the Chair may en- siders the relationship of the amend- tertain debate, in the nature of ar- ment to the bill as modified by the gument on the point of order, be- Committee of the Whole. (Deschler’s Procedure, chapter 28, section 2.4.) fore making a decision to sustain or overrule it. If a Member recog- The bill as modified by the Com- nized for this purpose attempts to mittee of the Whole is not sufficiently yield to another, the Chair may broad, in the opinion of the Chair, to permit amendments affecting oper- intervene to reassert his control of ations of the IMF which are not di- this debate. The proceedings of (18) rectly and solely related to the Sept. 30, 1976, are illustrative. Witteveen Facility. As indicated MR. [JACK] BROOKS [of Texas]: Mr. throughout the report on the bill, that Speaker, I call up the conference re- special function of the IMF is separate port on the bill (H.R. 13367) to extend and distinct from other operations of and amend the State and Local Fiscal the IMF, both from the standpoint of Assistance Act of 1972, and for other qualification for participation in the fa- purposes, and ask unanimous consent cility and from the point of view of dis- that the statement of the managers be position of assets and the liabilities of read in lieu of the report. participating nations. The Clerk read the title of the bill.(19)... Let the Chair just add that the MR. [BROOK] ADAMS [of Washington]: Cavanaugh amendment to H.R. 9214 Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order reserved itself to decisions by the IMF against the conference agreement. on the use of the facility, referring to the Witteveen Facility, thereby con- 18. 122 CONG. REC. 34074, 34075, 94th fining itself to that narrow aspect of Cong. 2d Sess. the bill and not amending the entire 19. For provisions of the conference re- act. port, see 122 CONG. REC. 33132-44, Accordingly, the Chair sustains the 94th Cong. 2d Sess., legislative day point of order. Sept. 28, 1976.

12206 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

THE SPEAKER: (20) The gentleman will MR. [FRANK] HORTON [of New York]: state the point of order. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order. point of order against the conference The applicable provision of the Budg- agreement on H.R. 13367, to extend et Act in this matter concerns section the State and Local Fiscal Assistance 303(d)(1). This provision provides an Act of 1972. The conference agreement exception for any bills on the full fiscal contains a provision, not included in year for which the current resolution the House bill, which provides new applies. The $200 million increase con- spending authority for fiscal years tained in the conference report begins 1978 and 1979 over the amounts pro- in fiscal year 1978, the next fiscal year vided for fiscal year 1977. This new en- beyond 1977, the year for which our titlement increment for succeeding fis- present budget resolution applies. cal years violates section 303(a) of the The $200 million increase, since it Congressional Budget Act which pro- begins in fiscal year 1978, technically vides in part: conforms with the Budget Act and de- It shall not be in order in either serves to be retained in the conference the House of Representatives or the report. I might say to the membership Senate to consider any bill or resolu- that in making this point of order, this tion (or amendment thereto) which provides— . . . new spending au- was brought up in the conference and thority described in section we purposely did not provide for any 401(c)(2)(C) to become effective dur- increase in fiscal year 1977. We pur- ing a fiscal year . . . until the first posely skipped the first three-quarters. concurrent resolution on the budget We agreed upon a term of 33⁄4 years for for such year has been agreed to pursuant to section 301. the Revenue Sharing Act to be in effect, but we skipped the first three- By increasing the fiscal year 1978 quarter year and applied a $200 mil- entitlement by $200 million over the lion increment for the first fiscal year amounts for fiscal year 1977, H.R. thereafter, namely, 1978, and for each 13367 does provide new spending au- of the 3 years subsequent thereto; or a thority to become effective for a fiscal total of $600 million. So, we purposely year for which a budget resolution has skipped this fiscal year 1977 so that not been adopted. It would thereby we would not violate the budget resolu- allow that new spending increment to tion. escape the scrutiny of the fiscal year Accordingly, I believe that the point 1978 budget process. While section 303 of order should be overruled. provides an exception for new budget authority and revenue changes for a MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: succeeding fiscal year, entitlement pro- Mr. Speaker, I also would like to be grams were expressly omitted from the heard on the point of order. exception by the House-Senate con- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is rec- ference on the Congressional Budget ognized.... Act. THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 20. Carl Albert (Okla.). Adams).

12207 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, in re- MR. BROWN of Ohio: I thank the gen- sponse to the comments made by the tleman for yielding. gentleman from New York (Mr. Hor- Mr. Speaker, I refer to Public Law ton), the provision that he refers to re- 93–344, the language that exists on gards new budget authority, not enti- page 22(d)(2). tlement programs where there is a ref- MR. ADAMS: Would the gentleman erence over to the Committee on Ap- refer to the motion, please? I am using propriations and it is controlled in that both the conference report and the fashion.... statute. I would say to the Members that the MR. BROWN of Ohio: Section 401. same amount of money will go in fiscal MR. ADAMS: Is the gentleman refer- year 1977 to the cities, regardless of ring to the statute or the conference what happens, so long as the bill is report? passed this year. There is no dispute MR. BROWN of Ohio: Section 401 of about the amount for this year. It is the statute. the violation of the budget process for THE SPEAKER: The Chair has been fiscal year 1978, fiscal year 1979, and liberal in enforcing the rules on argu- fiscal year 1980. ing on a point of order. The Chair con- Mr. Speaker, I ask that my point of trols the time and each individual order be sustained. Member desiring to be heard should MR. HORTON: Mr. Speaker, will the address the Chair and not yield to gentleman yield? other Members. MR. ADAMS: I yield to the gentleman Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. from New York (Mr. Horton). Brown) desire to be heard? MR. BROWN of Ohio: Yes, Mr. Speak- MR. HORTON: I thank the gentleman for yielding. er, I do desire to be heard. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman under- Mr. Speaker, I refer to Public Law 93–344 of the 93d Congress which was stands, does he not, there is no addi- enacted July 12, 1974, and I refer to tional amount in fiscal year 1977? page 22 of that legislation, section MR. ADAMS: That is correct. 401(d)(2). Section 401(d) is entitled MR. HORTON: The amount involved, ‘‘Exceptions.’’ Subsection (d)(2), under $200 million, would not be applicable ‘‘Exceptions,’’ says as follows:... until fiscal year 1978. And in the next THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared Congress, the next session, the Budget to rule. The Chair thinks he has heard Committee would at that time have an about all the arguments he needs to opportunity to act on that budget. hear. MR. ADAMS: No, the gentleman is MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, not correct, because this represents one may I make one final comment in re- of the worst kinds of problems in budg- sponse to the statement of the gen- eting.... tleman from Washington (Mr. Adams)? MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear will the gentleman yield? the gentleman briefly.... MR. ADAMS: I yield to the gentleman THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to from Ohio (Mr. Brown). rule.

12208 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

The gentleman from Washington of section 401(c)—cited by the gen- (Mr. Adams) makes a point of order tleman from Ohio. against the conference report on the The Chair therefore sustains the bill H.R. 13367 on the ground that sec- point of order against the conference tion 5(a) of the conference report pro- report. vides new spending authority and entitlement increment for fiscal years 1978 AMENDMENT IN DISAGREEMENT and 1979 over the amounts provided THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report for in fiscal year 1977, in violation of the Senate amendment in disagree- section 303(a) of the Congressional ment. Budget Act of 1974. The Clerk read as follows: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Senate amendment: Strike out all Horton) and the gentleman from Ohio after the enacting clause and insert: (Mr. Brown) rebut this argument by contending that a mere incremental in- SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. crease in an entitlement for subse- This Act may be cited as the quent fiscal years is not new spending ‘‘State and Local Fiscal Assistance authority as prescribed in section Amendments of 1976’’. 401(c)(2)(C) to become effective during the subsequent fiscal years, but rather, Controlling Debate on Point of a continuation of the spending author- Order ity for fiscal year 1977, which is permitted under section 303(a). § 7.6 Debate on a point of The Chair has examined the con- order is within the discretion ference report, and section 5(a) is structured so as to provide separate of the Chair, and Members authorization for entitlement payments recognized on a point of for each of the fiscal years 1977, 1978, order may not yield to other and 1979, with a higher authorization Members. for 1978 and 1979 than for 1977. The Chair has a responsibility In the opinion of the Chair, such a separate increase in entitlement au- to control the argument on a point thorizations is new spending authority of order, and within his discretion, to become effective during those subse- he can recognize Members who quent fiscal years, which may not be wish to argue the point before the included in a bill or an amendment Chair renders his decision. The prior to the adoption of the first con- following excerpt from the pro- current resolution for fiscal years 1978 ceedings of Nov. 14, 1980,(1) are il- and 1979, which does not come within the exception contained in section lustrative: 303(b) for new budget authority, and MR. [LES] AUCOIN [of Oregon]: Mr. which does not come within the section Chairman, I offer an amendment. 401(d) revenue-sharing exception—applicable only to . . . spending author- 1. 126 CONG. REC. 29615–17, 96th ity as defined in subsections (a) and (b) Cong. 2d Sess.

12209 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The Clerk read as follows: the Southwest, in Alaska, or in Ha- Amendment offered by Mr. waii—none of them within the area AuCoin: On page 69, after line 17, served. The amendment is much more insert: broad than the bill and deals with (n)(1) The Administrator may not quite different matters. acquire any resource derived from a MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: new nuclear generating facility until Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman such time as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has licensed the oper- yield? ation of a permanent storage facility THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair controls for high level nuclear waste and the time. Does the gentleman from spent fuel from commercial nuclear Ohio wish to be heard on the point of generating facilities. order? (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘new nuclear generating fa- MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, cility’’ shall not include any nuclear I would like to be heard on the point of generating facility for which a con- order, but I would like to exchange a struction permit was issued by the view with the gentleman from Michi- Nuclear Regulatory Commission began to reinforce the point of order. fore the date of enactment of this Act. MR. JOHN L. BURTON [of California]: Regular order, Mr. Chairman. MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- THE CHAIRMAN: There is no colloquy gan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point on a point of order. of order on the amendment.... MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, (2) THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gen- I would be happy to speak on the point tleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) in- of order, to reinforce the position of the sist upon his point of order? gentleman from Michigan.... MR. DINGELL: I do, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) wish to be state it. heard on the point of order? MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, the bill MR. AUCOIN: I do, Mr. Chairman. before us establishes a planning coun- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- cil. It provides for a planning council. nizes the gentleman from Oregon. It provides for a program for conservation and for a fish and wildlife pro- MR. AUCOIN: Mr. Chairman, I am gram. It provides for the sale of power. somewhat surprised to hear sugges- It provides for the establishing of tions in defending the point of order rates, and it provides for the acquisi- that the people of the Pacific North- tion of resources to produce power. west ought to be inflicted with a bur- ... den of building additional nuclear pow- These nuclear generating facilities erplants without safeguards. It is the are not within the Bonneville Power people in the region who will have to market area but are anywhere in the live with the consequences of cooling United States. And it could include towers in the Pacific Northwest.... those in the Northeast, the Southeast, THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from California wish to be heard on 2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.J.). the point of order?

12210 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

MR. JOHN L. BURTON: I would like to and privately owned storage facilities speak in opposition to the point of on a national basis. order. The Chair would cite, specifically, THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- chapter 28 of Deschler’s Procedures, nizes the gentleman from California section 24.15: (Mr. John L. Burton). An amendment delaying the effec- MR. JOHN L. BURTON: Mr. Chair- tiveness of a bill pending the enact- man, I do not believe that the statement of other legislation and requir- ment of the distinguished gentleman ing actions by committees and agencies not involved in the administra- from Texas saying that the NRC can- tion of the program affected by the not license nuclear powerplants with- bill was ruled out as not germane. out safeguarding the people by dealing with the hazardous waste that is in- On that basis, the Chair is con- volved is a horrendous task placed on strained to sustain the point of order. the NRC. I think that the point of order should be overruled. And I think The Chair Controls Debate or that the bill is the biggest rape and Argument on a Point of Order ripoff of the public that I have ever seen in my life. § 7.7 A Member may not yield MR. AUCOIN: Mr. Chairman, could I for purposes of debate under be heard on one additional point? a reservation of a point of THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- order; the Chair controls the nizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. debate by recognizing Mem- AuCoin). MR. AUCOIN: Mr. Chairman, my bers to speak in favor of or friend from Texas, the subcommittee in opposition to the point of chairman, for whom I have a great order. deal of respect, has, I think, confused, On Oct. 1, 1985,(3) during the read- momentarily, the difference between ing for amendment of the Food Secu- an amendment that would force the rity Act of 1985, Chairman David E. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Bonior, of Michigan, invited amend- take an action as opposed to imposing ments to the title of the bill which was on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission open to amendment. An amendment a new responsibility.... was then offered which went to the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- pending title and the next. A point of pared to rule. order was first reserved, then pressed, In the opinion of the Chair, the against the amendment for this reason. amendment offered by the gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: When the Com- from Oregon would impose a contin- mittee of the Whole rose on Thursday, gency which is not solely related to the September 26, title IV was open to issue of purchase and transmission of amendment at any point to amend- power in the Northwest region and which addresses potentially new NRC 3. 131 CONG. REC. 25418–20, 99th licensing authority for all Government Cong. 1st Sess.

12211 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

ments printed in the Congressional farm that does not exceed fifteen Record before September 24, 1985. thousand bushels and Are there amendments to title IV? ‘‘(ii) $4.00 per bushel for any portion of the crop produced on each AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GLICKMAN farm that exceeds fifteen thousand bushels.’’; MR. [DANIEL R.] GLICKMAN [of Kan- On page 86, line 15 striking ‘‘may sas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend- not’’ and inserting in lieu thereof the ment. following: ‘‘shall’’; On page 86, line 18 striking ‘‘may’’ MR. [EDWARD R.] MADIGAN [of Illi- and inserting in lieu thereof the fol- nois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point lowing: ‘‘shall’’; and of order on the amendment. Title V of H.R. 2100 is amended The Clerk read as follows: by— On page 87, after line 15, striking Amendment offered by Mr. Glick- all through ‘‘shall’’ on line 18 and in- man: Title IV of H.R. 2100 is amend- serting in lieu thereof the fol- ed by— lowing—... On page 65, after line 8, striking all through ‘‘shall’’ on line 11 and in- There was no objection. serting in lieu thereof the following: MR. GLICKMAN: Mr. Chairman, rath- ‘‘(2) If the Secretary determines er than taking the time of the full that the availability of nonrecourse loans and purchases will not have an House, rather than talking about the adverse effect on the program pro- substance of the amendment, in order vided for in paragraph (3), the Sec- to expedite the process, I wonder if we retary may’’; might deal with the point of order On page 67, after line 5, striking right now, and if the Chair rules that ‘‘The Secretary may’’ and inserting it is out of order, there is no reason in lieu thereof the following: why I have to spend 5 or 10 minutes ‘‘(3)(A) Unless the Secretary, at the Secretary’s discretion, makes avail- explaining the amendment. able nonrecourse loans and purchases to producers under paragraph POINTS OF ORDER (2) for a crop of wheat, the Secretary THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman shall’’; On page 68, line 23 before the ‘‘.’’ from Illinois insist on his point of inserting the following: ‘‘, except that order? the Secretary shall not make avail- MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Chairman, under able payments under this paragraph my reservation, I yield to the gen- to any producer with a wheat acre- tleman from Oregon [Mr. Robert F. age base of less than 15 acres for the crop.’’; Smith]. On page 70, after line 11, striking THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will all through line 12, page 71 and in- suspend. Under a reservation of a serting in lieu thereof the following: point of order, the gentleman cannot ‘‘(C) For each crop of wheat, the yield time. If other Members have established price shall not be less points of order, they can make them than the following levels for each farm: and they will be so recognized. ‘‘(i) $4.50 per bushel for any por- MR. MADIGAN: Mr. Chairman, I be- tion of the crop produced on each lieve a point of order would lie against

12212 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7 the amendment offered by the gen- grains in the committee were dealt tleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] with as one basic issue. because the amendment, if I under- MR. ROBERT F. SMITH [of Oregon]: stand the amendment that is being of- Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. fered, goes to more than one title of THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will the bill, and I think that because it state it. goes to more than one title of the bill, MR. ROBERT F. SMITH: I thank the it would not be in order at this point. Chair. MR. GLICKMAN: Mr. Chairman, may Mr. Chairman, rule III of the rules I speak to the point of order? provides that considerations can only THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from be by title, not by section. I think the Kansas [Mr. Glickman] is recognized. point remains that there is no question MR. GLICKMAN: Mr. Chairman, the that this amendment does affect two amendment amends two titles of the titles. There are several other amend- bill. To be frank with the Chair, it was ments, Mr. Chairman, that I will rise submitted as one amendment, but the on this same issue affecting both sides intention of the author of this amend- of the aisle. I think to keep this whole ment as well as the other authors was discussion clean, we should follow the to deal with the issues as they affected rule. The rule clearly states that you title IV and then title V. I put it in one cannot amend two titles in one amend- title of the bill, but, to be honest with ment. the Chair, the issues are divisible, they THE CHAIRMAN: Are there others are separate. I could have amended it who wish to be heard? and put it in two separate amend- Does the gentleman from Minnesota ments. I did not because that is not the [Mr. Stangeland] make a point of order way the issue came up in the Com- on this? mittee on Agriculture. MR. [ARLAN] STANGELAND [of Min- The issues relating to the issue of nesota]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the targeting deficiency payments to small- right to make a point of order. I re- and medium-sized farmers and uti- serve the point of order. lizing a device called the marketing THE CHAIRMAN: Is the gentleman loan as a way to deal with our exports; making a point of order on this amend- they are in the wheat section, title IV, ment? and there is a separate matter, deals MR. STANGELAND: Mr. Chairman, I with it separately in the feed grains am arguing against the point of order. section, title V. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear The amendments are divisible. The the gentleman. language is divisible, and I would hope The gentleman from Minnesota is that the Chair would understand that recognized. it was the intent of the author of the MR. STANGELAND: I thank the Chair. amendment to really consider these I just want to make the point that the two as two separate concepts, but I put amendment was printed in two dis- them together for the ease of putting tinctly separate sections. One portion them in one amendment, since feed of the amendment dealt with wheat

12213 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

and target prices and marketing loans. Chair may exercise his dis- The second section of the amendment cretion to recognize for an deals with title V, the feed grain sec- inquiry between speakers tion. Two distinctly different amendments but introduced in the Record as, when time is not running unfortunately, one amendment. But against any Member. they deal with the two sections sepa- Time for general debate on the rately. I would just appeal to the Chair concurrent resolution on the budg- that the intent of the authors was that because they were handled en bloc in et, fiscal 1994–1998, having been committee, we would run that way, but fixed by a special rule, and placed they are divisible, they can be ad- by that rule in the control of cer- dressed to title IV and title V very dis- tain named Members, the Com- tinctly in the amendment. mittee of the Whole, by unani- I thank the Chair. mous consent, reconstituted the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- time used in a colloquy and did pared to rule. not deduct it from the Member The Chair would state that the controlling time. On another point Chair can only look at the form in during the debate, the Chair rec- which the amendment has been sub- ognized for a parliamentary in- mitted for printing in the Record. Ac- quiry before recognizing a Mem- cording to the rule, the substitute shall be considered for amendment by title ber to control a block of two hours instead of by sections, and only amend- time. The pertinent proceedings of ( ) ments to the bill which have been Mar. 17, 1993, 4 are set out printed in the Record by September 24 below: may be offered. THE CHAIRMAN: (5) The gentleman Therefore, the only way in which the from New York [Mr. Solomon] reserves amendment that the gentleman from the balance of his time. Kansas [Mr. Glickman] wishes to offer could be considered is by unanimous PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY consent. MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- The Chair sustains the point of sylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have a par- order. liamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will Parliamentary Inquiry; Who state it. Gets Charged for Time MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, is the process now that we are going to the § 7.8 While time for a par- discussion of another budget, the Black liamentary inquiry is nor- Caucus budget?

mally charged to the Member 4. 139 CONG. REC. 5394–96, 103d Cong. controlling time who yields 1st Sess. for such an inquiry, the 5. Jose´ E. Serrano (N.Y.). 12214 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

THE CHAIRMAN: The process is that MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] is going to be recognized for 2 Mfume] for yielding to me.... hours. MR. MFUME: Mr. Chairman, reclaim- MR. WALKER: And that would be ing my time, I have a parliamentary pursuant to the rule, House Resolution inquiry. 131; is that correct? THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is state it. correct. MR. MFUME: I would like to ask the MR. WALKER: And this is the 2 hours of time controlled by the gentleman Chair whether or not the time for the from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] under colloquy was counted against the time that rule; is that correct? allotted. THE CHAIRMAN: Those 2 hours have THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. That colloquy not changed.... consumed 6 minutes. The Chair clarifies that the gen- MR. [GERALD B. H.] SOLOMON [of tleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] New York]: Mr. Chairman, that is real- controls the 2 hours. ly not in order. I mean this was a col- MR. WALKER: But it is permissible loquy. We were not propounding par- for him to yield that time to the oppo- liamentary procedures, but we were sition if he so wishes? speaking out of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman can THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from do with his 2 hours whatever he wish- New York [Mr. Solomon] did ask the es. gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MR. WALKER: I thank the Chair for Mfume] to yield, and he yielded three that, and, if in fact he were to do that, times to three different Members. that would, in fact, even up the time MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Chairman, I do between the majority and minority not think that is fair. I understand where right now there is a disparity of why it is being done, but I ask unani- about an hour of time between the ma- mous consent that the gentleman from jority and minority as a result of the way the rule was structured, thereby Maryland [Mr. Mfume] be given an leaving the minority short of its time extra 6 minutes to restore his 2 hours. to present its case. That is only fair in this body. So, it would have that impact; is THE CHAIRMAN: Without objection, that correct? so ordered. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is There was no objection. drawing a conclusion, and that is not part of an inquiry. Scope of Debate The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] will be recognized for 2 hours. § 7.9 Debate on a point of MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, will the order is limited to the ques- gentleman yield? tion of order and may not go MR. [KWEISI] MFUME [of Maryland]: I yield to the gentleman from Pennsyl- to the merits of the legisla- vania. tive proposition. 12215 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

On July 19, 1967,(6) during con- MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. sideration of a bill prescribing Chairman, I would hope that the gen- penalties for interstate travel to tleman would confine his remarks to the point of order. incite riots, a Member, Richard D. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from McCarthy, of New York, proposed New York will confine himself to the an amendment dealing with gun point of order. control, particularly mail order MR. MCCARTHY: I am trying to point guns. This amendment was chal- out, Mr. Chairman, that in my view lenged as being not germane. this amendment is germane to the intent of this legislation. (7) THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gen- The Governor said that the riots and tleman from New York [Mr. McCarthy] the sniping, with the use of even auto- wish to be heard on the point of order? matic weapons and machineguns, MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. pointed to the need for an interstate Mr. Chairman, I think this amend- firearms law. It can be said that New ment is germane. There is no doubt Jersey already has a strict law. I say about it in my mind. to that it is 1 year old. Many of these Let me explain that H.R. 421 would guns were in possession of these people become section 2 of that bill, and with before that. Second, we have ample this amendment added it would create evidence—— a new section 1, which is essentially, with a very slight change at the begin- MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, a point of ning, the administration’s firearms bill, order. which would prohibit the mail-order THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will sales of firearms and require anyone state it. dealing in, manufacturing, or import- MR. GROSS: I submit that the gen- ing firearms to have a Federal license. tleman is not directing his argument to Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the point of order. germane because the pattern of these THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman must riots is clear. Guerrilla warfare in the confine his remarks to the point of streets with snipers pouring deadly order. gunfire from roofs and windows above MR. GROSS: There is no relevancy of at ambulances with children in them. the law in the State of New Jersey. In Newark killing a fire captain. There THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will was the shooting of firearms and even confine himself to the merits of the the shooting up of a hospital. point of order and not the substance of Friday a tired Governor Hughes said the bill. this. Argument on Point of Order 6. 113 CONG. REC. 19412, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was Should Not Address Merits of H.R. 421, prescribing penalties for Amendment travel in interstate commerce to incite riots. § 7.10 Argument on a point of 7. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.). order must be confined to 12216 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

the point of order and should The Clerk read as follows: not go to the merits of the Amendment offered by Mr. Myers proposition being chal- of Pennsylvania to the amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick as a sub- lenged. stitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Skubitz: At the end of the During consideration of the amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick Labor and Health, Education, and strike the period and add the fol- Welfare appropriation bill for fis- lowing: ‘‘Provided further, That the cal 1977, on June 24, 1976,(8) Mrs. funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or expended Millicent Fenwick, of New Jersey, to assure full compliance of the Oc- offered an amendment. Two Mem- cupational Safety and Health Act of bers sought recognition to speak 1970 by Members of Congress and their staffs.’’ to a point of order raised against the amendment. Another raised MR. [WILLIAM D.] FORD of Michigan: the issue of whether their debate Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order was directed to the point of order. against the amendment. (9) Proceedings were as shown below: THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan. MRS. FENWICK: Mr. Chairman, I MR. FORD of Michigan: Mr. Chair- offer an amendment as a substitute for man, the amendment is not germane. the amendment offered by the gen- It is also in violation of the rule tleman from Kansas (Mr. Skubitz). against legislating on an appropriation The Clerk read as follows: bill. Amendment offered by Mrs. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman Fenwick as a substitute for the from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) desire amendment offered by Mr. Skubitz: to be heard on the point of order? On page 7, strike the period at the end of line 25, and insert in lieu MR. MYERS of Pennsylvania: I do, thereof: ‘‘: Provided That none of the Mr. Chairman. funds appropriated under this para- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- graph shall be obligated or expended nizes the gentleman from Pennsyl- to prescribe, issue, administer, or en- vania (Mr. Myers). force any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the Occupational MR. MYERS of Pennsylvania: Mr. Safety and Health Act of 1970 which Chairman, because of my great concern is applicable to any person who is for the safety of all workers and be- engaged in a farming operation cause of the fact that Members of Con- which employs five or fewer employ- gress are allowed in fact to have sev- ees.’’ . . . eral offices and up to 18 full-time em- MR. [GARY] MYERS of Pennsylvania: ployees, some of those who travel ve- Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment hicular equipment on the highways are to the amendment offered as a sub- exposed to extreme hazards, and be- stitute for the amendment. cause of my background and experience in the steel industry, knowing 8. 122 CONG. REC. 20370, 20371, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. 9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).

12217 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

what the regulations are, I see a non- groundwork for my response to the compliance in many of the offices, such point of order. as boards across walkways, people It simply is that in this bill we are standing on chairs instead of ladders, communicating to OSHA their commit- storage facilities not properly put in ments, and it is simply that message I place. I have a concern about industry want to address and require that they and for those people who work in in- do set aside funds for this compliance. dustry. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- It applies also to employees in our pared to rule. offices. The gentlewoman from New Jersey The objective of this bill is to appro- (Mrs. Fenwick) has offered a substitute priate money to see that OSHA is for an amendment offered by the gen- bringing under compliance all workers tleman from Kansas (Mr. Skubitz). who work in an environment such as Both the amendment offered by the an industrial office or similar facilities. gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Skubitz) and the proposed substitute offered by MR ONALD ARASIN . [R A.] S [of Con- the gentlewoman from New Jersey necticut]: Mr. Chairman, I make a (Mrs. Fenwick) are applicable to farm- point of order. workers and have a precise reference THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from to the number of employees engaged by Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) is being a farmer. heard on a point of order. The gentleman from Pennsylvania MR. SARASIN: Mr. Chairman, it (Mr. Myers) would add to the sub- would appear that the gentleman is stitute additional provisions requiring not addressing himself to the point of that funds appropriated under the pro- order, but he is addressing himself to gram shall be obligated and expended the amendment. to assure compliance with the Occupa- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is tional Safety and Health Act by Mem- correct. bers of Congress and their staffs. The gentleman from Pennsylvania Manifestly, this does constitute legis- (Mr. Myers), at this point, should ad- lation on an appropriation bill; and, be- dress his comments to the point of yond that, it would not be germane, in the opinion of the Chair, to the pend- order made by the gentleman from ing substitute. Michigan (Mr. Ford), to—wit, that the For those reasons, the Chair sus- amendment offered by the gentleman tains the point of order. from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) would MR. MYERS of Pennsylvania: I thank not be germane to the language of the the Chairman for his even-handed substitute which it would seek to evaluation of the situation. amend and, further, that it would constitute legislation on an appropriation § 7.11 Debate on a point of bill. Does the gentleman desire to touch order against an amendment on that? is limited to the question of MR. MYERS of Pennsylvania: Mr. order and may not go to the Chairman, I was simply laying the merits of the amendment. 12218 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

On Nov. 25, 1970,(10) during dis- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from cussion of the provisions of a fed- Iowa will state the point of order. eral highway bill, Mr. Samuel S. MR. GROSS: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not addressing himself to the Stratton, of New York, introduced point of order. an amendment dealing with the MR. STRATTON: I am addressing my- plight of prisoners of war. A point self to the point of order, if the gen- of order was then raised against tleman from Iowa will allow me to con- the amendment. In the ensuing tinue. debate on the point of order, the Mr. Chairman, this amendment—— Member repeatedly referred to the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from New York will suspend. This bill is a amendment, not the point of bill having to do with the highway sys- order. This in turn provoked an- tem of the United States. The Chair other point of order, with the ulti- regrets to rule that the gentleman—— mate result that Chairman Chet MR. STRATTON: Mr. Chairman, allow Holifield, of California, had to rule me to make my point. I have a couple the Member out of order. of very valid points. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has THE CHAIRMAN: A point of order is not addressed himself to the point of made against the amendment by the order and the Chair is constrained to gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha). rule that the gentleman is out of order. MR. STRATTON: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point of order. § 7.12 Debate on a point of THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear order is confined to the ques- the gentleman from New York on the tion of order, may not extend point of order. . . . to the merits of the bill, and MR. STRATTON: Mr. Chairman, this is for the edification of the amendment seeks to enlist the support of this House for action taken in an ef- Chair who may decline to fort to rescue these prisoners. This is a hear further argument. resolution which the gentleman from On June 13, 1991,(11) while the Com- Illinois (Mr. Findley) and I have intro- mittee of the Whole was debating duced and on which we are seeking amendments under the five-minute support. I think it is appropriate for rule during consideration of a general two reasons. appropriation measure, Mr. Richard K. This is an amendment—— Armey, of Texas, raised a point of MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. order against an amendment offered by Chairman, a point of order. Mr. Byron L. Dorgan, of North Dakota. Several Members seemed inclined to 10. 116 CONG. REC. 38971, 38972, 91st discuss not the amendment or the Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 19504, the Federal High- 11. 137 CONG. REC. 14690, 14691, 102d way Act. Cong. 1st Sess.

12219 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

point of order but the broader ‘‘savings Dakota, but in particular, for what it is and loan’’ crisis. The following colloquy he is attempting to do. illustrates the efforts of the Chair to I have a concern, on the other hand, confine the debate to the question of Mr. Chairman, that we would be doing order. it in this matter with respect to legis- MR. ARMEY: Mr. Chairman, I desire lative procedure, encumber the work of to be heard on my point of order. the Committee on Appropriations and THE CHAIRMAN: (12) The gentleman circumvent the work of several com- will state his point of order. mittees, including the Committee on MR. ARMEY: Mr. Chairman, I make the Judiciary, the Committee on Bank- the point of order that this amendment ing, Finance and Urban Affairs, and violates clause 2 of rule XXI which pro- his own Committee on Ways and hibits this in appropriations bills. Means.... THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from North Dakota desire to be heard just like to state that the gentleman on the point of order? should speak rather narrowly to the point of order, not to the merits of the MR. DORGAN of North Dakota: Mr. proposal. Chairman, my understanding is the MR. ARMEY: Mr. Chairman, I appre- gentleman has not asserted a point of ciate the Chair’s advice. order at this moment, is that correct? Mr. Chairman, very narrowly, let me PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY say I hold a point of order that the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. MR. ARMEY: Mr. Chairman, I have a Dorgan], for all his good work, all his parliamentary inquiry. good intentions, violates clause 2 of THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will rule XXI. state the parliamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman MR. ARMEY: Mr. Chairman, it is my from North Dakota desire to be heard understanding that once I stipulate the on the point of order? point of order, I have an opportunity to MR. DORGAN of North Dakota: Mr. discuss my point of order. Chairman, I indicated in my opening THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has remarks that I understood a point of stated his point of order. He does have order could lie on this provision. The the opportunity to be heard. The Chair gentleman from Texas fully under- thought that he had expressed it. stands the conditions under which this MR. ARMEY: Mr. Chairman, I had in- legislation is being discussed on the tended to discuss my point of order floor today.... and my reasons for holding that. MR. [HAROLD] ROGERS [of Kentucky]: THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman may Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on proceed. the point of order. MR. ARMEY: Mr. Chairman, let me The question is, whether or not there say first of all I have enormous respect is legislative procedure on an appro- not only for the gentleman from North priations bill. That is the object of my discussion in these 5 minutes, or the 12. George E. Brown (Calif.). time the Chair allows me.

12220 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

Mr. Chairman, there is already es- THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in tablished in the current law in the De- the rules that states that. partment of Justice a financial institu- MR. ARMEY: Then, Mr. Chairman, tions fraud unit. It is already there. It may I be heard on the point of order is in the law. We appropriate money to with as much latitude to speak about it in this bill. the crime bill? Now, they want to call it a savings THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has and loan criminal fraud unit. already been heard on the point of THE CHAIRMAN: Would the gen- order. The Chair thinks enough Mem- tleman merely talk to the merits of the bers have been heard. point of order? MR. ARMEY: Mr. Chairman, may I be MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, the gen- heard to speak on the crime bill? tleman from North Dakota spoke THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready broadly about the merits. to rule. THE CHAIRMAN: He did, and the A point of order has been raised by Chair is trying to discourage others the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] from making his mistake. against the proposed amendment of MR. ROGERS: I insist upon the privi- the gentleman from North Dakota on lege of doing so. the grounds that it violates clause 2 of THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rec- rule XXI in that it constitutes legisla- ognize the gentleman to speak to the tion on an appropriation bill. point of order.... For the reasons stated by the gen- Are there additional Members who tleman from Texas and others, the desire to be heard on the point of Chair agrees with the point of order order? and rules that the amendment violates MR. [DENNIS E.] ECKART [of Ohio]: the rules of the House and is therefore Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard not in order. on the point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would Debate on Point of Order Does like to advise the gentleman to stick to Not Come Out of Time to the point of order.... Which the Proponent of an PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Amendment Is Entitled Under MR. ARMEY: Mr. Chairman, I have a the Five-minute Rule. parliamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will § 7.13 The proponent of an state his parliamentary inquiry. amendment against which a MR. ARMEY: Mr. Chairman, is there point of order has been re- something in the rules of the House served may not reserve a that I have not found that says that portion of his time under the there is more latitude granted to Mem- bers who speak in opposition to a point five-minute rule to oppose of order than the person who makes any points of order, if made, the point of order? since the Chair has discre- 12221 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

tion to recognize for separate tion 301, by revising title III to strike debate time on any point of the whole title and to reinsert all in order. the title, except section 301. Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the Where points of order are re- amendment? served against an offered amend- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has ment, the proponent may proceed been recognized for 5 minutes, so the under the five-minute rule to dis- gentleman may proceed. cuss the merits of his amendment MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, and need not reserve time to re- may I reserve 2 minutes of my time to speak on the points of order? fute any point of order which is THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rec- pressed. The proceedings of Aug. ognize the gentleman to speak on the ( ) 1, 1975, 13 illustrate how the points of order at the appropriate time. Chair differentiates between de- MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I have bate on the merits and argument not yet made the point of order. I re- on a point of order. served it. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has rec- (14) THE CHAIRMAN: Are there further ognized the gentleman from Ohio to amendments to title III? speak on the gentleman’s amendment AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BROWN for 5 minutes. Then the gentlemen who OF OHIO reserved the points of order may press them or they may not. R LARENCE ROWN M . [C J.] B of Ohio: MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. the purpose of this amendment, as I The Clerk read as follows: said, is to strike section 301, the pric- Amendment offered by Mr. Brown ing section, from the bill. of Ohio: Strike out Title III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as amended. Time Consumed on Point of Order When Overall Time Is MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- Limited gan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. § 7.14 Where debate under the MR. [BOB] ECKHARDT [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of five-minute rule has been order. limited to a time certain, MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, time consumed in argument the thrust of this amendment is to on a point of order comes out strike from the bill the provisions of of the total time under the the Staggers pricing amendment, sec- limitation, thus reducing the

13. 121 CONG. REC. 26945, 94th Cong. time which can be allotted to 1st Sess. other Members seeking rec- 14. Richard Bolling (Mo.). ognition. The time is not 12222 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

charged only against the pro- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will ponent of the amendment state his point of order. against which the point of MR. DANIELSON: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this order is made. amendment is not germane to the bill. On Apr. 26, 1978,(15) debate under The bill calls for disclosure of lobbying the five-minute rule was proceeding activities under the terms of expendi- the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act ture and the like, and related lobbying of 1978. Mr. George E. Danielson, of activities as to influencing the conduct California, moved that all debate on and disposition of legislation. This has the bill and amendments end at 7:30 to do with activities within the Capitol that evening. The events following the Building and is not necessarily within imposition of this limitation were as the purview of the bill. follows. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman MR. DANIELSON: Mr. Chairman, I from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gary A. move that all debate on this bill and all amendments thereto be terminated Myers) desire to be heard on the point at the hour of 7:30 o’clock p.m. tonight. of order? THE CHAIRMAN: (16) The question is MR. GARY A. MYERS: I do, Mr. Chair- on the motion offered by the gentleman man. I would like to be heard on the from California (Mr. Danielson). point of order. The question was taken; and the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman may Chairman being in doubt, the Com- proceed. mittee divided, and there were—ayes MR. GARY A. MYERS: Mr. Chairman, 22, noes 20. I would like to point out that the MR. GARY A. MYERS [of Pennsyl- amendment is more narrowly drafted vania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an than the amendment which I offered amendment. last year. It only requires an item of The Clerk read as follows: disclosure by those individuals who Amendment offered by Mr. Gary otherwise would have to be reporting. A. Myers: Page 39, insert the fol- This bill does not in any way define lowing after line 7: the geographical location in which lob- (g) If any lobbying communication bying activity would not be reported. was made on the floor of the House of Representatives or adjoining Nowhere in the bill does it say that if rooms thereof, or on the floor of the the lobbyist speaks to a House Member Senate or adjoining rooms thereof, a in the Capitol that that is not a report- statement that such lobbying com- able item. The only thing this amend- munication was made. ment would do would require the re- MR. DANIELSON: Mr. Chairman, I porting of any specific activity dis- have a point of order on the amend- cussed on the floor of the House. In ment. last year’s amendment there was a point of order raised about the inva- 15. 124 CONG. REC. 11641, 11642, 95th sion of the House rules. It would seem Cong. 2d Sess. to me that article I, section 5 of the 16. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.). Constitution clearly states that:

12223 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

. . . each House may determine the gentleman from Pennsylvania but the rules of its proceedings. will come out of the general time and Numerous precedents have held that will reduce everyone’s time to 5 min- the power to make rules is not im- utes each. paired by rules of previous Congresses Are there further amendments? or by laws passed by previous Con- gresses. So that this amendment in no § 7.15 Time consumed on a way adds to or impairs the rules of the point of order that debate is House. not relevant does not come It has been recognized that a law out of that allotted to the passed by an existing Congress can Member holding the floor bind that Congress in matters of procedure—and I refer to Hinds’ Precedents, under the five-minute rule. volume 5, sections 6767 and 6768. On June 15, 1983,(17) the House However, this amendment does not had under consideration the De- even go that far since it in no way fense Department Authorization binds this or any other Congress. It Act of 1984 (H.R. 2969). The fol- merely makes available information to the Congress and to the general public. lowing exchange occurred during If the Congress chooses to act on that the five-minute rule: information it can do so according to MR. [ED] BETHUNE [of Arkansas]: its rules and procedures. . . . Nineteen years they have been Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the working on this bomb, and they finally amendment is germane, it is simply decided to test it under something another item of reporting. similar to what they might actually I also believe it would be inappro- face in the modern combat world, and priate for this House to object to this it blew up on them. type of reporting. MR. [SAMUEL S.] STRATTON [of New THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- York]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a pared to rule. point of order. For the reasons stated by the gen- THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: (18) tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gary The gentleman will state it. A. Myers), and in addition, since this MR. STRATTON: Mr. Chairman, I amendment does not seek to restrain make a point of order against the gen- or regulate conduct but only requires tleman from Arkansas. The gentleman disclosure, the Chair will rule that the is discussing a munition that is not point of order is not well taken and the funded in this section of the bill, and amendment is germane as adding a he is spending considerable time of the further reporting requirement to those Committee in discussing that, although contained in the bill.... there are no funds for the production The Chair will notify the members of the committee that time taken from 17. 129 CONG. REC. 15818, 98th Cong. the allotted time for the discussion of 1st Sess. the point of order was not allotted to 18. John P. Murtha, Jr. (Pa.).

12224 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7 of the weapon that he refers to. I think MR. STRATTON: Mr. Chairman, the he is proceeding out of order. thrust of the gentleman’s argument in THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The discussing an item that is not funded gentleman from Arkansas is discussing in the legislation is to create the im- chemical weapons, and it is difficult to pression that all of the activities of the restrict the gentleman to a narrow in- Department of the Army in dealing terpretation of that in the comments with chemical weapons, and particu- he is making. larly the binary weapons which are MR. STRATTON: Mr. Chairman, if I funded in this section, is defective. But may be heard further on the point of the item which he is constantly refer- order, there are a number of things ring to, and with all of its mistakes, is that are funded in the bill. Binary sys- not included; and the problems that it tems is the basic issue which the gen- had led the committee to remove the tleman from Wisconsin addressed him- money for that particular weapon. If self to. But the particular one that the the gentleman wants to discuss it, it gentleman from Arkansas is debating ought to be discussed in the research is something that is not funded in this and development title of the bill rather portion of the bill, and it seems to me that this is a proceeding out of order than in the procurement and produc- and abusing the time of the Com- tion title with which we are engaged mittee. now. THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Does THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Be- Chair will rule. thune) wish to be heard on the point of The money in the bill is order? unearmarked and the arguments of the MR. BETHUNE: Mr. Chairman, is my gentleman from Arkansas are consid- time protected while the gentleman ered relevant to the debate on his from New York makes his point of amendment which is pending and order? which addresses the issues being de- THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The bated. gentleman’s time is protected. The Chair will overrule the point of MR. BETHUNE: I thank the Chair. order. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply say that the bill does ask for moneys to Time Consumed by Parliamen- build buildings, facilities, to do tooling tary Inquiries work, to build the casings for the Big Eye bomb. I do not know what could be more relevant than to discuss whether § 7.16 When the Member hold- or not it works before we start building ing the floor in debate re- facilities and the QL mix that would go fuses to yield for a par- in the bomb. liamentary inquiry, the time MR. STRATTON: Mr. Chairman, may I consumed by repeated re- be heard further on the point of order? quests for him to yield does THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from New York may be not come out of his allotted heard further on the point of order. time. 12225 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Where the Member making a THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from statement during general debate Texas has the time and the gentleman on a bill in Committee of the does not yield. MR. COLEMAN: Parliamentary in- Whole refuses to yield for an inquiry. quiry until he has finished his THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from statement, the minutes taken by Texas does not yield for a parliamen- repeated requests for him to yield tary inquiry. is not taken from his time. Pro- MR. COLEMAN: He does not have to. ceedings on Nov. 22, 1993,(19) were I am asking a question. as indicated. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Texas does not yield for a parliamen- MR. [CHRISTOPHER] COX [of Cali- tary inquiry. The gentleman from fornia]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 min- Texas has the time. utes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MR. ARMEY: I would ask the Chair, if Armey], chairman of the Republican he does not mind, that time used to ex- conference. plain the rules will not come out of my MR. [DICK] ARMEY [of Texas]: Mr. time? Chairman, I thank the gentleman for THE CHAIRMAN: That will not count yielding the time.... against the time of the gentleman from I will not yield to the gentleman, so Texas. do not bother asking. MR. COLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, do MR. [RONALD D.] COLEMAN [of you mean to tell me when I ask a par- Texas]: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. liamentary inquiry, it does not ask Chairman. that of the Chair? THE CHAIRMAN: (20) The gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: Under the rules, the from Texas [Mr. Armey] has the time. gentleman does not have to yield, as MR. COLEMAN: Parliamentary in- long as he has the floor, for a par- quiry, Mr. Chairman. liamentary inquiry. The gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose from Texas has the time, and this time does the gentleman from Texas rise? will not be counted against the gen- MR. COLEMAN: I want to ask a par- tleman from Texas. liamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman Chair Controls Argument on from Texas [Mr. Armey] yield to the Point of Order gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] for a parliamentary inquiry? § 7.17 Argument on a point of MR. ARMEY: I will not yield to the order is at the discretion of gentleman from Texas until I have fin- the Chair, and Members ished my statement. seeking to be heard must ad-

19. 139 CONG. REC. 31981, 103d Cong. dress the Chair and cannot 1st Sess. engage in ‘‘colloquies’’ on the 20. William J. Hughes (N.J.). point of order. 12226 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

On Sept. 18, 1986,(1) the House 1353(c)), which relates to research had under consideration in Com- and development, is amended by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ immediately after ‘‘(c)’’ mittee of the Whole a bill dealing and by adding at the end thereof the with minimum altitude for air- following new paragraph: craft flying over national parks. ‘‘(2) In carrying out his functions, When a section dealing with the powers, and duties under this section pertaining to aviation safety, restrictions pertaining to the the Secretary of Transportation shall Grand Canyon was reached in the coordinate and take whatever steps reading, Mr. Robert K. Dornan, of necessary (including research and California, offered an amendment development) to promulgate standards for an airborne collision avoid- that required the installation of ance system for all United States collision avoidance systems in all aircraft, civil and military, to im- aircraft. A portion of the amend- prove aviation safety. The Secretary ment and the related proceedings of Transportation shall promulgate such standards within one year after are carried herewith. the date of enactment of this Act. THE CHAIRMAN: (2) Are there any Such standards shall require that amendments to section 2? If not, the such collision avoidance system be Clerk will designate section 3. designed—... The text of section 3 is as follows: [A point of order was reserved against the amendment.] SEC. 3. GRAND CANYON NATIONAL THE CHAIRMAN: The time of the gen- PARK. tleman from California (Mr. Dornan) (a) Noise associated with aircraft has expired. overflight at the Grand Canyon Na- Does the gentleman from Minnesota tional Park is causing a significant (Mr. Vento) insist on his point of adverse effect on the natural quiet order? and experience of the park and current aircraft operations at the Grand MR. [BRUCE F.] VENTO [of Min- Canyon National Park have raised nesota]: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I insist on serious concerns regarding public my point of order. safety, including concerns regarding THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman the safety of park users. from Minnesota is recognized. MR. DORNAN of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. POINT OF ORDER The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, under the Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan rule of germaneness, rule XVI, clause of California: At the end of the bill 7, no subject different from that under add the following: consideration shall be admitted under the color of an amendment. The SEC. 4. COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM. amendment of the gentleman from Section 312(c) of the Federal Avia- California (Mr. Dornan) violates that tion Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. rule and I must reluctantly insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman. 1. 132 CONG. REC. 24082–84, 99th THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman Cong. 2d Sess. from California wish to be heard on 2. J. J. Pickle (Tex.). the point of order?

12227 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. DORNAN of California: Yes, Mr. The Chair has had an opportunity to Chairman, I would like to speak to it. examine the amendment and it is the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from opinion of the Chair that the amend- California is recognized. ment is not germane. The bill before MR. DORNAN of California: Mr. us, H.R. 4430, is a narrow one address- Chairman, I understand the gentle- ing only overflights over certain na- man’s objection and I would ask for tional park areas. some help. Under my 5 minutes here, The amendment goes to an unrelated I would like to ask for a colloquy with subject amending an act not amended my good friend and distinguished col- by the bill. league, the gentleman from California (Mr. Mineta). Therefore, the Chair sustains the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- point of order. vise the gentleman that he cannot have a colloquy during a point of order. Scope of Debate on Point of MR. DORNAN of California: All right, Order; on Motion To Recom- Mr. Chairman, here is what I will ask mit rhetorically and publicly.... Now, I would ask the gentleman § 7.18 Debate on a point of from California (Mr. Mineta) if there is order raised against a mo- any way that we can get some kind of a hearing in the remaining 2 or 3 tion to recommit a con- weeks, God forbid that we come back ference report with instruc- into a special session, so that this 99th tions to the conferees must Congress, which suffered a midair col- be confined to the question lision over the Grand Canyon on June of order and may not go to 18 does something in this Congress. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman the merits of the underlying to withdraw his objection. proposition. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- Where a point of order was vise the gentleman from California that he is still not speaking to the raised against the instructions in- point of order and will ask the gen- cluded in a motion to recommit a tleman to conclude his remarks on the conference report on the ground point of order, without the colloquy or that the instructions exceeded the the questions. differences committed to con- The gentleman may proceed. ference, the argument on the MR. DORNAN of California: That is all, Mr. Chairman. point of order tended to roam to THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready the merits of the bill in conference to rule. and away from the merits of the The gentleman from California (Mr. point of order. At one point, the Dornan) has offered an amendment Chair had to bring the debate adding a section 4 pertaining to the collision avoidance system. back to the issue at hand. The

12228 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7 proceedings of Apr. 9, 1992,(3) are THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The set out below: gentleman will state his point of order. MR. GEJDENSON: Mr. Speaker, I ( ) THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 4 The would make a point of order that the question is on the conference report. instructions exceed the scope of the conference report. It is clear that the MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. requirement of in-district funding is WALSH beyond the scope of the conference re- MR. [JAMES T.] WALSH [of New port, and I would move that therefore York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to the motion to recommit should be recommit. ruled out of order. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does gentleman opposed to the conference the gentleman from New York [Mr. report in its present form? Walsh] wish to be heard in opposition MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am. to the point of order? THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I believe Clerk will report the motion to recom- that this motion adds to the fairness of mit. the conference report, and I would The Clerk read as follows: urge that it be added. Mr. Walsh moves to recommit the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does conference report on the bill S. 3 to the gentleman from New York [Mr. the Committee of Conference with Walsh] concede the point of order? instructions to the managers on the MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I do not. part of the House to include in the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does conference report the provisions of H.R. 3770 including: anyone else wish to be heard on the 1. The requirement that a majority point of order? of a candidate’s contributions come MR. [PAUL B.] HENRY [of Michigan]: from individuals residing in the can- Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the didate’s district. point of order. 2. A limit of $1,000 on PAC con- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The tributions to candidates. point of order is contested. The gen- 3. A total ban on soft money contributions to political parties. tleman from Michigan [Mr. Henry] is And to further include the require- recognized on the point of order. ment that no taxpayer dollars may MR. HENRY: Mr. Speaker, I want to be used to finance congressional be sure we understand what the point campaigns. of order is and what the question is and what the contest is.... POINT OF ORDER MR. GEJDENSON: Mr. Speaker, the MR. [SAM] GEJDENSON [of Con- objection is because it is beyond the necticut]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point scope of the conference. At this stage of of order. the game to try to rewrite the whole conference is really in fact an attempt 3. 138 CONG. REC. 9021, 9022, 102d to kill campaign finance reform, at Cong. 2d Sess. least at this session, in my perspec- 4. Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio). tive....

12229 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does falls outside the matters committed to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] the conference as disagreements be- wish to be heard on the point of order? tween the Senate bill and the House MR. [JIM] LEACH [of Iowa]: Mr. amendment thereto. Speaker, I do think this body ought to Therefore, under clause 3 of rule understand what is taking place here. XXVIII, a conference report may not The minority resolution talked about a include a matter although germane $1,000 cap on PAC’s. The House bill that was not committed to the con- passed a $5,000 limit. The Senate bill ference of either House. passed a zero or up to a thousand, if In the opinion of the Chair, the in- the court threw it out. structions proposed in the motion of- So what the majority is attempting fered by the gentleman from New York to do is stifle a very thoughtful amend- exceed the scope of the differences ment of the minority for real reform of committed to the conference and the the political action system and is using point of order is sustained. the Rules of the House against real reform. And there is nothing more ger- Senate Rules as Authority mane to this bill. The subject matter of this bill is con- § 7.19 Parliamentarian’s Note: taining political action committees. I It is in order in debate on a think the public record ought to indi- question of order to read a cate it. rule of the House or Senate THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The for the Chair’s information if gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] is entitled to be heard on the point of it relates to the point of order under the rules of the House. order. That does not entitle the gentleman to On July 16, 1935,(5) during de- be heard on the merits of the bill. bate on a point of order in the If the gentleman has remarks to House, a Member was permitted make, they should be confined to the point of order before the House.... to read aloud excerpts from the The Chair is prepared to rule. Senate rules as authority for his The gentleman from Connecticut argument. makes a point of order against the mo- MR. [THOMAS L.] BLANTON [of tion offered by the gentleman from Texas]: I refer the Chair to the fol- New York on the ground that the in- lowing portion of rule XXVIII of the structions therein exceed the scope of United States Senate: the conference. Messages shall be sent to the The motion offered by the gentleman House of Representatives by the Sec- from New York proposes to instruct retary, who shall previously certify the managers on the part of the House the determination of the Senate to include in the conference report three features of a separate bill, H.R. 5. 79 CONG. REC. 11262, 74th Cong. 1st 3770. Each of these three initiatives Sess.

12230 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

upon all bills, joint resolutions, and order that this violates rule 21, para- other resolutions. graph 2, of Cannon’s Procedures which MR. [VITO] MARCANTONIO [of New provides that no appropriation shall be York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point made without prior authorization. of order that the gentleman cannot THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman read from any document or from any from New York desire to be heard on other papers. the point of order? THE SPEAKER: (6) This is for the infor- MR. [JOHN J.] ROONEY [of New mation of the Chair, and the point of order is overruled. The gentleman from York]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.... Texas will proceed in order. . . . I am now constrained to concede that the point of order is well Conceding Points of Order taken and I shall immediately offer an During Debate amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is § 7.20 Where a point of order is conceded and sustained. made against language in a bill and the point is con- Argument on Point of Order; ceded in debate by the Mem- Revisions and Extensions Not ber handling the bill, the Permitted Chair rules on the point of § 7.21 The Chair will not enter- order unless there is further tain unanimous-consent re- argument by another Mem- quests to revise and extend ber against the validity of remarks when hearing argu- the point of order. ment on a point of order. For example, on Apr. 12, (8) 1960,(7) in the Committee of the On Oct. 7, 1977, a rather in- Whole, Chairman W. Homer volved point of order was raised Thornberry, of Texas, ruled on a against a conference report on the point of order against an amend- Energy Research and Develop- ment immediately after the pro- ment Administration Authoriza- ponent conceded during debate tion Act of 1978. The report was that the point of order was well called up by Mr. Teague, Chair- taken. man of the Committee on Science MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: . . . and Technology. The argument in Mr. Chairman, I make the point of favor of the point of order was ad- 6. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.). vanced by Mr. Udall, Chairman of 7. 106 CONG. REC. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d the Committee on Interior and In- Sess. Under consideration was H.R. sular Affairs. The proceedings 11666, which made appropriations for certain departments of the execu- 8. 123 CONG. REC. 33770, 33771, 95th tive branch. Cong. 1st Sess.

12231 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS leading up to the unanimous-con- MR. UDALL: Mr. Speaker, I make a sent request cited above, were as point of order. Section 106(d)(3), adopt- follows: ed by the conference committee on the bill now before the House, exceeds the CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1811, EN- authority of the conference committee ERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT in that it inserts new substantive pro- ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT visions in the legislation which were OF 1978 not included in the bill, either as passed by the House or passed by the MR. [OLIN E.] TEAGUE [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference Senate. report on the Senate bill (S. 1811) to I would like to be heard briefly on authorize appropriations to the Energy the point of order. Research and Development Adminis- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from tration in accordance with section 261 Arizona is recognized.... of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as MR. UDALL: The point of order, Mr. amended, section 305 of the Energy Speaker, is based on the conference re- Reorganization Act of 1974, and sec- port violation of rule 28, which re- tion 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear En- quires that the report shall not include ergy Research and Development Act of matter not committed to the conference 1974, as amended, and for other pur- committee by either House. The offend- poses, and ask unanimous consent that ing provision of the conference report the statement of the managers be read is section 106. It amends section 103 of in lieu of the report. Public Law 91–273 as amended, and The Clerk read the title of the bill. imposes new requirements on the ( ) THE SPEAKER: 9 Is there objection to Clinch River breeder project.... the request of the gentleman from Texas? After several other Members There was no objection.... were heard on the point of order, MR. [MORRIS K.] UDALL [of Arizona]: Mr. Carr sought recognition. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. MR. [M. ROBERT] CARR [of Michi- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will gan]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise in state it. support of the point of order. MR. UDALL: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order against the con- THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear ference report. Is this the appropriate the gentleman. time? MR. CARR: Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- THE SPEAKER: It is. mous consent that I may be permitted MR. UDALL: Mr. Speaker, I make a to revise and extend my remarks. point of order against the conference THE SPEAKER: The Chair will inform report. the gentleman that his request to re- THE SPEAKER: The Chair will hear vise and extend his remarks is not in the gentleman. order on a point-of-order discussion. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 9. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.). Carr) will be heard.

12232 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

Sanctity of Argument on Point could therefore result in retaliation by another country; or of Order (2) would entitle any other country to compensation from the United § 7.22 The Chair will not enter- States in the form of reduced restric- tain unanimous-consent re- tions on imports of agricultural, industrial or other products from other quests by Members to ‘‘revise countries or to retaliation against and extend’’ their arguments the United States in the form of in- on points of order. creased restrictions against exports of agricultural, industrial or other Since it is essential that the products from the United States. Chair’s ruling on a point of order Notwithstanding any other provision be responsive to the arguments of this Act, the United States district court for the appropriate judicial dis- actually made in support of the trict shall have jurisdiction to re- point of order, requests to revise solve disputes arising under this sec- and extend those remarks are not tion. entertained. In the proceedings MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [Jr., of which are carried herein, the ar- Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a guments on the point of order point of order against the amend- were complex and the Chair had ment.... to have the benefit of all the pres- Mr. Chairman, I make the point of entations to make his decision.(10) order that the amendment is not germane. MR. [DAN R.] COATS [of Indiana]: Mr. Mr. Chairman, it is within the rules Chairman, I offer an amendment. of the House and the interpretation of The Clerk read as follows: the rule of germaneness that the Amendment offered by Mr. Coats: amendment must relate to the pur- Page 36, after line 4, insert the fol- poses of the legislation before the lowing: House. I would observe that the purposes of SEC. 11. INEFFECTIVENESS OF ACT IN CASE OF COMPENSATION BY, OR RE- the legislation before the House are to TALIATION AGAINST, UNITED STATES assure that automobiles will have a AGRICULTURAL OR OTHER INDUS- certain percentage of domestic content TRIES in automobiles which are sold inside Notwithstanding any other provi- the United States. The legislation be- sion of law, neither the Secretary nor fore the House at this time deals with any other party shall take any action automobiles and the trade in auto- under this act if the implementation mobiles inside the boundaries of the of any provision of this Act either— United States. The legislation before (1) would violate the obligations of the United States under the General the House sets up no new causes of ac- Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and tion. There are provisions in the legisla- 10. 129 CONG. REC. 30542, 30545–47, tion which are essentially disclaimers. 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 2, 1983. The Chair will note that on page 15, in

12233 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

line 5, there is language which relates goes on to say this—‘‘would violate the to disclaimers of an intention to violate obligations of the United States under GATT and which do not confer any the General Agreement on Tariffs and new jurisdiction upon any court in the Trade....’’ United States to consider or to resolve So that question would be review- conflicts related to GATT or ‘‘to alter able. The question would also be re- or amend any law existing on the date viewable as to whether or not the ac- of enactment. . . ..’’ tion of the Secretary would result in I would observe that the amendment retaliation by another country. I would is much more broad, and I would like observe that an amendment which is the attention of the Chair with regard contingent upon some future indeter- to a number of points. minate action is also violative of the First of all, in the last four lines of rules on germaneness. the amendment, the language is: Beyond this, the question would be Notwithstanding any other provi- placed before the courts upon action by sion of this Act, the United States any citizen feeling aggrieved, under district court for the appropriate ju- the last four lines, lines 19 through 22, dicial district shall have jurisdiction as to whether any other country would to resolve disputes arising under this section. be entitled to compensation from the United States in the form of reduced That is a very broad conferral of ju- restrictions on imports of agricultural, risdiction upon all of the Federal industrial, or other products. courts of the United States in their re- This section confers jurisdiction rel- spective judicial districts to deal with ative to actions which would be taken disputes. That kind of an amendment in other countries regarding a whole would necessarily have either gone ini- series of other commodities, agricul- tially or sequentially to the Judiciary tural, industrial, and whatever they Committee because of the jurisdiction might happen to otherwise be. of that committee relative to disputes In addition to this, it says, ‘‘or other and causes of action. I would refer the Chair to the letter which relates to this products from other countries or to re- matter as written by Chairman Rodino taliation against the United States in on judicial matters. the form of increased restric- Mr. Chairman, there are some other tions....’’ points I would like to make concerning So those matters would again be the scope and the sweep of this matter. subject to judicial review and inde- First of all, the jurisdiction conferred pendent litigation by any person under upon U.S. district courts would be to the provisions of this amendment. determine whether the Secretary had I would point out further that the carried out his responsibilities under amendment says, Mr. Chairman, that lines 4 through 7 of the amendment, as the Secretary may not take action to to whether the Secretary or any other implement the law if it violates GATT. party had taken any other action It also says, if it would entitle any under the act if the implementation of other country to compensation from any provision of this act—and then it the United States.

12234 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

Now, in Cannon’s, VIII, 3029, it MR. COATS: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. states that an amendment delaying op- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from eration of a proposed enactment pend- Indiana (Mr. Coats) may proceed. ing an ascertainment of a fact is ger- MR. COATS: Mr. Chairman, I ask mane when the fact to be ascertained unanimous consent that I may be per- relates solely to the subject matter of mitted to revise and extend my re- the bill. marks. Here the condition to be ascertained, THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- whether the act violates GATT or vise the gentleman that in presenting would entitle another country to com- his remarks on the point of order, he pensation, is not germane. cannot make a request to revise and There are general foreign policy extend. questions and concerns that have to be addressed, as in the case of the prior MR. COATS: I will withdraw my amendment offered by the gentleman unanimous consent to revise and ex- from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) and tend my remarks, Mr. Chairman. which caused that to be ruled out of THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman may order as not germane. proceed. Mr. Chairman, the bill also creates a MR. COATS: Mr. Chairman, the com- broad new jurisdiction in the U.S. dis- mittee report issued by the Committee trict court, a form of judicial relief to on Energy and Commerce chaired by determine if the act violates GATT. the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. That is, of course, an entirely new pro- Dingell) specifically states in section vision relating to commodities, agricul- 2(c), which was an amendment to the tural, industrial, or other, which is far bill adopted by the committee, that: more broad than that in the bill. It is the intent of Congress that While this bill does allow the district this act shall not be deemed to mod- court to enforce the bill, this is an en- ify or amend the terms or conditions tirely new form of review and confers a of any international treaty, conven- cause of action far more broad than tion, or agreement ***. any found anywhere else in the legisla- That alone expands the jurisdiction tion. of the bill beyond specific auto content. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this would confer broad jurisdic- Second, we also adopted an amend- tion on private persons to enter the ment which directed the Secretary of courts of the United States. A provi- Transportation and the Federal Trade sion of this sort would necessarily in- Commission, in fact it mandated a volve jurisdiction of the committee hav- study as to the impact on agriculture. ing jurisdiction over that matter, and That again expands the jurisdiction be- that is, of course, the Judiciary Com- yond what the gentleman claimed in mittee. his point of order, that it is auto-spe- THE CHAIRMAN: (11) Does the gen- cific. It is broader that auto-specific be- tleman from Indiana (Mr. Coats) wish cause the bill itself as adopted by the to be heard on the point of order? committee contains a direction that a study be conducted of the impact on 11. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.). agriculture and that goes directly to

12235 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

the heart of the amendment that I am amendment is clearly germane to sec- offering. tion 2(c) on page 15 of the bill, but I In addition, let me just make a cou- think the Chair’s perusal of that sec- ple comments about the jurisdiction of tion will verify that fact. the courts. In the Energy and Com- The point I would like to add in ad- merce Committee, the bill’s proponents dition is that when the Chair ruled offered language which would in effect against the Glickman amendment, it strip the U.S. courts of jurisdiction to took pains to specifically point out that hear disputes under the act. After the effect of the Glickman amendment lengthy debate on this issue, some of or its effectuation would take place be- that language was withdrawn and the cause of items external to the workings bill now purports to be neutral on ju- of the bill. risdiction. The Coats amendment, on the other This language in the amendment hand, would be effectuated clearly by simply makes clear that as is the nor- items that are covered by the bill and, mal case in any other case, U.S. courts therefore, it is, to use a pardonable would have jurisdiction under this sec- phrase, ‘‘a horse of quite a different tion to resolve disputes. These matters color.’’ of conflict between U.S. international THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further obligations and U.S. statutes should be argument with regard to the point of decided by U.S. tribunals and not left order? solely to international machinery. The Chair recognizes the gentleman So I think it is clear that the amend- from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). ment before us clearly fits within the MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I bill that we are taking up, that the ju- would just observe that my good risdiction is broader than just an auto- friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, specific content, as stated by the con- has been reading the language of a dis- gressional findings, purpose, and disclaimer. Never, I believe, in the history claimer, section 2(c) and as stated in of the House has a disclaimer been section 8(G) on page 33, which man- used to expand the jurisdiction or to dates a study as to the effect on agri- expand the purposes or the scope of culture by the Secretary of Transpor- legislation for purposes of defining tation and the Federal Trade Commis- whether or not a matter is germane. sion. Now, if the Chair will refer to the re- For that reason, I urge the Chair to port of the committee, the Chair will rule against the point of order. find that the disclaimer is constructed, MR. [BILL] FRENZEL [of Minnesota]: and it says how the disclaimer is to be Mr. Chairman, may I be heard against constructed, and the disclaimer says as the point of order? follows: THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from The subsection also contains a dis- Minnesota is recognized. claimer that the Act should not be construed to confer new jurisdiction MR. FRENZEL: Mr. Chairman, I am on any Federal court to consider and not going to repeat the arguments of resolve such conflicts. In short, it the gentleman from Indiana that his states that the Act is not to be con-

12236 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

strued to confer jurisdiction where was before the House in the last ses- none presently exists. At the same sion. time, it declares that the Act does In the legislation that is currently not alter or amend any law existing on the date of enactment of this Act before the House, the committee dealt which may confer such jurisdictions with the issue of the relationship be- on the courts. tween this legislation and other law in section 2(c) which states: MR. [RICHARD L.] OTTINGER [of New It is the intent of Congress that this York]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard Act shall not be deemed to modify or on the point of order? amend the terms or conditions of any THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from international treaty, convention, or New York is recognized. agreement that may be applicable to MR. OTTINGER: Mr. Chairman, under automotive products entered for sale the General Agreement on Tariff and and distribution in interstate com- Trade, there is an elaborate procedure merce and to which the United States, that is prescribed with respect to com- on the date of the enactment of this plaints under that act. There is no ju- Act, is a party, including, but not lim- risdiction in the Federal courts at the ited to, the terms or conditions of any present time that somebody can go in such treaty, convention, or agreement and seek to enforce the provisions of which provide for the resolution of con- GATT in our courts. flicts between the parties thereto. What the bill says on page 15 is that Nothing in this Act shall be construed nothing in this act shall be construed (1) to confer jurisdiction upon any to confer jurisdiction. court of the United States to consider Were we to have gone ahead and and resolve such conflicts, or (2) to sought to confer jurisdiction, it clearly alter or amend any law existing on the would have been beyond the jurisdic- date of enactment of this Act which tion of our committee. It would have may confer such jurisdiction in such had to go to the Judiciary Committee. courts. The disclaimer was put in to protect Section 2(c) therefore addresses the that at the express request of Chair- issue of interpretation of the bill as it man Rodino. applies to treaties, conventions, and Therefore, since this amendment other agreements applicable to auto- does seek to confer jurisdiction which motive products. presently is not there, and that is a The amendment that has been of- matter not within the jurisdiction of fered by the gentleman from Indiana the bill, I urge that the Chair sustain deals specifically with the actions of the point of order. the Secretary in the implementation of THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur- provisions that may relate to treaties, ther arguments with regard to the specifically the General Agreement on point of order? Tariffs and Trade. If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. It would appear, therefore, that the First of all, the Chair would note amendment does relate to subject mat- that the bill before the House at the ter that has already been introduced in present time differs from the bill that the bill by virtue of section 2(c).

12237 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

With regard to the court jurisdiction had debated the Chair at length argument, that issue is addressed following his ruling of Feb. 5, within the bill, specifically on page 30, relating to appropriate judicial circuits again raised the issue. Comparing for judicial review and other provisions the audio transcripts of the that relate to the jurisdiction of Fed- Chair’s ruling with what appeared eral courts. So the Chair feels that the in the Record on the Feb. 5 pro- issue of court jurisdiction has, in fact, been presented within the legislation. ceedings, Mr. Walker determined With regard to the disclaimer argu- that a change had been made. The ment, it is the position of the Chair Chair had in the ruling used the that if the provision in the bill was word ‘‘because’’ as a conjunction merely a narrow and technical disclaimer, then the argument of the gen- between two independent clauses. tleman from Michigan might prevail; He had stated that House Resolu- but since it can be read as an overall tion 258 came within the excep- provision that relates to the broad in- tion in clause 5(c), Rule XI. The terpretation of the bill as it applies to change made in the transcript trade agreements, and since the test the Chair must apply is the relation- was as follows: ‘‘It is the ruling of ship of the amendment to the bill as a the Chair at this time that the whole, it is the position of the Chair task force comes under that excep- that the point of order should not be tion because the task force is a sustained. Is there any further discussion with subunit of the Committee on For- regard to the amendment? eign Affairs and not a separate entity. In the revisions, the Chair Chair’s Right To Clarify Rul- replaced ‘‘because’’ with a comma ing in Record and made the two clauses independent. § 7.23 The Chair formerly exer- The Chair’s exchange with Mr. cised the right under the Walker is carried in full. precedents and applicable standards regarding ‘‘accu- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY racy in the Record’’ to refine MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a his ruling on a point of order parliamentary inquiry. in the Record to clarify, but THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (13) The not to change the substance gentleman will state his parliamentary of, the ruling. inquiry. MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, if a ( ) On Feb. 19, 1992, 12 Mr. Robert Member has reason to believe that the S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, who Chair has made an inaccurate ruling, and if, further, that Member has rea- 12. 138 CONG. REC. 2461, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. 13. Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).

12238 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7 son to believe that that inaccurate rul- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ing was further made problematic by Chair would remind the gentleman the addition of words to the Record from Pennsylvania that the ruling of spoken by the Chair or the deletion of the Chair that day was sustained by a words in the Record spoken by the vote, and that the Chair subsequently Chair, what is the recourse of action has the right to clarify his ruling.... available to the Member to bring about And it did not change the thrust of the appropriate correction? the ruling. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Would MR. WALKER: In clarifying its ruling, the Member discuss the nature of the does not the Chair have an obligation concern with the Chair so that he can to the House to accurately reflect his further understand the concern? ruling in the presentation to the House MR. WALKER: I will be glad to, Mr. and not then modify that statement Speaker. On Wednesday, February 5, later on by both adding words and de- the Chair was asked to rule on the leting words from the Chair’s state- matter of the rule on the task force ment as the official Record appears? concerning the holding of hostages by ... Iran in 1980. Well, if that is the case, then why At that time, this Member suggested does the permanent Record of the that the Chair had ruled inaccurately House as reflected on the videotape by suggesting that this matter did not differ with the Record reflected in the apply, because we were dealing with a printed Record of the House? subunit of the Committee on Foreign THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Be- Affairs. cause the gentleman was attempting to When I go back and find the Record, clarify his ruling as a result of the in- I discover that that is precisely what quiry from the gentleman from Penn- the Chair ruled. I at that point chal- sylvania. lenged the ruling of the Chair. We had MR. WALKER: So a further par- a vote. The Chair was upheld despite liamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. the fact that the ruling is inaccurate. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Later on, in raising questions about gentleman will state it. that, the Chair then made a number of statements to clarify its position. When MR. WALKER: Even in matters then I put the Record of the House, the where precedent is being set, we can written Record of the House, against have the person who occupies the the tapes of that day, I find that words Chair modify their words in the Record were added to the Chair’s message. I and thereby change, in my opinion, the also find that things were deleted from intent of the ruling. what the Chair actually said in the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: With- course of clarifying its decision.... out changing the ruling, the Chair may I would now like to figure out how it do that. is we can go about correcting both the MR. WALKER: A further parliamen- ruling of the Chair and the fact that tary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. the Record has been changed with re- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gard to the words of the Chair. gentleman will state it.

12239 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. WALKER: Is it not true that THE SPEAKER: (15) The Chair an- Members are not granted that right, so nounces that consistent with clause 9 therefore that is a special right that of rule XIV, statements and rulings of has now been created for the Chair. the Chair appearing in the Record will THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Mem- be a substantially verbatim account of bers have the right to revise and ex- those words as spoken during the pro- tend their remarks continuously. ceedings of the House, subject only to technical, grammatical, and typo- MR. WALKER: A further parliamen- graphical corrections. tary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Without objection, the permanent THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Record of January 18 at pages 301 and gentleman will state it. 303 will reflect this policy. MR. WALKER: Under recent rulings, There was no objection. Members have been admonished very clearly that they are not to change in This announcement was precip- any way the substantive value of what itated by a point of order raised they say in those revisions and exten- under clause 9 of Rule XIV on sions. In my opinion, the Chair has Jan. 19, 1995,(16) against modifica- done that here. tions made in certain statements THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: To the by the Chair. The point of order best of the knowledge of the Chair, the person who was in the Chair on that and inquiries on that earlier day day did not change the substance of are carried here. his ruling. POINT OF ORDER

§ 7.24 The Speaker announced MR. [BARNEY] FRANK of Massachu- that consistent with clause 9 setts: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order. of Rule XIV, adopted in the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (17) The 104th Congress, statements gentleman from Massachusetts is rec- and rulings of the Chair ap- ognized. pearing in the Record would MR. FRANK of Massachusetts: Mr. be a substantially verbatim Speaker, at the beginning of this session, the House adopted a new rule account of those words as which says the Congressional Record spoken during the pro- shall be a substantially verbatim ac- ceedings of the House, sub- count of remarks made during the project only to technical, gram- ceedings of the House, subject only to matical, and typographical technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the corrections. Member making the remarks involved. The Speaker made the following announcement on Jan. 20, 1995: (14) 15. Newt Gingrich (Ga.). 16. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th 14. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th Cong. 1st Sess. Cong. 1st Sess. 17. David Dreier (Calif.).

12240 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 7

In the Congressional Record that we THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The received this morning, reflecting yes- Chair might respond to the gentleman. terday’s proceedings, at page H301 in The Chair would recite from the the transcript of the remarks of the manual that in accordance with exist- Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman ing accepted practices, the Speaker from Florida, there are two changes may make such technical or par- that were made between what he, in liamentary insertions, or corrections in fact, said and what is in the Record. transcript as may be necessary to con- The first change is as follows: form to rule, custom, or precedent. The He said yesterday with regard to the Chair does not believe that any revi- statements of the gentlewoman from sion changed the meaning of the rul- Florida about the book of the Speaker, ing. ‘‘It is the Speaker’s opinion that innu- The Chair would under the cir- endo and personal references to the cumstances inform the House on behalf Speaker’s conduct are not in order.’’ of the Parliamentarian that the new That has been altered and that does rule is as it might apply to the role of not appear verbatim in the Congres- the Chair will be examined. sional Record. Instead, it says, ‘‘It is PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES the Speaker’s opinion that innuendo and critical references to the Speaker’s MR. FRANK of Massachusetts: Mr. personal conduct are not in order.’’ Speaker, I am puzzled, and I have a Additionally, later on in response to parliamentary inquiry. a parliamentary inquiry from the gen- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The tleman from Missouri, the Speaker pro gentleman from Massachusetts is rec- tempore said, as I recollect it, ‘‘it has ognized. been the Chair’s ruling, and the prece- MR. FRANK of Massachusetts: The dents of the House support this, a Speaker cited previous references to higher level of respect is due to the the House rules and manual. That pre- Speaker.’’ dates the rules change adopted this In the Congressional Record that has year. This is not simply a case of mak- been changed to ‘‘a proper level of re- ing a technical change in a ruling. We spect.’’ are talking also about substantive Now, I do not believe that changing changes in the debate in the House. ‘‘personal’’ to ‘‘critical’’ and ‘‘proper’’ to THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ‘‘higher’’ is either technical, grammat- Chair has made it very clear, the ical, or typographical. Both make quite Chair would say to the gentleman. substantive changes. Indeed, Mr. MR. FRANK of Massachusetts: No, Speaker, it seems to me that by the the Chair has not. standard that the Speaker yesterday THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The uttered, the gentlewoman from Florida Chair has made it clear that the Par- was judged, but if you take today’s liamentarian plans to examine this standard of revised, illegitimately re- issue. vised version that is in the Record, MR. FRANK of Massachusetts: Mr. there would be no objection to what Speaker, I have a further parliamen- the gentlewoman from Florida said. tary inquiry.

12241 Ch. 31 § 7 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point of order is directed at the gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized. germaneness of an amendment, MR. FRANK of Massachusetts: In the for example, the burden is on the first instance, I thought the Speaker proponent of the amendment to was the responsible ruler in this situa- show its relationship to the pend- tion, while the Parliamentarian ad- (1) vised him. ing text. On a general appro- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The priation bill, the burden of proof gentleman is correct. that an appropriation carried in the bill has proper authorization § 8. Burden of Proof on Points in law falls on the committee.(2) of Order The proponent of an amendment When a point of order is stated carrying an appropriation has the on the floor, the Speaker or the burden of showing authoriza- Chairman of the Committee of the tion.(3) Similarly, where an Whole has the obligation under the rules (18) to decide the question amendment is offered and sup- presented. ported as a ‘‘limitation’’ on funds, He may be guided in making it is for the proponent of the the decision by argument on the amendment to show that it does point of order, which is for the not change existing law.(4) On the Chair’s information. In deciding other hand, a Member challenging questions of order, the Chair is an amendment under Rule XXI constrained to give precedent its clause 5(b),(5) as a ‘‘tax measure’’ proper respect, for one of the du- must show the inevitability of tax ties of the Chair is to preserve consequences to support his con- and enforce the authority of par- tention that the cited rule has liamentary law.(19) been violated.(6) Under the precedents interpreting various rules which create Under some parts of the Con- or permit a point of order, certain gressional Budget Act, the Chair precepts about which party to a is guided in making a decision by dispute has the burden of proof have been established.(20) When a 1. See 8 Cannon’s Precedents § 2995; and § 8.1, infra. 18. See House Rules and Manual (1997) 2. See § 8.4, infra. Rule I clause 4 §§ 624 and 627; and 3. See § 8.11, infra. Rule XXIII clause 1a § 861b. 4. See Rule XXI clause 2(f), House 19. See Rule I clause 4, House Rules and Rules and Manual § 835 (1997); and Manual § 627 (1997). see §§ 8.4, 8.5, and 8.7, infra. 20. See, for example, Rule XVI clause 7, 5. See House Rules and Manual § 846b House Rules and Manual § 794 (1997). (1997); see also § 8.15, infra. 6. See § 8.15, infra.

12242 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8 estimates of costs provided by the ‘‘Sec. 17. The Administrator shall (7) establish, develop, acquire, and Committees on the Budget. maintain a central source of information on all energy resources and technology, including proved and other reserves, for research and de- Burden of Proof on Question of velopment purposes. This responsi- Germaneness bility shall include the acquisition of proprietary information, by purchase, donation, or from another § 8.1 When a point of order is Federal agency, when such informa- raised against an amendment tion will carry out the purposes of this Act. In addition the Adminis- on the ground that it is not trator shall undertake to correlate, germane, the burden of proof review, and utilize any information is on the proponent of the available to any other Government agency to further carry out the pur- amendment to sustain the poses of this Act. The information germaneness. maintained by the Administrator shall be made available to the public, Where an amendment is chal- subject to the provisions of section lenged by a point of order on the 552 of title 5, United States Code, and section 1905 of title 18, United ground that it is not germane, and States Code, and to other Govern- the amendment is ambiguous and ment agencies in a manner that will susceptible to an interpretation facilitate its dissemination.’’ . . . that would render it not germane, MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Chairman, I the Chair will sustain the point of offer an amendment. order. Proceedings in the Com- The Clerk read as follows: mittee of the Whole on June 20, Amendment offered by Mr. Gold- 1975,(8) when an amendment was water: Page 43, line 6, before the pe- offered by Mr. Barry Goldwater, riod, insert the following ‘‘: Provided That any such proprietary informa- Jr., of California, illustrate the tion obtained by compulsory process importance of drafting an amend- by any Federal agency shall not be subject to the mandatory disclosure ment precisely so that it cannot be provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552 and fur- read and interpreted more broadly ther, where the Administrator so than intended. finds, any proprietary information obtained by other means shall be Sec. 307. The Federal Nonnuclear deemed to qualify for exemption Energy Research and Development from mandatory disclosure under 5 Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1878; 42 U.S.C. U.S.C. 552(b)(4)’’. 5901) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sec- MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- tion: gan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment of- 7. See § 8.14, infra. fered by the gentleman from California 8. 121 CONG. REC. 19934, 19966, 19967, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. (Mr. Goldwater).

12243 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: (9) The gentleman The amendment appears to relate to from California (Mr. Goldwater) is rec- the language of the bill at page 43, line ognized for approximately 1 minute. 6. In point of fact, the amendment MR. GOLDWATER: Mr. Chairman, seeks to amend the Freedom of Infor- would it be possible for us not to take mation Act, 5 United States Code 552, up the time of this body to have the which is cited therein. It might appear ruling on the point of order? that the amendment is subject to a THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman number of different meanings. I can from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) wish to think of at least two at the moment, pursue his point of order? and perhaps three or four others. The MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, if the first instance is that any proprietary gentleman wishes, I will pursue the information received by compulsory point of order at this time. process by any Federal agency shall not be subject to the mandatory disclo- POINT OF ORDER sure provisions of 5 United States MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I make Code 552—and I am literally quoting a point of order against the amend- from the language of the amendment— ment. and that being so, the amendment is Mr. Chairman, the amendment is, defective as seeking to amend legisla- among other things, not germane. tion not presently before the House THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would ad- and not within the jurisdiction of the vise the gentleman from Michigan that particular committee that is presenting the time limit pertains to the clock, the legislation before us, and relating and not to minutes. to entirely different matters. MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I have It is possible that it refers to earlier asked to be heard on the point of legislation or, rather, refers to earlier order. clauses and sentences of the legislation THE CHAIRMAN: And the Chair rec- before us. It is also possible that the ognizes the gentleman on the point of legislation that the amendment would order, and in doing so gently reminds have the law amended is that once pro- the gentleman of the factor of time. prietary information had fallen into MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, the the hands of the Federal Government amendment offered by the gentleman by compulsory process and had, from California (Mr. Goldwater) is not through any methodology whatsoever, germane to the legislation before us, arrived in the hands of ERDA, that the and I am prepared to be heard on the original Federal agency which had point of order at the pleasure of the ownership or custody of that informa- Chair. tion would thereupon be sterilized in THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has rec- making that information available pur- ognized the gentleman from Michigan suant to the provisions of 5 United to make his point of order. States Code 552, the Freedom of Infor- MR. DINGELL: The point of order is mation Act. that the amendment is not germane. In either the first instance or in the second instance the amendment seeks 9. J. Edward Roush (Ind.). to amend legislation not properly be-

12244 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8 fore us at this time, the Freedom of In- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman formation Act, which is not under the from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) desire to be jurisdiction of the committee or which, heard upon the point of order? by notice, has not properly been avail- MR. [BOB] ECKHARDT [of Texas]: I able to the Members as to the offer of do, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak on this amendment. the point of order. The amendment is, therefore, in my The amendment states that any such view, on at least two of the three inter- proprietary information obtained by a pretations violative of the rules of the compulsory process by a Federal agen- House, and violative of the rules of cy shall not be subject to mandatory germaneness, and is subject to a point disclosure under the Freedom of Infor- of order. mation Act. Such information refers THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman back to the sentence immediately pre- from California (Mr. Goldwater), desire ceding the amendment in the bill on to be heard upon the point of order? page 43, beginning in line 2: MR. GOLDWATER: I do, Mr. Chair- This responsibility shall include man. I rise in opposition to the point of the acquisition of proprietary infor- order. mation, by purchase, donation, or Mr. Chairman, I would point out to from another Federal agency. the gentleman from Michigan that if So if information is obtained from the gentleman will read the amend- another Federal agency, and that Fed- ment it refers to not all proprietary in- eral agency has obtained such by com- formation, but any such proprietary in- pulsory process, such purports to say formation, specifically narrowing it to that such information, wherever it may ERDA as this particular bill addresses appear, is excluded from the effect of itself. the Freedom of Information Act. The This amendment does not seek to Freedom of Information Act provides amend the Freedom of Information that each agency in accordance with Act, but merely to apply the Freedom published rules shall make available of Information Act. It is, in essence, a for public inspection and copying any limitation upon ERDA and as specifi- information of the type described here cally authorized by the Freedom of In- which appears in a final opinion or formation Act under subsection (d), statement of policy on administrative subsection (3). That this section, in staff manual or instructions to staff, et other words, the Freedom of Informa- cetera. If that information has ulti- tion Act, does not apply to matters mately found its way to ERDA, it be- that are specifically exempted from comes such information, and under the disclosure by statute. The other statute terms of the amendment would, thus, is what, in essence, I am speaking. It be insulated from the Freedom of In- is not an amendment to the Freedom formation Act wherever it might ap- of Information Act, but in essence is a pear. That, I think, clearly alters the limitation on the activities of ERDA, Freedom of Information Act which spe- and merely applies the regulations of cifically states in its last clause that the Freedom of Information Act. the exceptions to the Freedom of Infor-

12245 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

mation Act do not authorize with- In Ruling on Germaneness, the holding of information or limit the Chair Relies on the Text of availability of records to the public ex- the Amendment cept as specifically stated in this section. § 8.2 In ruling on the ger- This adds another exception, and maneness of an amendment, that is the exception of information the Chair confines his anal- that has passed into the hands of ERDA. ysis to its text and should If the language is ambiguous, or if it not be guided by conjecture is reasonably subject to more than one as to other legislation and construction, and if a reasonable con- administrative actions, with- struction of the language alters an- in the jurisdiction of other other act, then it is the burden of the committees, which might but person offering the amendment to clar- are not required to result ify the amendment to make absolutely from adoption of the amend- certain that the amendment does not ment. affect the other act. ( ) The gentleman has not done so. The On July 27, 1977, 10 the Com- language is, therefore, subject reason- mittee of the Whole had under ably to the construction of changing consideration the bill H.R. 7171, processes of other agencies and is, the Agricultural Act of 1977. An therefore, not germane. amendment was offered by Mr. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is prepared to rule on this rather difficult Jeffords dealing with the recovery question which confronts the com- of excess food stamp benefits paid mittee at this time. to persons whose income exceeded The burden of sustaining the ger- certain minimum requirements. maneness of the amendment lies with During the argument on a point, the author. In the opinion of the Chair, the author of the amendment has not Mr. Stark, a member of the Com- sustained that burden, and it does ap- mittee on Ways and Means, ar- pear to the Chair that the amendment gued that the administration of as presently offered would possibly the amendment would fall on the mean that this restriction on the infor- Internal Revenue Service, within mation would apply wherever the information might reside not just within the jurisdiction of his Committee. ERDA. The amendment is, therefore, A portion of the argument on the ambiguous and could be construed to germaneness point of order and go beyond the scope of the bill before the committee at this time. 10. 123 CONG. REC. 25249, 25252, 95th The point of order is sustained. Cong. 1st Sess.

12246 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8 the Chair’s response are indicated be available to the Secretary of Agri- culture to carry out the provisions of below. this Act in such amounts as may be MR. [JAMES M.] JEFFORDS [of specified in appropriation Acts. Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an ‘‘(g) The Secretary of the Treasury shall collect any liability imposed by amendment to the amendment. this section in accordance with regu- The Clerk read as follows: lations prescribed by him (after consultation with the Secretary). Amendment offered by Mr. Jef- fords to the amendment offered by ‘‘(h) Nothing in this section shall Mr. Foley: be construed to affect . . . the application of any provision of the Inter- In title XIII, page 28, insert after nal Revenue Code of 1954.’’ . . . line 8 the following new section: THE CHAIRMAN: (11) Does the gen- ‘‘RECOVERY OF BENEFITS WHERE INDI- tleman from California (Mr. Stark) in- VIDUAL’S ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME sist on his point of order? FOR YEAR EXCEEDS TWICE POVERTY LEVEL MR. [FORTNEY HL (PETE)] STARK [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a ‘‘Sec. 1210. (a)(1) If— point of order. I would like to engage ‘‘(A) any individual receives food stamps during any calendar year the author of the amendment in col- after 1977, and loquy. ‘‘(B) such individual’s adjusted Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman gross income for such calendar year yield? exceeds the exempt amount, MR. JEFFORDS: I yield to the gen- then such individual shall be liable to tleman from California. pay the United States the amount MR. STARK: Mr. Chairman, I would determined under subsection (b) with like to ask the distinguished gen- respect to such individual for such tleman from Vermont who or what calendar year. Such amount shall be branch of Government the gentleman due and payable on April 15 of the feels would collect this money from the people? succeeding calendar year and shall be collected in accordance with the MR. JEFFORDS: Under the amend- procedures prescribed pursuant to ment, the Department of the Treasury would be required to collect the money. subsection (g).... MR. STARK: It would be the Treasury ‘‘(2) In the case of any individual Department and in no way did the whose taxable year is not a calendar year, this section shall be applied gentleman intend that the Internal under regulations prescribed by the Revenue Service participate in any of Secretary. the collection or in collecting the forms ‘‘(f) All funds recovered pursuant or collecting revenue? to the provisions of this section shall MR. JEFFORDS: No, on the contrary, be deposited as miscellaneous re- it is my understanding and belief that ceipts of the Treasury and shall be available to the Secretary of the the Internal Revenue Service would be Treasury to defray administrative charged with and do the collecting. costs incurred in carrying out the provisions of this section and shall 11. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).

12247 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. STARK: They would do the col- statutes which are under committee ju- lecting? risdiction of other committees. I have MR. JEFFORDS: Yes, that is correct. not done so here. The question is, do MR. STARK: Mr. Chairman, I would we change any statute which is under press my point of order. the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will Committee, and we do not. They are state the point of order. the guardian over those statutes, but MR. STARK: Mr. Chairman, I make a they are not the guardian over any point of order that the jurisdiction of agency which happens to be involved the Internal Revenue Service lies whol- with those statutes. ly within the jurisdiction of the Com- MR. STARK: Mr. Chairman, I think it mittee on Ways and Means. is quite clear that the gentleman, in This amendment, as the gentleman terms of both the committee report and has stated it, would be counting on the in his response to questions here, in Internal Revenue Service to perform his statement on the floor that this the functions as put down under this amendment, although it really says amendment. The amendment would that the Secretary of the Treasury not be in order and would not be with- shall collect any liability, clearly the in the jurisdiction of this committee. intention is that the Internal Revenue THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman Service shall collect W–2 forms, match from Vermont wish to be heard? them against income figures which are MR. JEFFORDS: I certainly do, Mr. now under the law not to be given Chairman. even to the Secretary of the Treasury, As I understand the rules here, I can but are for collecting income tax and ask for an amendment that can be pro- Internal Revenue matters. posed, as can anybody, to the collec- Clearly, the intent of the amendment tion. We could make the State Depart- is to direct the Internal Revenue Serv- ment or anyone else do the collection, ice to participate in that. The jurisdic- but we cannot do what I have not tion of the Internal Revenue Service done, and very specifically have not and all matters pertaining thereto is done in this amendment, which is to under the Committee on Ways and change any statute of the way it is Means. I would ask that this amend- done, which is under the jurisdiction of ment be ruled out of order on that the Committee on Ways and Means. If basis. I am wrong on this, there are so many THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready places in this bill where the same to rule. thing is done that I do not know why The gentleman from California a number of Members have not raised makes the point of order that the points of order. amendment offered by the gentleman We have asked the Postal Service to from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) is not ger- do something; we have asked the social mane to the food stamp title of the security office to do things; we have pending bill. The thrust of the gentle- mandated different agencies all over man’s point of order is that the collec- the place. We do not interfere with any tion procedure for overpayments of

12248 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8 food stamp benefits to persons above Burden of Proof on Whether the poverty level involves responsibil- Amendment Is Germane ities of the Treasury Department, and in effect mandates the establishment of § 8.3 The burden of proof is on regulations which would involve the the proponent of an amend- disclosure of tax returns and tax information and utilization of the Internal ment to establish that it is Revenue Service—all matters within germane, and where the pro- the jurisdiction of the Committee on ponent admits to an interpre- Ways and Means. tation which would render it The Chair notes that the amend- not germane, the Chair will ment does contain the provision that rule it out of order. ‘‘nothing in this section shall be construed to affect in any manner the ap- Argument on a point of order plication of any provision of the Inter- sometimes determines whether a nal Revenue Code of 1954,’’ and it point of order will be sustained or seems to the Chair to follow that, overruled by the Chair. An exam- under the explicit provisions of the ple of the Chair’s reliance on an amendment. Secretary of the Treasury explanation of an amendment of- would therefore have to establish an independent collection procedure sepa- fered by its proponent is found in rate and apart from the mandated use the proceedings of Dec. 11, of the Internal Revenue Service. The 1979,(12) when the Committee of Chair does not have to judge the ger- the Whole had under consider- maneness of the amendment by con- ation the bill H.R. 4962, a bill pro- templating possible future legislative viding Medicare services to low-in- actions of the Congress not mandated come children and pregnant by the amendment. women. A pertinent part of the In the opinion of the Chair, the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury bill text follows: under the rules of the House as col- STUDY AND REPORT ON EFFECTIVENESS lector of overpayments of any sort is OF HEALTH ASSURANCE PROGRAM not subject explicitly and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Com- SEC. 14. (a)(1) The Secretary shall conduct or arrange (through grants mittee on Ways and Means under rule or contracts) for the conduct of an X, and even if this were true, com- ongoing study of the effectiveness of mittee jurisdiction is not an exclusive the child health assurance program test of germaneness where, as here, under section 1913 of the Social Se- the basic thrust of the amendment is curity Act. Not later than two years after the effective date prescribed by to modify the food stamp program—a section 16(a)(1) and each two years matter now before the Committee of thereafter, the Secretary shall report the Whole. The Chair overrules the point of 12. 125 CONG. REC. 35425, 35438, order. 35439, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.

12249 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

to Congress the results of the study whole or in part) under a Federal and include in the report (1) the ef- program or under a program receiv- fect of preventive and primary care ing Federal financial assistance, un- services on the health status of indi- less the patient has authorized such viduals under the age of 21 assessed disclosure and inspection in accord- under such program, (2) the inci- ance with subsection (b). dence of the various disorders identi- (b) A patient authorizes disclosure fied in assessments conducted under and inspection of a medical record the program, and (3) the costs of for purposes of subsection (a) only if, identifying, in such program, such in a signed and dated statement, disorders. he— (2) The authority of the Secretary (1) authorizes the disclosure and to enter into contracts under para- inspection for a specific period of graph (1) shall be effective for any time; fiscal year only to such extent or in (2) identifies the medical record such amounts as are provided in ad- authorized to be disclosed and in- vance in appropriations Acts. spected; and (b) For the fiscal year ending Sep- (3) specifies the agencies which tember 30, 1981, and for each fiscal may inspect the record and to which year thereafter there are authorized the record may be disclosed. to be appropriated for purposes of (c) For purposes of this section: carrying out subsection (a) an (1) The term ‘‘individually identifi- amount equal to one-eighth of 1 per- able medical record’’ means a med- cent of the amount appropriated in ical, psychiatric, or dental record the preceding fiscal year for pay- concerning an individual that is in a ments to States under title XIX of form which either identifies the indi- the Social Security Act for the provi- vidual or permits identification of sion of ambulatory services for indi- the individual through means viduals under the age of 21... (whether direct or indirect) available to the public. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PHILIP M. (2) The term ‘‘medical care’’ in- CRANE cludes preventive and primary med- MR. PHILIP M. CRANE [of Illinois]: ical, psychiatric, and dental assess- Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. ments, care and treatment. The Clerk read as follows: MR. [HENRY A.] WAXMAN [of Cali- Amendment offered by Mr. Philip fornia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a M. Crane: On page 38, following line point of order on the amendment.... 15, insert the following new sub- THE CHAIRMAN: (13) Does the gen- section: tleman from California (Mr. Waxman) (2)(a) No officer, employee, or insist upon his point of order? agent of the Federal Government or MR. WAXMAN: I would like a clari- of an organization conducting med- fication, Mr. Chairman, if I might, be- ical reviews for purposes of carrying fore I pursue whether I have a point of out the study provided for in sub- order. section (a)(1) of this section shall in- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from spect (or have access to) any part of an individually identifiable medical California reserves his point of order, record (as described in subsection (c)) and the gentleman is recognized for his of a patient which relates to medical remaining time under the allocation. care not provided directly by the Federal Government or paid for (in 13. Bruce F. Vento (Minn.).

12250 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

MR. WAXMAN: I would like to make tion, ‘‘No officer, employee, or agent of an inquiry of the gentleman from Illi- the Federal Government’’ pertains spe- nois (Mr. Philip M. Crane) who has of- cifically to the carrying out of the fered the amendment, if I might. The study provided for in subsection (a)(1)? section (2)(a) on page 38 following line Is it specifically addressed to carrying 15 as it would be inserted by this out that study? amendment says: MR. PHILIP M. CRANE: In the process No officer, employee, or agent of of carrying out the study, my under- the Federal Government or of an or- standing is there is a potential for ex- ganization conducting medical re- amination, obviously, of medical views for purposes of carrying out records, and to the extent there is, the study provided for in subsection then I think if they are identifiable (a)(1) of this section shall inspect (or medical records, the potential exists for have access to).... those to come into the hands of Gov- Is this a parenthetical clause: ‘‘Or of ernment officials unbeknownst to the an organization conducting medical re- patient. views for purposes of carrying out the MR. WAXMAN: But I am trying to as- study provided for,’’ or are we also re- certain whether it is limited to car- ferring only to the officers, employees, rying out the study provided for in or agents of the Federal Government subsection (a)(1) and the medical who are conducting medical reviews for records are viewed only for the purpose purposes of carrying out the study? of carrying out that study. MR. PHILIP M. CRANE: If the gen- MR. PHILIP M. CRANE: Does the gentleman will yield, the reason for the tleman mean is it confined to that? seeming redundancy of language was MR. WAXMAN: Yes. to guarantee that there would not be MR. PHILIP M. CRANE: No, it is not. any commission or what I would clas- That would not be my understanding sify as an agent, but which might be of the amendment. open to some debate, or group of pri- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman vate individuals performing a function from California (Mr. Waxman) insist under the auspices of the Federal Gov- on his point of order? ernment. I would define that as an MR. WAXMAN: Mr. Chairman, I am agent and, therefore, that language going to pursue my point of order, would be, then, redundant to that ex- then. tent. My concern is quibbling over fine THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will points of definitions, and to the extent state his point of order. that there is a potential here for some MR. WAXMAN: Mr. Chairman, as I private group with the full authority of read this section without the limitation the Federal Government to conduct that I tried to determine was included these kinds of studies, I want to make there, I believe it is overly broad and, sure that those do not in any way have therefore, not germane, and I make a the possibility of falling into the hands point of order of the fact that it is not of Government officials without the germane to the bill before us. written consent of the patient involved. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman MR. WAXMAN: If I might further in- from Illinois (Mr. Philip M. Crane) quire, is it fair to say that the limita- wish to be heard on the point of order?

12251 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. PHILIP M. CRANE: I do, Mr. through this program if the conduct of Chairman. I think it is, indeed, ger- Federal officers is not to be confined to mane because, Mr. Chairman, the lan- the carrying out of the study in section guage of the amendment, I think, ad- 14. Therefore, the Chair states that the dresses the specific narrow concern point of order is well taken. that the Chairman has upon which he MR. PHILIP M. CRANE: Mr. Chair- bases his point of order, but, on the man, may I direct a question to the other hand, there are implications in chairman of the committee? the language of the bill that I think THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is this additional language in this para- sustained. The amendment is ruled out graph addresses, and that is the poten- of order. tial to go beyond those narrow constraints that I think the gentleman, Burden of Proof, Point of the Chairman, would presume exist within this legislation. Order Against Content of Bill I am less sure and less confident that those restraints are there. I would § 8.4 The burden falls on the argue that the specificity of the first proponents of a provision in part of this sentence that ‘‘No officer, a general appropriation bill employee, or agent of the Federal Gov- to show that it does not con- ernment or of an organization constitute legislation, and the ducting medical reviews for purposes of carrying out the study provided for in’’ Chair will sustain the point that subsection indicated is language of order if the committee or narrow enough to be germane to the other Members do not fulfill intent of the bill. this responsibility. THE CHAIRMAN: Are there further Members who wish to be heard on the During debate under the five- point of order? If not, the Chair is pre- minute rule during consideration pared to rule. of the Labor and Health, Edu- The Chair, in listening to and weigh- cation, and Welfare appropriation ing the arguments, finds that the point bill for fiscal 1978, a provision in of order is well taken. The argument the bill was read by the Clerk, seems to establish that the amendment and a point of order was then offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Philip M. Crane) could go to con- raised against the proviso carried fidentiality of other medical records in the paragraph. The point of that would not otherwise be covered by order was raised by a member of the pending legislation and as such the Committee on Ways and represents, then, too broad an amend- Means, Mr. James C. Corman, of ment. The records could deal with ad- California, who argued that the ditional information that would usually be under the confidentiality of physi- proviso created new and addi- cian-and-patient relationship, that tional duties for officials admin- would be outside the services rendered istering the welfare programs 12252 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8 funded in the paragraph. The resulting from changes in insurance claims filed and claims paid or in- rather elaborate arguments for creased salary costs resulting from and against the point of order il- changes in State salary compensa- lustrate the complexities which tion plans embracing employees of the State generally over those upon sometimes confront the Chair in which the State’s basic grant was determining the effect of a so- based, which cannot be provided for called ‘‘limitation’’ in a general ap- by normal budgetary adjustments: propriation bill. The proceedings Provided That any portion of the ( ) funds granted to a State in the cur- of June 16, 1977, 14 were as fol- rent fiscal year and not obligated by lows: the State in that year shall be returned to the Treasury and credited The Clerk read as follows: to the account from which derived: Provided further, That none of the GRANTS TO STATES FOR UNEMPLOY- funds appropriated or otherwise MENT INSURANCE AND EMPLOY- made available in this paragraph MENT SERVICES shall be obligated or expended to pay For grants for activities authorized Federally funded unemployment by the Act of June 6, 1933, as compensation to an individual who amended (29 U.S.C. 49–49n; 39 refuses employment which pays at U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E); Veterans’ Em- least the prevailing wage and which ployment and Readjustment Act of meets the labor standards specified 1972, as amended (38 U.S.C. 2001– in section 3304(a)(5) of the Internal 2013); title III of the Social Security Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 501– after having received unemployment 503); sections 312 (e) and (g) of the compensation for 26 or more con- Comprehensive Employment and secutive weeks, unless such indi- Training Act of 1973, as amended; vidual is enrolled in a training pro- and necessary administrative ex- gram under the Comprehensive Em- penses for carrying out 5 U.S.C. ployment and Training Act of 1973, 8501–8523, 19 U.S.C. 1941–1944, as amended. 1952, and chapter 2, title II, of the MR. CORMAN: Mr. Chairman, I have Trade Act of 1974, including, upon a point of order. the request of any State, the pay- (15) ment of rental for space made avail- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman able to such State in lieu of grants will state his point of order. for such purpose, $53,600,000, to- MR. CORMAN: Mr. Chairman, I make gether with not to exceed a point of order with respect to the $1,529,000,000, which may be ex- proviso on page 5, beginning with the pended from the Employment Secu- words ‘‘Provided further’’ on line 6 and rity Administration account in the continuing through line 16. This pro- Unemployment Trust Fund, and of which $174,400,000 shall be avail- viso is in violation of clause 2 of rule able only to the extent necessary to XXI, of the Rules of the House. meet increased costs of administra- Clause 2 of rule XXI provides that tion resulting from changes in a no provision in an appropriation bill State law or increased salary costs that changes existing law will be in order. 14. 123 CONG. REC. 19362–64, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

12253 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The proviso on page 5 would prohibit It has been argued that this proviso the use of these appropriated funds for requires no new duties or determina- any administrative costs associated tions beyond those required under sec- with the payment of federally funded tion 3304(a)(5) of the Internal Revenue unemployment compensation benefits Code. This argument is incorrect. to an individual who had refused a job Section 3304(A)(5) prohibits a State paying the prevailing wage, after that from denying benefits to an individual individual had collected 26 or more who has refused a job that pays less weeks of unemployment compensation. than prevailing wages. This section of In order to be in compliance with present law, in other words, prohibits this proviso, unemployment compensa- a State from taking certain actions. It tion agencies will have to either deny does not require a State to do any- benefits to such individuals, or pay for thing, unless a claimant appeals a the administrative costs associated prior State action. In fact, a State can with the payment of benefits to such comply with this section of present law individuals out of State or other Fed- by never denying UC benefits to any- eral funds. Either alternative will im- one on grounds of a refusal to accept pose new duties and require additional work. determinations, not required under The proviso on page 5 of the appro- present Federal law, on the part of the priation bill before us is just the re- administrators of the unemployment verse. It requires unemployment com- compensation program. pensation administrators to make cer- Specifically, both of these alter- tain determinations and take certain natives would require the admin- actions based on those determinations. istering agency, with regard to every Specifically, for every claimant who claimant who had collected 26 or more has collected 26 or more weeks of UC weeks of unemployment compensation, benefits, the administrator must deter- to determine whether or not the indi- mine whether or not he has refused vidual had refused a job paying pre- any job that paid prevailing wages, vailing wages. This determination and, if so, the administrator must ei- would have to be made either for the ther deny him any additional benefits purpose of denying benefits to such in- or recover costs associated with the dividuals or to identify that portion of processing and payments of additional a State’s administrative costs that benefits from a new source of funds. could not be paid out of Federal funds Furthermore, the proviso is in con- provided in this appropriation bill. flict with the work requirement provi- Such a determination is not required sions of the Emergency Unemployment under present Federal law. This pro- Compensation Act of 1977, Public Law viso changes present law in that it re- 95–19, as it applies to individuals who quires this new and costly determina- apply for or are collecting Federal sup- tion on the part of UC administrators. plemental benefits. This law, enacted Furthermore, there are no funds pro- in April of this year, prohibits the pay- vided to cover the costs associated with ment of Federal supplemental benefits this additional determination and re- to an individual who refuses a job, if sponsibility. the job:

12254 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

Is within his capabilities; As I have explained, the proviso on Pays the minimum wage and gross page 5 imposes a new responsibility on wages equal to the individual’s unem- the part of the agencies that admin- ployment benefits, including any sup- ister the unemployment compensation plemental unemployment benefits for program. It requires a costly deter- which the individual is entitled be- mination not required under present cause of agreements with previous em- law and provides no funds to cover the ployers; costs of this additional determination. Is offered in writing or listed with With respect to the Federal supple- the employment service; mental benefits program, it changes, or Meets other requirements of Federal is in conflict with, a provision that, and State law pertaining to suitable or over a period of many weeks, was very disqualifying work that are not incon- carefully formulated and specified. sistent with the three conditions just Consequently, this provision is in stated. violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the The effect of the proviso would be Rules of the House. that, in the 20 States where Federal THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman supplemental benefits are presently from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) desire being paid, there will be two different to be heard on the point of order? and inconsistent Federal work require- MR. [DANIEL J.] FLOOD [of Pennsyl- ments for claimants of Federal supple- vania]: I do, Mr. Chairman. mental benefits who have collected 26 We believe that this language is sim- or more weeks of benefits. ply a limitation on the use of the ap- Present Federal law pertaining to propriated funds in the bill. It gives no the Federal supplemental benefits pro- affirmative direction to the executive gram denies supplemental benefits to branch, in our judgment. It imposes no an individual who refuses a job paying new or additional duties and requires the minimum wage, and provides a no determination that would not nor- number of carefully worked out condi- mally be made. tions, protections, and procedures nec- Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we ask the essary for the proper and effective ad- Chair to overrule the point of order. ministration of this kind of a Federal THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman standard. Whereas, the proviso on from Illinois (Mr. Michel) desire to be page 5 of the bill before us refers to heard on the point of order? ‘‘prevailing’’ rather than ‘‘minimum’’ MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illinois]: wages, which can be substantially dif- Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be ferent. Also the proviso would appear heard on the point of order. to negate all the other conditions, procedures, and protections contained in Nor shall any provision in any present law and carefully developed by such bill or amendment thereto the Committee on Ways and Means. changing existing law be in order,... This clearly constitutes a change in present Federal law pertaining to the This appears to be the real question Federal supplemental benefits pro- involved in the point of order raised by gram. the gentleman from California (Mr.

12255 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Corman). But I would like to ask the there are many rulings that if the present occupant of the chair, who is House has the right not to appropriate so well skilled in the rules and par- funds for a specific purpose authorized liamentary procedures and the prece- by law, then it has the right to appro- dents of the House, to examine the rest priate for only a part of that purpose of that clause. and prohibit the use of money for the Historically this provision has been rest of the purpose authorized by law. amended many times. At one time the This language, I contend, is not a Committee on Rules could not agree as change of law but rather a restriction to the proper position after questions on the use of funds to pay federally arose of increased power which some funded unemployment compensation to said would come to the Committee on those who do not meet certain quali- Appropriations. fications. I mention this for a special reason. If the Chair will indulge us a few Our appropriations process has now further moments, specifically, as the been modified by enactment of the chairman of the subcommittee, the Budget Act and is constantly chal- gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. lenged, as we will no doubt find during Flood) has said, the language is simply consideration of the present bill. The a limitation. It was written as such. It challenge to the appropriation process is limited to the funds appropriated in is currently in the form of limitation this bill. It does not change existing amendments such as the one on this law. It is very similar in nature to the subject, and upon which the Chair is Findley OSHA limitation 3 years ago constantly being called upon for a rul- and to the OSHA and busing limita- ing as to whether it is a proper limitations we considered in connection with tion under this rule and the existing the Labor-HEW bill last year, all of precedents and statutes. which were subject to points of order Having said that, the question again and overruled then by the Chair. is whether the language does in effect This limitation, like the others, is change the existing law. I contend it simply a negative restriction on the does not change existing law and does moneys contained in this bill. not place an additional duty upon the As to those supposedly additional executive officer as a result of this po- duties imposed upon the executive sition. I do not believe that the gen- branch that my friend the gentleman tleman from California (Mr. Corman) from California (Mr. Corman) alludes has adequately demonstrated that the to, let me say: language does change existing law. Prevailing wages are already deter- The rationale behind the precedent mined by the Labor Department. They on the rule for limitations in appro- are determined under Davis-Bacon for priation bills, is that this body has the construction jobs, under the Service right to decline to appropriate for any Contracts Act for jobs involved in such purpose which they deem improper, al- contracts, as part of the certification though that purpose may be author- process for the employment of aliens, ized by law. Based on this premise, and for in-season agricultural jobs. In

12256 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8 addition, and most importantly, when referred, there will be no extra effort an employer lists a job with the Em- required on the part of the Department ployment Service, the Employment then to carry out the limitation lan- Service must determine whether or not guage. the wages paid are ‘‘substandard.’’ The Let me address myself now to the 26 Employment Service considers stand- weeks the gentleman referred to. The ard wages as prevailing wages and limitation does not apply to any bene- substandard wages are thus those fits until after an individual has re- wages falling below prevailing wages. ceived benefits for 26 weeks. The Un- If substandard wages are paid, the job employment Insurance Office keeps listing is so designated, and the Em- track of how long each individual has ployment Service does not refer appli- received benefits. In addition, when a cants to such jobs. recipient of unemployment benefits We can refer further for authority to registers with the Employment Serv- the employment security manual on ice, the Unemployment Insurance Of- that item. Furthermore, under the re- fice tells the Employment Service the quirements of the Federal Unemploy- date when the individual started re- ment Tax Act, an individual cannot be ceiving benefits. So the information as recruited for employment, and unem- to the length of time benefits have ployment benefits cannot be denied to been received and, thus, the point an individual who refuses to accept when 26 weeks have passed is readily work, ‘‘if the wages, hours, or other available and will not require any conditions of the work offered are sub- extra effort. stantially less favorable to the indi- As to when the Federal benefits vidual than those prevailing for similar begin, after the State has concluded its work in the locality.’’ obligation or there is a shared benefit, On that we have authority again the Unemployment Insurance Office from the head, Mr. Weatherford, of the retains separate accounts for benefits Unemployment Compensation Office in paid by different sources of funds, so the Department of Labor. Both of these that when there is a change in the last two standards, in other words, resource of funding for an individual’s quire the Employment Service to deter- benefits such as after 26 weeks when mine the prevailing wage in order to the Federal Government in most cases carry out the standards, and this is pays half, a new bookkeeping trans- being done. Under regulations pre- action takes place. It is a simple mat- scribed by the Secretary of Labor, indi- ter for the unemployment insurance viduals receiving unemployment bene- arm to notify the Employment Service fits are required to register with the arm of this without any increased ef- Employment Service. The limitations fort, since both are part of the same in the bill thus apply to individuals State employment security agency and registered with the Employment Serv- most of the time are located in the ice and jobs listed with the Employ- same suite or facility around the coun- ment Service. Since a determination of try. the prevailing wage is made for the I think there are some other specific jobs listed and to which individuals are points to which we might make ref-

12257 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

erence, but I think that pretty well would not be an additional duty for ought to give the Chair good grounds those particular officials. Therefore the upon which he could overrule the point Chair feels that on this ground and of order raised by the gentleman from some that he would like to read the California. point of order is valid and the Chair THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman will sustain the point of order at the from California (Mr. Corman) desire to conclusion of his statement. be heard further? The gentleman from California MR. CORMAN: I would like to be makes a point of order against the pro- heard for just a moment. There seems viso in the bill on the grounds that it to be some confusion in some minds constitutes legislation on an appropria- about how unemployment compensation bill. tion works. The first 26 weeks is not The proviso prohibits the use of necessarily the State program. The funds in the bill for processing of un- first half of one’s entitlement is that. employment compensation benefits We have just spelled out in substantial after 26 weeks to individuals refusing detail the work requirements under work which pays the prevailing wage. FSB. About 25 percent of those who As indicated by the argument of the draw FSB draw it within the first 26 gentleman from California, the execu- weeks in which they work. After that tive officials administering the pro- period of time we would have legis- gram are not under a responsibility as lated to separate inconsistent work re- they process claims pursuant to exist- quirements, and that is clearly legisla- ing Federal law, to make case-by-case tion on an appropriation bill. It would determinations as to the prevailing be next to impossible for an adminis- wage for positions of employment. The trator to administer because the job re- proviso in the bill would place affirma- quirements would be inconsistent. tive duties on persons whose salaries THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from are paid by funds in this bill to make California has made a very scholarly such determinations. and thorough point of order, and he Despite the excellence of the argu- has received a very scholarly and thor- ment of the gentleman from Illinois, ough reply. This is a very complicated the Chair still feels that the weight of matter and a difficult one for the Chair the argument lies on the side of the to rule on. gentleman from California, and there- The Chair feels that the crux of the fore the Chair, for those reasons and matter lies in whether or not the Fed- the reasons that he has suggested, sus- eral officials who now process unem- tains the point of order and the proviso ployment compensation claims are is stricken. presently required to make a judgment with regard to the refusal of work pay- Burden of Proof That Appro- ing the prevailing wage. priation Authorized The Chair does not believe that the arguments on either side have done § 8.5 The burden of proving anything to demonstrate that this that an item carried in a gen- 12258 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

eral appropriation bill is in tion 111 on the grounds it is not au- fact authorized by law falls thorized in law and lines 17 through to the Committee on Appro- 19 constitute legislation on an appropriation bill. priations, which must cite THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman specific authority for the ap- from Maryland (Mr. Long) desire to propriation. speak to the point of order? On Aug. 3, 1978,(16) during con- MR. [CLARENCE D.] LONG of Mary- land: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the point sideration of the Foreign Aid Ap- of order being made by the gentleman. propriation bill for fiscal 1979, an The language the gentleman refers item was read allowing certain to is not legislation in that it does not funds in the bill to be used for en- direct nor does it require a U.S. Gov- tertaining expenses. When an ernment official to use U.S.-owned for- amendment was raised against eign currencies. It merely states that the paragraph as legislation, the steps should be taken, where possible, to utilize U.S.-owned foreign currencies manager of the bill responded in in lieu of dollars. an imprecise manner. The pro- In addition, in section 612(b) of the ceedings were as follows: Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as The Clerk read as follows: amended, which is the paragraph that authorizes the use of foreign cur- SEC. 111. Of the funds appro- rencies, the following language ap- priated or made available pursuant pears: to this Act, not to exceed $73,900 shall be for entertainment expenses The President shall take all appro- relating to the Military Assistance priate steps to assure that, to the Program, International Military maximum extent possible, United Education and Training, and Foreign States-owned foreign currencies are Military Credit Sales during fiscal utilized in lieu of dollars. year 1979: Provided, That appropriate steps shall be taken to assure Therefore, the language the gen- that, to the maximum extent pos- tleman is raising a point of order sible, United States-owned foreign against is merely a restatement of the currencies are utilized in lieu of dol- language contained in the authorizing lars. legislation and does not constitute leg- MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- islation in an appropriation bill. I ask land]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. for a ruling by the Chair. ( ) THE CHAIRMAN: 17 The gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman will state it. from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) desire to MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Chairman, I make be heard further on the point of order? a point of order against the total sec- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Chairman, the language of section 111 goes well be- 16. 124 CONG. REC. 24252, 95th Cong. yond assigning duties by the President 2d Sess. and assumes by its proviso that the 17. Abraham Kazan, Jr. (Tex.). duties are assigned to anyone that

12259 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

might have the appropriate authority amendment. Following agreement and that certainly goes beyond the to this request, the Chairman in- scope which the gentleman has cited as vited points of order. Mr. James legislative authority for that amount of money, which is entertainment ex- A. Traficant, Jr., of Ohio, then penses. raised a generalized inquiry as THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair feels that follows: the question of authorization may be a The Clerk read as follows: valid point of order. The Chair will call on the chairman of the committee to TITLE II—OPERATION AND show that this sum is authorized. Can MAINTENANCE the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, Long) make such a showing? ARMY MR. LONG of Maryland: Mr. Chair- man, we have no specific authoriza- (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) tion, merely citations. For expenses, not otherwise pro- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair then will vided for, necessary for the operation sustain the point of order and the en- and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; and not to exceed tire section is stricken. $14,437,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, § 8.6 A Member wishing to to be expended on the approval or make a point of order authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be made against a pending paragraph on his certificate of necessity for con- of a bill being read for fidential military purposes; $18,- amendment must specify the 362,945,000:... precise text to which he ob- OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY jects, and a generalized point For expenses, not otherwise proof order against ‘‘anything in vided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Navy and the paragraph which is not the Marine Corps, as authorized by authorized’’ will not be en- law;... tertained by the Chair. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, On June 7, 1991,(18) during the MARINE CORPS consideration in Committee of the For expenses, not otherwise pro- Whole of the Defense appropria- vided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Marine tion bill for fiscal 1992, the bill Corps, as authorized by law; manager, Mr. John P. Murtha, of $2,082,500,000;... Pennsylvania, asked that the title OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR of ‘‘Operation and Maintenance’’ FORCE be considered read and open for For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation 18. 137 CONG. REC. 13973-76, 102d and maintenance of the Air Force, as Cong. 1st Sess. authorized by law;...

12260 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

MR. MURTHA (during the reading): THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would ad- Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con- vise the gentleman from Ohio that the sent that title II be considered as read, gentleman must be specific as to the printed in the Record, and open to provisions against which he makes amendment at any point. points of order. THE CHAIRMAN: (19) Is there objection MR. TRAFICANT: Is the Chair in- to the request of the gentleman from structing the Member that a Member Pennsylvania? cannot request a blanket prohibition of There was no objection. legislation on an appropriation bill in title II of the defense bill? PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, I correct. The Chair is advising the gen- have a parliamentary inquiry. I would tleman that a point of order may be like to inquire of the Chairman if it is made but it must specify the provision in order to ask if there is any legis- of the bill against which it is made. lating on this section of the bill that MR. TRAFICANT: The specificity is, in has not been, in fact, waived from such fact, that any part of the legislation legislating or allowed to legislate by that has not been in fact protected the Rules Committee. I would then be from objection and to be stricken by forced to object to any legislating lan- the Rules Committee. guage that is appropriating in title II THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would re- of the bill. state for the gentleman from Ohio that MR. MURTHA: Mr. Chairman, if the he must specify the provisions in the gentleman will yield, the only thing bill to which he objects and on which that it protected in the language is the he wishes to make a point of order. normal appropriation paragraph pro- MR. TRAFICANT: So the Chair then tection that we afford to the bill or to has ruled that a Member must be spe- parts of the bill when there is no final cific in stating what legislative lan- authorization.... guage there is? MR. TRAFICANT: Further reserving THE CHAIRMAN: Those are the rules my right to object, I am not so sure I of the House. The gentleman may not have an answer. I want to know if enter a general objection to ‘‘such legis- there is any legislation in title II that lation as may be unprotected by waiv- has not been specifically protected er.’’ His point of order must identify from objection on the floor. text and articulate grounds. MR. MURTHA: Sure. MR. TRAFICANT: That he cannot ask MR. TRAFICANT: If there are some for a specific blanket objection for all that have not been protected by the legislative language on an appropria- Rules Committee, then I will object to tion bill that has not been protected any section of title II that is not offi- under the rule? Is that what the cially protected by the Rules Com- Chair’s ruling is? mittee as in fact legislating on an ap- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will propriation bill. elaborate further for the gentleman. The Chair cannot accept the gentle- 19. James L. Oberstar (Minn.). man’s assumption that language may

12261 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

be objectionable merely because there the section under title II, Operation is not a waiver provided for it. That is and Maintenance, Navy, that, in fact, why the practice and precedents of the that section from page 9, line 10, House require that such points of order through, in fact, page 10, line 17, con- be specific. stitutes legislating on an appropriation MR. TRAFICANT: Would it be in order bill. I say it should be stricken unless then, Mr. Chairman, for the gentleman specifically protected by the rule. to read each section of title II and ob- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- ject to them officially and to, in fact, vise the gentleman that the text from reserve the right to object on each spe- page 9, line 10 through the first por- cific section for, in fact, legislating on tion of page 9, line 23 is protected an appropriation bill? under the rule. The balance, beginning THE CHAIRMAN: If the gentleman ob- with ‘‘Provided further’’ on line 23 jects to opening this title, then the through line 17 on page 10 is not pro- Clerk will read by paragraph.... tected. MR. MURTHA: This is the operation MR. TRAFICANT: The gentleman then and maintenance title for the entire officially objects to title II, starting on armed services. This title provides the page 9, line 23, through and continu- training money for the services that ously through page 10, line 17, for, in you are deleting. This is training fact, being legislating on an appropria- money and operation and maintenance tion bill that has not passed through money for the services. an authorizing committee, and it should be stricken. MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would like to have a Buy THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman American in that section.... from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] wish to be heard on the point of order? THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to opening up title II of the bill? MR. MURTHA: We concede it is legislation. However, we want the gen- There was no objection. tleman to know that he is very seri- THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any points ously harming the defense of this coun- of order against title II? try by making these deletions which he POINTS OF ORDER admits himself he is not aware of the impact that they are having on the MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, I bill.... But I have to concede the bring a point of order against title II of point of order. If you want to knock it the bill on page 9, line 10, Operation out, it would be knocked out under the and Maintenance of the Navy, for lan- point of order.... guage which is, in fact, specifically leg- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from islation on an appropriation bill. Ohio will refrain from debating the THE CHAIRMAN: Will the gentleman merits of the bill on his point of order. restate his point of order? The gen- The Chair wishes to advise, again, tleman makes a point of order against that the point of order is made against which line? the two provisos, one beginning on line MR. TRAFICANT: Reserving my right 23, on page 9, and the other beginning to further object, on page 9, line 10, on line 11 on page 10.

12262 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

The gentleman from Pennsylvania THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman has conceded the point of order. Ac- insist on his point of order? cordingly, the two provisos are strick- MR. TRAFICANT: I insist on my point en.... of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. TRAFICANT: The point of order is THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order legislating on an appropriation bill, has been conceded and is sustained, page 11, line 1, through line 11, of the and accordingly, the language on line 1 section of Operation, Maintenance, Ma- of page 11 beginning with ‘‘Provided rine Corps, and I ask that it be strick- further,’’ through line 8, concluding en for legislating on an appropriation with ‘‘decision:’’ is stricken. bill. Are there other points of order THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is against the provisions of title II? advised that on page 11, only lines 1 through 8, after ‘‘September 1, 1992,’’ Burden of Proof Where Point of are unprotected. Order Is Made Against ‘‘Leg- MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, I islation’’ in a General Appro- move that language be stricken. priation Bill THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to be heard on the point of order? § 8.7 The proponent of an MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, I amendment to a general ap- would like an answer on this. propriation bill has the bur- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has den of refuting a point of made his point of order. The Chair has order accompanied by argu- inquired of the chairman of the comment that the amendment-al- mittee whether he wishes to be heard on the point of order. though phrased as a limita- MR. MURTHA: Mr. Chairman, I con- tion on funds-changes exist- cede the point of order.... ing law, and the Chair will I agree with what the gentleman is sustain the point of order trying to do, but what the gentleman is where the proponent of the doing here is decimating things under the normal procedure that are impor- amendment does not cite law tant to the defense of this country. or precedent supporting her MR. TRAFICANT: Continuing my point position. of order, Mr. Chairman, and to On July 17, 1975,(20) during con- respond—— sideration of the Treasury, Postal THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear argument on the point of order, not on Service and general government collateral issues. appropriations for fiscal 1976, an MR. TRAFICANT: Continuing on my amendment was offered in the point of order, Mr. Chairman, this gen- form of a limitation on funds in tleman is not here on any ego trip. I think the procedures of the House have 20. 121 CONG. REC. 23239, 94th Cong. finally brought us to this. 1st Sess.

12263 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS the bill. The chairman of the Sub- and final authority on all postal rates. committee on Treasury, Post Of- The impact of this amendment would be to limit and change that postal rate- fice Appropriations, Mr. Tom making power that is inherent in the Steed, of Oklahoma, who was law creating the Postal Corporation. managing the bill, raised a point If the amendment here is permitted of order that the limitation in fact to prevail then all sorts of amendments interfered with the discretionary affecting the operation of the Postal authority of the Postal Rate Com- Service would be applicable and the whole purpose of the Postal Service mission. The proponent of the Corporation law would be destroyed. amendment declined to be heard So I think it is very imperative since on the point of order, and the this does change the law and the pow- Chair then ruled based on the ar- ers invested in the Rate Commission gument presented by Mr. Steed. that we hold it is obviously legislation on an appropriation bill. MRS. [MILLICENT] FENWICK [of New THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentle- Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an woman from New Jersey desire to be amendment. heard on the point of order? The Clerk read as follows: MRS. FENWICK: No, Mr. Chairman. Amendment offered by Mrs. THE CHAIRMAN: Permit the Chair to Fenwick: Add a new section 613 on direct a question to the gentleman page 45, line 21: ‘‘None of the funds from Oklahoma. appropriated under this Act shall be Is the gentleman’s position such that available to permit Parcel Post to be handled at less than its attributable in his opinion this amounts to a cost.’’ change in law? Would the gentleman speak to that point? MR. STEED: Mr. Chairman, I reserve MR. STEED: Yes. The sole authority a point of order against the amend- to determine what will be charged for ment. parcel post, whether it is more or less ( ) THE CHAIRMAN: 1 The gentleman than cost, is vested in the Postal Rate from Oklahoma reserves a point of Commission and to accept this amend- order.... ment here would limit that authority THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman which would change the law which from Oklahoma insist on his point of vests that total power in that Commis- order? sion. So it would require an action on MR. STEED: I insist on my point of the part not only of the ratemaking order, Mr. Chairman. This amendment Commission but the Postmaster Gen- would have the effect of changing ex- eral in that he does not now have to isting law. The Congress enacted the abide by this sort of demand. Postal Service Corporation bill and cre- The whole purpose of the corporation ated the Rate Commission and dele- was to take the power to do that sort gated to the Rate Commission the sole of thing out of Congress and leave it in the Postal Corporation for the postal 1. B. F. Sisk (Calif.). rate commitment.

12264 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- proposed appropriation, it seems pared to rule. The gentleman from that the proponent of an amend- Oklahoma makes a point of order ment should at least have the against the amendment offered by the burden to come forward with some gentlewoman from New Jersey dealing showing that the language offered with the availability of funds in con- is not legislative in effect. nection with the matter of parcel post where the Postal Service permits parcel post to be handled at less than at- Burden of Proof, Amendment tributable costs. to General Appropriation Bill The Chair feels that the point of order made by the gentleman from § 8.8 The burden of proof is on Oklahoma to the effect that, in es- the proponent of an amend- sence, this changes basic law, must be ment to a general appropria- sustained in light of the fact that the tion bill to show that the Chair does not feel that the gentle- amendment does not have woman from New Jersey has made a the effect of changing exist- sufficient case that it would be otherwise. ing law. Therefore, the Chair is constrained On June 16, 1977,(2) Chairman to sustain the point of order. Bolling, presiding in Committee of Parliamentarian’s Note: Subse- the Whole during the consideration of the Labor and Health, quent analysis of the law sur- Education, and Welfare appropria- rounding the responsibilities of tion bill for fiscal 1978, having the Postal Rate Commission (39 ruled out a proviso in the bill as USC 3622 (b)(3)) and precedents legislative in effect, was faced dealing with limitation language with an amendment which ad- which may curtail discretion sug- dressed the same issue but with a gest that a well-documented argu- modified approach. Again, the ment against the point of order burden of proof was on the advo- might have been successful. cates of the amendment and the Chair ruled that the burden was Before the proceedings reported not met. above there was a paucity of strong precedent on who has the MR. [ROBERT H.] MICHEL [of Illi- nois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend- burden of proof where an amendment. ment is challenged as being legis- THE CHAIRMAN: (3) The Chair feels lative. But by analogy to the that under the circumstances he must precedents under Rule XXI clause recognize the gentleman from Illinois.

2, requiring the committee or 2. 123 CONG. REC. 19364, 19365, 95th Member offering an amendment Cong. 1st Sess. to show an authorization for a 3. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

12265 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The Clerk will report the amend- posing to extend it to all Federal bene- ment. fits after 26 weeks of having received The Clerk read as follows: unemployment benefits. This standard is consistent with the authorizing leg- Amendment offered by Mr. Michel: On page 5, line 6, after ‘‘derived’’, islation, and certainly does not result strike the period and insert in lieu in any additional effort because it is al- thereof, ‘‘: Provided further, That ready determined by the Department none of the funds appropriated or of Labor. otherwise made available in this paragraph shall be obligated or ex- I offer this amendment because I be- pended to pay federally funded un- lieve it is particularly important that employment compensation to an in- we zero in on the problem whereby dividual who refuses employment many of the long-term unemployed which pays the higher of the min- seem to find it more comfortable to imum wage or the average unem- continue to receive unemployment ben- ployment benefit in a state and which meets the labor standards efits rather than take a job that may specified in Section 3304(a)(5) of the be a couple of cuts below what they Federal Unemployment Tax Act may desire.... after having received unemployment THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman compensation for 26 or more con- secutive weeks, unless such indi- from California make the point of vidual is enrolled in a training pro- order and insist on the point of order? gram under the Comprehensive Em- MR. CORMAN: Mr. Chairman, I insist ployment and Training Act of 1973, on the point of order. as amended.’’ THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will listen MR. [JAMES C.] CORMAN [of Cali- to the gentleman, of course, to make fornia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a the point of order and the argument point of order. for it; but the Chair, while no expert THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from on unemployment, is concerned about California has reserved a point of having the argument go to the ques- order, and the gentleman from Illinois tion of when the Federal official, who is recognized for 5 minutes. must make a determination on the MR. MICHEL: Mr. Chairman, in view payment of unemployment compensa- of the ruling by the Chair, I am offer- tion, has to make a determination with ing amended language which seeks to regard to a job that has been refused, overcome the point of order problem. that pays a certain level of wage. The Instead of using the prevailing wage as Chair is interested in knowing the tim- the standard, I am using the minimum ing on that in the discussion that will wage or the average State unemploy- come forth. ment benefit payment level, whichever MR. CORMAN: Mr. Chairman, I thank is higher. the Chairman for that guidance. This is the language which is al- There is considerable confusion as to ready in the law for recipients of Fed- what periods of time, which programs eral supplemental benefits. That pay an unemployed worker. Those who standard applies to recipients after 39 are entitled to the maximum period of weeks of benefits, and I am simply pro- unemployment insurance have 26

12266 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8 weeks of regular insurance paid for out apply suitability of work requirement, of State employer taxes, the adminis- which is totally inconsistent, but was tration for which is paid for out of Fed- the direction of the Congress for those eral employer taxes. people drawing FSB within the first 23 At the end of that 26 weeks, if he weeks. There is no question but that has not been employed, he has an ad- there would be an additional require- ditional 13 weeks called extended un- ment on administrators to ascertain employment benefits. That is paid, the suitability of work inconsistent one-half out of State employer tax, one- with and different from their own half out of Federal employer tax, and State requirements and the recently- the administration for which is paid passed Federal requirement. That is out of Federal funds. During all of that my point of order. period of time the suitability of work THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman requirement is based on State law, from Illinois desire to be heard? with a Federal minimum below which MR. MICHEL: Only to say, Mr. Chair- suitability may not fall. man, that what the gentleman is say- After that 39-week period there is a ing about what conditions do prevail, Federal supplemental benefit program other than the wage, after 39 weeks, which has been triggered in some 22 we are simply seeking to impose at the States. In those States where the un- expiration of the 26 weeks. All that in- employment rate is over 6 percent, one formation is at hand, and there are ab- draws an additional 13 weeks financed solutely no additional duties required. totally out of the Federal Treasury. For We are simply tightening up 13 weeks that 13 weeks, there is a Federal suitability of work requirement which was on what the gentleman’s position is adopted by this House this year. It is with respect to what flows after 39 a reasonably good one; it is not the one weeks. read by the gentleman from Illinois; it It is perfectly in order that what we is very different from that. are doing here again, I say, is a limita- Now, the dilemma is that about a tion. Under chapter 25, section 10, third of the employees who are draw- Deschler’s Procedure, it is not in order ing benefits do not draw the maximum in an appropriation bill to insert by benefit, and so in that first 26 weeks way of amendment a proposition which some would be totally under the State places additional duties on the execu- program; some for a portion of the time tive officer, but the mere requirement would be under State and State/Fed- that the executive officer be the recipi- eral; and some would be under State, ent of information is not considered as State/Federal and totally Federal. imposing upon him any additional bur- There is nothing that can disclose at dens, and is in order. There are, of what period of time one triggers in, be- course, ample precedents for that. I cause whatever his entitlement may rest my case. be, it is one-half State, a quarter State/ MR. CORMAN: I may just respond to Federal, and a quarter Federal. the one point, Mr. Chairman, by say- The greatest problem of all for the ing that the amendment proposed is administrator would be attempting to not consistent with the Federal supple-

12267 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

mental benefit requirements. Even if it point of order that the language were, I believe a point of order would was intended to impose new du- lie, but it is not consistent. ties and sustained a point of order THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state that the amendment violated Rule again that this is a very difficult and complicated problem. The Chair feels XXI clause 2. The proceedings of ( ) that, although the gentleman from Illi- June 14, 1978, 5 relevant to the nois has made a strong argument, that amendment and the Chair’s ruling the Chair is required by the precedents are carried below. to construe limitations strictly. The weight of the argument, in the Chair’s MR. [R. LAWRENCE] COUGHLIN [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer opinion, falls on the side of the gen- an amendment, my amendment No. 2. tleman from California, and the Chair, The Clerk read as follows: for the reasons stated in his prior ruling (4) and after hearing the additional Amendment offered by Mr. Cough- argument made by the gentleman from lin: On page 6, after line 23, insert California, sustains the point of order the following new section: against the amendment. SEC. 102. (a) None of the funds appropriated by any provision described in subsection (b) shall be ex- Construing the Rule Against pended or obligated for any purpose Legislating in Appropriation specified in such provision unless such funds so expended or obligated Bill are subject to audit by the Comp- troller General of the United States. § 8.9 Where an amendment to a (b) For purposes of subsection (a), general appropriation bill is any provision in Title I of this Act following the provision relating to subject to two interpreta- ‘‘COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS’’ tions, one of which would and preceding the heading ‘‘JOINT ITEMS’’ is a provision described in render the amendment sub- this subsection.... ject to a point of order, the (Mr. Coughlin asked and was given Chair strictly construed the permission to revise and extend his re- rule against legislating in an marks.) appropriation bill and sus- MR. [GEORGE E.] SHIPLEY [of Illi- tained a point of order nois]: Mr. Chairman, may I make an inquiry? I was unable to determine against the amendment. which amendment this is. Where an amendment was of- MR. COUGHLIN: The amendment No. fered to a general appropriation 2, which I believe the gentleman has. bill, similar to one held in order in MR. SHIPLEY: I might want to reserve a point of order, but I am not a previous Congress as a proper sure which amendment the gentleman limitation, the Chair was con- is offering. vinced by the argument on the 5. 124 CONG. REC. 17650, 17651, 4. See § 8.4, supra. 17667, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.

12268 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: (6) The extend in any way the present audit Clerk will again report the amend- system that we have now in the ment. House? The Clerk rereported the amend- MR. COUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, I ment. yield to the gentlewoman from Massa- MR. COUGHLIN: I raise a point of chusetts. order, Mr. Chairman. I thought that MRS. HECKLER: Mr. Chairman, it ex- we were on my 5 minutes. tends the authority that now exists in THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The law but is not necessarily a change in gentleman from Pennsylvania had not existing law. It affirms the authority of proceeded to his debate. the GAO which presently exists in the MR. SHIPLEY: Mr. Chairman, I re- House; however, I do not believe that serve a point of order on the amend- the GAO is able to examine Members’ ment. accounts and this amendment clarifies MR. COUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, this that authority. However, it does not is identical to an amendment offered mandate audits across the board of last year by the gentlewoman from every Member at any particular time. Massachusetts (Mrs. Heckler) and the MR. SHIPLEY: Mr. Chairman, would gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. the gentlewoman answer another ques- Chisholm) to provide for a GAO audit tion for me again. I am not quite clear of Members and committee accounts. It in my own mind what exactly would is the identical amendment that was this amendment require the Comp- raised at that time. It was not objected troller General to do specifically? to on a point of order.... MRS. HECKLER: I believe that this MR. SHIPLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would amendment would provide an expan- like to ask exactly what would take sion of the number of accounts which place in this type of audit. the GAO is presently auditing includ- MR. COUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, I ing the tax-funded accounts of Mem- yield to the gentlewoman from Massa- bers of Congress and our legislative chusetts (Mrs. Heckler). committees, as covered by the general MRS. [MARGARET M.] HECKLER [of legislative appropriation bill. We are in Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, the op- this bill dealing with an appropriation erations of the Comptroller General of $992 million. I believe that these under this amendment would continue public funds should be subject to audit. as under existing circumstances in This amendment merely affirms the that site at the Capitol where the office legal authority to the GAO to conduct is presently located. The authority such audits. would provide an audit of Members’ ac- MR. SHIPLEY: Mr. Chairman, I still counts and committee accounts. It reserve my point of order.... would provide that authority to be uti- Mr. Chairman, I would like to be lized by the GAO. heard on the point of order. MR. SHIPLEY: Mr. Chairman, if the Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point gentleman will yield further, does it of order. Mr. Chairman, I object to the 6. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.). amendment and make a point of order

12269 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

against it on the grounds that it im- such principles and procedures and poses additional duties on the Comp- under such rules and regulations as troller General and, as such, is in vio- may be prescribed by the Comp- troller General of the United States. lation of clause 2, rule XXI of the House. The additional duties implied In a memorandum to the Comp- by the amendment might involve the troller General from the general coun- Comptroller General insisting that sel of the General Accounting Office, time and attendance reporting systems the following language appeared: be set up in Members and committee Our authority under the Budget offices and may require setting up an- and Accounting Act, 1921, to inves- nual and sick leave systems and in- tigate all matters relating to the re- volve examination of Members’ per- ceipt, disbursement, and application sonal diaries, perhaps even their per- of public funds also extends to the Congress. sonal financial records. These are duties and procedures clearly beyond the I continue to quote from the memo- offices of the Comptroller General’s randum, as follows: present audit authority. Under para- Similarly, our authority in the Ac- graph 842 of clause 2, rule XXI: counting and Auditing Act of 1950 to An amendment may not impose audit all financial transactions, not additional duties, not required by limited to accountable officer trans- law, or make the appropriation con- actions, extends to legislative tingent upon the performance of agencies... such duties . . . then it assumes the Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that character of legislation and is subject the General Accounting Office already to a point of order. has the authority and the duty to audit MR. COUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, may the accounts of the legislative branch, I be heard further on the point of and this amendment in no way ex- order? pands or extends that authority. The THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The General Accounting Office has taken a gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. position that it is interested in having Coughlin) is recognized. an expression of the will of the legisla- MR. COUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, let tive branch as to whether it wishes the me say that the amendment imposes General Accounting Office to carry out no additional duties on the General Ac- that function. This amendment would counting Office. It proposes that these be an expression of that will. accounts be subject to audit by the Mr. Chairman, the amendment GAO. would in no way expand the authority of the General Accounting Office or im- Title 31, section 67, of the United pose additional duties on the General States Code annotated says as follows: Accounting Office; it would only make . . . the financial transactions of these accounts subject to audit. each executive, legislative, and judi- MR. SHIPLEY: Mr. Chairman, may I cial agency, including but not limited to the accounts of accountable offi- be heard further on my point of order? cers, shall be audited by the General THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The Accounting Office in accordance with Chair will hear the gentleman.

12270 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

MR. SHIPLEY: Mr. Chairman, in the THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The colloquy with the gentlewoman from Chair sustains the point of order. . . . Massachusetts (Mrs. Heckler), she MR. COUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, I stated that the amendment would ex- offer an amendment. tend the present authority of the GAO. The Clerk read as follows: Again, Mr. Chairman, I press my Amendment offered by Mr. Cough- point of order. lin: On page 6, after line 23, insert the following new section: MR. COUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, if I SEC. 102. None of the funds appro- may be heard further on the point of priated on pages 2 through 6 of this order, I will say in answer to the gen- Act shall be made available for obli- tleman from Illinois (Mr. Shipley) that gation unless such funds are subject I do not think the amendment would to audit by the Comptroller General of the United States in accordance extend the present authority of the with the provisions of title 31, sec- GAO. tion 67 of the U.S.C.A. THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is ready to rule. Burden of Proof Where Lan- The Chair certainly agrees that the guage Is Susceptible to More language in the amendment is ambig- Than One Interpretation uous. The Chair takes into account, however, the debate, and the debate as § 8.10 The proponent of an observed by the Chair indicates the amendment to a general ap- amendment certainly does extend the authority of the Comptroller General propriation bill has the bur- and is subject to a point of order. den of proving that the The Chair does recognize that there amendment does not change are conflicting interpretations of the existing law and, if in the amendment under discussion. How- form of a ‘‘limitation’’ falls ever, the Chair has a duty under the within the categories of per- precedents to construe the rule against missible limitations delin- legislation strictly where there is an ambiguity. The Chair feels he must eated in the precedents aris- sustain the point of order based on the ing under Rule XXI clause 2; interpretations given the amendment and if the amendment is sus- during the debate. ceptible to more than one in- MR. COUGHLIN: Mr. Chairman, may terpretation, it is incumbent I inquire, is the debate subject to a on the proponent to show point of order? that it is not in violation of THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will state that it has to make a the rule. determination based on the debate, On July 28, 1980,(7) the Com- and the Chair sustains the point of mittee of the Whole had under order. MRS. HECKLER: Mr. Chairman, may 7. 126 CONG. REC. 19924, 19925, 96th I be heard? Cong. 2d Sess.

12271 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS consideration the Housing and propriations to a specific time; but I re- Urban Development-independent spectfully suggest that the fact the agencies appropriation bill, fiscal gentleman has added the words, ‘‘No more than’’ is still not, in fact, a limita- 1981. An amendment offered by tion. Mr. Herbert E. Harris, II, of Vir- The House has long established and ginia, to the bill was a restriction, the Committee has long established not on the amount of funds in the that Congress does have the right to bill, but on the timing of their ob- limit how money shall be spent for a ligation. specific purpose. I quote: The House’s practice has estab- MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I offer lished the principle that certain ‘‘lim- an amendment. itations’’ may be admitted. It being The Clerk read as follows: established that the House under its rules may decline to appropriate for Amendment offered by Mr. Harris: a purpose authorized by law, so it Page 45, after line 23, insert the fol- may by limitation prohibit the use of lowing: money for part of the purpose, while SEC. 413. No more than an appropriating for the remainder of it. amount equal to 20 percent of the total funds appropriated under this The first precedent that I want to Act for any agency for any fiscal year cite is Hinds’ Precedents, volume IV, and apportioned to such agency pur- section 3936, where on January 17, suant to section 3679 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (31 1896, the Chairman of the Committee U.S.C. 665) may be obligated during of the Whole, Nelson Dingley, ruled: the last two months of such fiscal The House in Committee of the year. Whole has the right to refuse to ap- The point of order raised propriate for any object which it may deem improper, although that object against the amendment by Mr. may be authorized by law; and it has John T. Myers, of Indiana, the been contended, and on various occa- ranking member of the sub- sions sustained by the Committee of the Whole, that if the Committee has committee bringing the bill to the the right to refuse to appropriate floor, and the response to the anything for a particular purpose au- point of order by the proponent of thorized by law, it can appropriate for only a part of that purpose and the amendment, as well as the prohibit the use of the money for the Chair’s ruling are carried below. rest of the purpose authorized by law. THE CHAIRMAN: (8) Does the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Myers) insist Mr. Chairman, it has been firmly es- on his point of order? tablished a number of times, I could go MR. MYERS of Indiana: I do, Mr. on and quote, on January 31, 1925, the Chairman. Chairman of the Committee of the Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has Whole, John Tilson of Connecticut, offered an amendment to limit the ap- ruled: Congress may appropriate for one 8. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.). subject authorized by law and refuse

12272 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

to appropriate for another object au- vantage of saving money for the Execu- thorized by law. tive, which we all should be interested This firmly establishes the principle in, and I certainly am, too; but Mr. that a limitation must apply to a spe- Chairman, rule 843 provides that you cific purpose or an object. cannot take away that discretionary authority of the Executive. Mr. Chairman, this does not do that. This attempt in this amendment I further cite that on June 25, Chair- does take that discretionary authority man Sharp of Indiana sustained a to save money, to wisely allocate point of order that was asked by this money prudently and it takes away, I gentleman on an appropriation bill, think, authority that we rightfully that he limits the discretionary power should keep with the Executive, that of the executive. you can accumulate funds and spend Now, this particular amendment has them in the last quarter if it is to the been remedied somewhat, or there has advantage of the taxpayer and the Ex- been an attempt to remedy, in citing ecutive. section 3679 of the revised statutes of Mr. Chairman, this clearly is in vio- United States Code 31 U.S. 665. lation of the rules of the House. Now, Mr. Chairman, the rules of the THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman House of Representatives, rule XXI, from Virginia desire to be heard? section 843, says this: MR. HARRIS: I do, Mr. Chairman. In construing a proposed limita- Mr. Chairman, let me first address tion, if the Chair finds the purpose to be legislative, in that the intent is the last point, probably because it is to restrict executive discretion to a the weakest that the gentleman has degree that it may be fairly termed made with respect to his point of order. a change in policy rather than a With respect to the discretion that matter of administrative detail he we are in any way limiting the Presi- should sustain the point of order. dent, we cannot limit the discretion The key here, Mr. Chairman, is that which we have not given the President if the intent is to restrict executive dis- directly through legislation. There is cretion to agree that it may be fairly no discretion with regard to legislation termed a change in policy rather than that we have overtly legislated and a matter of administrative detail he given to the President. should sustain the point of order. Mr. Chairman, section 665(c)(3) of Mr. Chairman, the fact that you are title 31 of the United States Code, limiting here, not directing, but lim- which states the following: iting the authority to the last 2 months Any appropriation subject to ap- how much may be spent takes away pointment shall be distributed as the discretionary authority of the Exec- may be deemed appropriate by the utive which might be needed in this officers designated in subsection (d) case. It clearly is more than an admin- of this section to make apportion- ments and reapportionments. istrative detail when you limit and you take away the right of the Executive to Clearly grants agency budget officers use the funds prudently, to take ad- the discretionary authority to appor-

12273 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

tion the funds in a manner they deem The application of any limitation appropriate. My amendment would not on an appropriation bill places some interfere with this authority to appor- minimal extra duties on Federal officials, who, if nothing else, must de- tion funds. On the contrary, my termine whether a particular use of amendment reaffirms this section of funds falls within that prohibited by the United States Code, as Deschler’s the limitation. Procedures, in the U.S. House of Rep- resentatives, chapter 26, section 1.8, The fact of the matter, Mr. Chair- states: man, is that this is a very carefully drawn limitation on appropriations. It The provision of the rule forbid- is consistent with a number of previous ding in any general appropriation rulings of the Chair. bill a ‘‘provision changing existing law’’ is construed to mean the enact- Mr. Chairman, I would urge my col- ment of law where none exists, or a league to withdraw his point of order, proposition for repeal of existing law. because even a narrow interpretation Existing law may be repeated ver- of the rules will not satisfy the other batim in an appropriation bill, but body on this. The other body has made the slightest change of the text causes it to be ruled out. it clear that this restriction will go into the appropriation bill. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, as I think it is a shame, after this the Chair will note, specifically re- House has voted this past week 350 to states by reference the existing law, 52, that it not go ahead and enact this which in no way gives discretion as to type of provision on the HUD bill. I spending, but gives discretion as to ap- think the Members want to vote for it. portionment. I think the Members should be per- Mr. Chairman, as the Chair knows, mitted to vote for it. I think it is a the budget execution cycle has many shame to just allow the other body to steps. Whereas the Chair’s earlier rul- take the initiative on what I think is ing related to the executive branch au- an extraordinarily important reform in thority to apportion, my amendment our budgetary process. addresses the obligation rate of funds THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman appropriated under the fact. As OMB from Indiana desire to be heard fur- circular No. A–34 (July 15, 1976) titled ther? ‘‘Budget Execution’’ explains: MR. MYERS of Indiana: I do, Mr. Apportionment is a distribution Chairman. made by OMB. The citation cited by the gentleman Obligations are amounts of orders from Virginia points to the fact that placed, contracts awarded, services received, and similar transactions. this amendment, if adopted, would cause the Executive to unwisely allo- Mr. Chairman, my amendment pro- cate and spend money in quarters ear- poses some additional duties, but only lier or in the year earlier when it a very minimal additional duty upon might not be wise to spend it. This the executive branch. amendment, while the intent I do not Deschler’s chapter 26, section 11.1 disagree with, the spirit that would be says: carried out would cause the Executive

12274 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8 to allocate and spend money unwisely gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Harris) because it was forced by this amend- ‘‘changes existing law.’’ Under the ment to allocate a portion according to precedents in Deschler’s Procedure, this. But the amendment does not do chapter 26, section 1.12, the proponent what the gentleman aspires for it to of an amendment has the burden of do. proving that the amendment does not THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman change existing law. from Texas desire to be heard? The Chair feels that the basic ques- If not, the Chair is prepared to rule tion addressed by the point of order is based upon the arguments made with as follows: Does the absence in the respect to the point of order. precedents of the House of any ruling In the first instance, the Chair holding in order an amendment which would observe that it is not the duty of attempts to restrict not the purpose or the Chair or the authority of the Chair object or amount of appropriation, but to rule on the wisdom or the legislative to limit the timing of the availability of effect of amendments. funds within the period otherwise covered by the bill require the Chair to Second, the Chair will observe that conclude that such an amendment is the gentleman from Virginia, in the not within the permissible class of way in which his amendment has been amendments held in order as limita- drafted, satisfies the requirements of tions? The precedents require the the Apportionment Act, which was the Chair to strictly interpret clause 2, subject of a prior ruling of the Chair in rule XXI, and where language is sus- connection with another piece of legis- ceptible to more than one interpreta- lation. tion, it is incumbent upon proponent of The Chair agrees with the basic the language to show that it is not in characterization made by the gen- violation of the rule (Deschler’s chapter tleman from Indiana that the prece- 25, section 6.3). dents of the House relating to limita- In essence, the Chair is reluctant, tions on general appropriation bills based upon arguments submitted to stand for the proposition that a limita- him, to expand the doctrine of limitation to be in order must apply to a spe- tions on general appropriation bills to cific purpose, or object, or amount of permit negative restrictions on the use appropriation. The doctrine of limita- of funds which go beyond the amount, tions on a general appropriation bill purpose, or object of an appropriation, has emerged over the years from rul- and the Chair therefore and accord- ings of Chairmen of the Committee of ingly sustains the point of order. the Whole, and is not stated in clause 2, rule XXI itself as an exception from Burden of Proving Authoriza- the prohibition against inclusion of provisions which ‘‘change existing law.’’ tion for Appropriation Thus the Chair must be guided by the most persuasive body of precedent § 8.11 The burden of proof to made known to him in determining cite the authorization to sus- whether the amendment offered by the tain an appropriation for a 12275 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

project is on the proponent THE CHAIRMAN: (10) Is there objection of the amendment. to the request of the gentleman from Maryland? ( ) On Oct. 29, 1991, 9 when an There was no objection. amendment dealing with an envi- MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- ronmental study was offered to sylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a the dire emergency appropriation point of order against the amendment. bill in 1991, a point of order MR. [JAMES A.] HAYES of Louisiana: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of against the amendment was sus- order, as well, against the amendment. tained where no authorization MR. GILCHREST: . . . The point of was cited. order is not well taken. Mr. Chairman, just before I came to AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. the House floor, someone told me, and GILCHREST it was an interest group, that wetlands The Clerk read as follows: should not be a science issue. It should be a political issue. Well, I take issue Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest: Page 10, after line 20, in- with that statement. We need the sert the following new paragraph: science. We need wetlands determination. We need a policy based on fact, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION not a policy based on politics. AGENCY POINT OF ORDER STUDY OF WETLANDS DELINEATION THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman For necessary expenses for entering into an arrangement with the from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] insist on National Academy of Sciences to con- his point of order? duct a study to examine the sci- MR. HAYES of Louisiana: Mr. Chair- entific basis for methods used in man, yes, I do. identifying and delineating wetlands (including the Federal manual for I make a point of order against the Identifying and Delineating Jurisdic- amendment, because it proposes to tional Wetlands, published January change existing law, constituting legis- 10, 1989, revisions to such manual lation in an appropriation bill, there- proposed by the Environmental Pro- fore, violating clause 2 of rule XXI, the tection Agency on August 14, 1991, and previous manuals and meth- rule which states in pertinent part odologies), $500,000. that no amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if chang- MR. [WAYNE T.] GILCHREST [of Mary- ing existing law. land] (during the reading): Mr. Chair- This amendment imposes additional man, I ask unanimous consent that the duties. It, in fact, instructs the EPA to amendment be considered as read and make and enter into an arrangement printed in the Record. with the National Academy of Sciences all of this to include, by specific ref- 9. 137 CONG. REC. 28791, 28792, 28802, 102d Cong. 1st Sess. 10. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).

12276 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8 erence of this amendment, the Federal The Chair is unaware of any current manual for identifying and delineating statutory authorization for the activi- jurisdictional wetlands, all of which ties called for in the amendment and, comes under section 404 of the Clean consequently, the reasons stated by the Water Act, the appropriate jurisdiction gentleman from Louisiana constitute a of which belongs with the Committee violation of clause 2, rule XXI. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and The Chair sustains the point of the Committee on Public Works and order.... Transportation. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. There is no doubt but that this is, in GILCHREST fact, imposing legislative intent upon an appropriation bill, and I ask for a MR. GILCHREST: Mr. Chairman, I ruling from the Chair. offer an amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman The Clerk read as follows: from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] wish to Amendment offered by Mr. be heard on the point of order. Gilchrest: Page 15, after line 20, in- MR. GILCHREST: Mr. Chairman, we sert the following new chapter: are not legislating an appropriation. STUDY OF WETLANDS DELINEATION MR. HAYES of Louisiana: Mr. Chair- man, I have a question for the gen- For necessary expenses for entering into an arrangement with the tleman. National Academy of Sciences to con- The question would be: Is it not that duct a study to examine the sci- the exact language says that the Envi- entific basis for methods used in ronmental Protection Agency will have identifying and delineating wetlands, the expenses for entering into an ar- for purposes of the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and their rangement with the National Academy habitat, as authorized by 16 U.S.C., of Sciences? I am reading directly from 742f. $500,000. the amendment. Therefore, this is an appropriation of $500,000 for the ex- MR. GILCHREST: Mr. Chairman, this press and sole purpose of entering into is the same amendment that I offered earlier. We have cleared up some of an arrangement with the National the problems with the amendment. Academy of Sciences which is, in fact, The purpose of the amendment is for a legislating on an appropriation bill and study, I am asking for this study for imposing the additional duties on the the purposes of conservation, fish and EPA, duties which are not in existence wildlife resources, and their habitat. now. MR. GILCHREST: We are appro- Chair’s Ability To Look Behind priating money for a study. We are not legislating here. Proponents Characterization MR. HAYES of Louisiana: Mr. Chair- of Motion man, I would just proceed to ask the Chair for a ruling. § 8.12 Where a motion to con- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- cur in a Senate amendment pared to rule. with an amendment was of- 12277 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

fered as ‘‘preferential,’’ the The Clerk read as follows: Speaker Pro Tempore, with- Mr. Bauman moves to recede and out the benefit of a point of concur in the amendment of the Sen- ate, (No. 95) with an amendment as order from the floor, on his follows: In lieu of the matter stricken own initiative declared that and inserted by said amendment in- the motion did not in fact sert the following: qualify for that status and CHAPTER VI recognized another Member FOREIGN OPERATIONS to offer a motion to concur with an amendment. On ap- FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE peal, the Chair was sus- PRESIDENT tained. INTERNATIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE On July 2, 1980,(11) the House For an additional amount to carry out the provisions of Section 491 of had under consideration a series the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, of amendments reported in dis- as amended, $43,000,000 to remain agreement from conference. A mo- available until expended. tion offered by Mr. Jamie L. Whit- PAYMENT TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE ten, of Mississippi, to disagree RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND with a particular Senate amend- For an additional amount for ‘‘Pay- ment was pending. The manager ment to the Foreign Service Retire- of the conference report, Mr. Clar- ment and Disability Fund’’, ence D. Long, of Maryland, then $1,020,000. offered a preferential motion to OPERATING EXPENSES concur in the Senate amendment For an additional amount for ‘‘Op- with a further amendment. This erating Expenses of the Agency for motion was also rejected. At this International Development’’, point, Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of $2,000,000, to remain available until expended. Maryland, offered a ‘‘preferential’’ motion to concur with an amend- MR. BAUMAN (during the reading): ment. The proceedings following Mr. Speaker, that happens to be the the rejection of Mr. Long’s motion end of the motion. I am not sure why were then as indicated below. the gentleman is reading further. That is the end of the motion I sent to the PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. desk. BAUMAN

MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I offer a PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY preferential motion. MR. [ALLEN E.] ERTEL [of Pennsyl- vania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- 11. 126 CONG. REC. 18357, 18359–61, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. liamentary inquiry.

12278 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (12) The MR. ERTEL: Mr. Speaker, I have an gentleman will state his parliamentary additional parliamentary inquiry. inquiry. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. ERTEL: Mr. Speaker, how is this gentleman from Pennsylvania will particular amendment a preferential state his additional parliamentary in- motion? quiry. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. ERTEL: Mr. Speaker, did we not gentleman rose and was recognized to though vote to recede and concur in offer a preferential motion. The Clerk the Senate amendment previously? has not completed the reading of the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion. House has, on reconsideration refused MR. BAUMAN: The gentleman from to concur in the Senate amendment Maryland would advise the Speaker No. 95 with an amendment. that the Clerk has completed reading The Clerk will continue to read the the motion that I sent to the desk. I motion. am not sure what the Clerk is now reading. The Clerk read as follows: THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Has the Mr. Bauman moves to concur in Clerk finished reading the motion? the amendment of the Senate (No. The Clerk will rereport the motion. 95) with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken and in- MR. ERTEL (during the reading): Mr. serted by said amendment insert the Speaker, I reserve a point of order. following: THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves CHAPTER VI a point of order. FOREIGN OPERATIONS

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT MR. ERTEL: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. INTERNATIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The For an additional amount to carry gentleman will state his parliamentary out the provisions of Section 491 of inquiry. the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, MR. ERTEL: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as amended, $43,000,000 to remain as the motion was partially read be- available until expended. fore, how is this a preferential motion PAYMENT TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE which the gentleman has been recog- RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND nized for; on what basis? For an additional amount for ‘‘Pay- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ment to the Foreign Service Retire- Long amendment having been to con- ment and Disability Fund’’, cur with an amendment and being de- $1,020,000. feated, another motion to concur with an amendment is a preferential mo- OPERATING EXPENSES tion. For an additional amount for ‘‘Op- erating Expenses of the Agency for 12. Paul Simon (Ill.). International Development’’,

12279 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

$2,000,000, to remain available until have to vote on it, in essence returns expended.... the House to the position that we went to the conference with on the foreign THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Maryland is recog- aid issue. It provides amounts of nized. money for three funds that the administration informed the House was nec- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY essary for inclusion in the supplemental appropriation bill. It does not MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, under include any of the funding which was the rules, does not the gentleman from added by the other body and, therefore, Mississippi have the time? I would like amounts to roughly about $46 mil- for him to yield to me, but I believe he lion.... has the time. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate MR. LONG of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, only I yield to the gentleman from New I have a preferential motion. York (Mr. McEwen). MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have MR. [ROBERT C.] MCEWEN [of New been recognized, I believe. York]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gen- MR. LONG of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, tleman for yielding. I was on my feet. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: For

POINT OF ORDER what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts rise? MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, a point MR. [THOMAS P.] O’NEILL [Jr., of of order. Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, in view THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The of the fact that the gentleman from gentleman will state the point of order. Maryland did not offer a preferential MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have motion, I offer a preferential motion the floor and I do not yield. that is at the desk. MR. LONG of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I did not I was on my feet for a preferential mo- yield to the gentleman to offer a motion. tion. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: On this MR. O’NEILL: I was recognized. motion the gentleman from Maryland MR. BAUMAN: Well, I did not yield (Mr. Bauman) has the time. for that purpose, Mr. Speaker. I control MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would the time, do I not? like to take my time at this point. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) has 30 minutes, the majority Bauman) is recognized. side has 30 minutes. MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not Does the gentleman from Maryland want to complicate an already com- wish to use more time? plicated situation. The motion which I MR. BAUMAN: I do and I was in the have just offered, and the Members course of using the time when I was should at least try and understand it interrupted. I do not believe I can be because we are apparently going to interrupted unless I yield.

12280 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The recede from the position of the House. gentleman from Maryland may pro- At that point—— ceed. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the MR. BAUMAN: I do not yield for that Chair could—the House has not voted purpose. I yield for debate only to to reconsider the motion to recede—— the—— MR. BAUMAN: Precisely. That is what MR. O’NEILL: I want the House to the gentleman from Maryland is ob- know that I reserve my right and be- serving, that the House has voted to fore the previous question is put, I will recede from its position. At that point offer for a preferential motion. a preferential motion to concur with an MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I yield to amendment is in order. That is what the gentleman from New York for the the gentleman from Maryland has of- purpose of debate only.... fered. My parliamentary inquiry is that the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: What the House has done is to recede from Chair stated a moment ago that the its initial disagreement, not from the time on a preferential motion to concur House position. with an amendment is divided between MR. BAUMAN: Well, is not the gen- the majority and the minority. Is it not tleman from Maryland’s motion a pref- controlled by the maker of the motion? erential motion under the rule? Only amendments in disagreement are divided. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: In form it is but upon examination it is in fact THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The a motion to insist upon the House posi- practice of the House is clearly on a tion. motion of this type after an initial mo- MR. BAUMAN: Well, does not the tion has been rejected on an amend- Chair have to be subjected to a point of ment reported from conference in disorder at an appropriate time in order agreement that the time is divided be- to make that ruling? Does the Chair on tween the majority and the minority its own inquire behind the form of mo- parties. tion? R AUMAN M . B : The second question I THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The have is, has not the gentleman from Chair is responding to a parliamentary Maryland made a preferential motion inquiry of the gentleman from Mary- which is now pending? land. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. BAUMAN: Well, but the Chair gentleman from Maryland made a mo- made a statement a few moments ago, tion which was in form a preferential unsolicited by anyone that my motion motion. Upon examination by the was not a preferential motion. This Chair, it is in fact a motion to insist gentleman would like to ask upon upon the original House position rath- what authority the Chair is able to er than a motion to amend the Senate rule a preferential motion offered in amendment. proper form is nonpreferential when no MR. BAUMAN: A further parliamen- one has raised the issue. tary inquiry. The House’s previous ac- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The tion on this amendment was a vote to Chair has not ruled out the motion of

12281 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

the gentleman from Maryland. It is numbered 95 with an amendment as still pending. The parliamentary in- follows: quiry was whether it was a pref- In lieu of the matter deleted and erential motion. inserted by said amendment, insert the following: MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, further using my time on parliamentary in- FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE quiry of the Chair, who controls the PRESIDENT preferential motion on the previous question under these circumstances? INTERNATIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the For an additional amount to carry gentleman asking if another motion is out the provisions of section 491 of made? the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, $43,000,000 to remain MR. BAUMAN: I am asking the Chair, available until expended. under the parliamentary inquiry, who controls the preferential motion of the DISABILITY FUND previous question? Who may move the For an additional amount for ‘‘Pay- previous question on this motion? ment to the Foreign Service Retire- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If a moment and Disability Fund,’’ tion is privileged it may be offered by $1,020,000. any Member of the House. OPERATING EXPENSES MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion. For an additional amount for ‘‘Op- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: For erating Expenses of the Agency for what purpose does the gentleman from International Development,’’ $2,000,000, to remain available until Massachusetts (Mr. O’Neill) seek rec- expended. ognition? ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND PREFERENTIAL MOTION OFFERED BY MR. O’NEILL For an additional amount of $80,000,000 for necessary expenses MR. O’NEILL: Mr. Speaker, I offer a to carry out the provisions of sec- preferential motion. tions 531 through 535, provided that these funds shall not be available for MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, a point obligation or expenditure until Octo- of order. I moved the previous question ber 1, 1980. on the pending motion. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The POINT OF ORDER motion for the previous question does MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I make a not rule out a preferential motion, if point of order against the motion. moved while time is remaining to the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The opposite party. The previous question gentleman will state his point of order. is not yet in order. MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I make a The Clerk will read the preferential point of order that this motion is not a motion. preferential motion. It is, in fact, an The Clerk read as follows: amendment to the pending motion of Mr. O’Neill moves that the House the gentleman from Maryland, which concur in the amendment of Senate sought to concur in the Senate amend-

12282 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

ment with an amendment. This is sim- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I appeal ply another motion seeking to concur the ruling of the Chair. in the Senate amendment with a If that is the way you are going to slightly different amendment, and play the game, let us fight it to the therefore it has no preference over my end. pending motion. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The I make a point of order against it on gentleman appeals the ruling of the that ground. Chair. The question is, shall the Chair’s decision stand as the judgment The Chair, stating that the mo- of the Committee. tion to concur with an amendment took precedence over a motion to MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. insist on the House position, over- BOLLING ruled the point of order. Mr. MR. [RICHARD] BOLLING [of Mis- Bauman then made another point souri]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the of order as indicated below: appeal from the Chair on the table. MR. BAUMAN: And that the motion MR. BAUMAN: A point of order, Mr. be reduced to writing. Speaker. MR. BOLLING: It is at the desk. It is The gentleman from Maryland has at the desk. offered a motion to concur in the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The amendment of the Senate with an Clerk will report the motion. amendment, and now another motion The Clerk read as follows: to concur in the amendment of the Senate with an amendment is being of- Mr. Bolling moves to lay the appeal on the table. fered. That additional motion is not in order at this point. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion to table. gentleman from Maryland has offered The question was taken; and the an amendment which in form was a Speaker Pro Tempore announced that motion to concur with an amendment. the ayes appeared to have it. In fact, it is a motion to insist on the MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, on that I original House language. demand the yeas and nays, so that we MR. BAUMAN: I make a point of can go on record on the fairness in this order against the pending motion by House. the gentleman from Massachusetts The yeas and nays were ordered. (Mr. O’Neill) that it is not preferential The vote was taken by electronic de- because it is, in form, simply a motion vice, and there were—yeas 222, nays to insist on the House position and is 140, answered ‘‘present’’ 1, not voting not, in fact, a preferential motion. If 70, as follows:... my motion is not [in] order, his is not So the motion to table was agreed to. either. The result of the vote was an- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The nounced as above recorded. gentleman from Maryland is not cor- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The rect. The point is not well taken. gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

12283 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

O’Neill) is recognized in support of his tion, House Information Systems’’, preferential motion. $1.00 to cancel the contract with Ar- istotle Industries for the CD–ROM Chair’s Role in Clarifying Voter Registration Lists project. Amendment MR. [VIC] FAZIO [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on § 8.13 In attempting to con- the gentleman’s amendment.... strue an ambiguous amend- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will ment, the Chair may inquire state his point of order. of the author the meaning of MR. FAZIO: Mr. Chairman, I believe this language is legislation on an ap- certain language therein, propriation bill. It seems to direct that and then rely on those re- the Committee on House Administra- sponses, and additional de- tion should cancel a contract, and, if bate, in rendering a decision that is the thrust of the amendment, on a point of order. and that is the Chairman’s interpretation of it, I would suggest that this is On Oct. 29, 1991,(13) Chairman language that should be removed. Gerry E. Studds, of Massachusetts, Mr. Chairman, I object and insist on presiding over the dire emergency ap- my point of order. propriation bill, 1991, was faced with an amendment and a point of order THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman that it was legislation in violation of from Ohio wish to be heard on the Rule XXI clause 2. The Chair elicited point of order?... some debate on the matter to help clar- The Chair would inquire of the au- ify the meaning of the amendment. thor of the amendment whether it is his intention and understanding with AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BOEHNER respect to his amendment that it di- MR. [JOHN A.] BOEHNER [of Ohio]: rects the Committee on House Admin- Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. istration to cancel the contract. The Clerk read as follows: MR. BOEHNER: That is correct. Amendment offered by Mr. THE CHAIRMAN: This is his inten- Boehner: At the appropriate place in tion? the bill, add the following new chap- MR. BOEHNER: Yes.... ter: THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman CHAPTER—LEGISLATIVE BRANCH from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] wish to be heard on the point of order? HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COM- MITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRA- MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- TION—HOUSE INFORMATION SYS- sylvania]: Mr. Chairman, as I read the TEMS amendment, the amendment reads For an additional amount for that House Administration is given $1 ‘‘Committee on House Administra- to cancel the contract of Aristotle In- dustries. This is not an absolute man- 13. 137 CONG. REC. 28818, 28819, 102d date upon the committee. That $1 may Cong. 1st Sess. be sufficient to do that job, it may not

12284 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8 be, so it seems to me the language of to do or not to do, the amendment on the amendment is such that there is its face does not state such a direction, an optional nature to it. It is not a and that is why the Chair inquired mandate under the terms of the twice of the author of the amendment amendment and so, therefore, it should as to his intention. be in order in the House for offering The Chair has no alternative other before the House. than to rely on the more recent assur- MR. FAZIO: Mr. Chairman, may I be ance of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. heard further on the point of order? Boehner] that it is not his intention to THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear direct the committee, but merely to ap- the gentleman from California [Mr. propriate funds authorized by law, Fazio]. and, consequently, the point of order is MR. FAZIO: Mr. Chairman, I think overruled. the author of the amendment has stated his purpose. He said it did direct Basis for Rulings on Points of the committee to cancel the contract. Order Under Budget Act Others who have attempted to intervene and reinterpret this statement § 8.14 Under some provisions have no standing. The gentleman who of the Congressional Budget offered the amendment is accurate in his purpose. He stated it very clearly, Act, the Chair must be guid- and I would further insist that this ed in his rulings by estimates point of order be upheld. of costs provided by the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will in- Committee on the Budget quire of the author of the amendment (see sections 302 and 311); in as to whether or not he intends to di- other cases, particularly rect the committee to cancel the contract. where a point of order is MR. BOEHNER: My intent, Mr. Chair- raised under section 303 of man, is that the contract be canceled. the Act, the Chair’s judgment That is my intent. We do not direct is shaped by the text of the that, though, in the amendment. bill and not bound by Budget THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- Committee estimates. pared to rule. Under existing law and procedures Many factors help shape the the Committee on House Administra- Chair’s decision on a point of tion is clearly authorized to cancel con- order: the rule under which the tracts into which it has entered on be- point of order is brought, its legis- half of the House. Thus the funds in lative history, precedents, and the amendment are authorized by law. prior interpretations of the rule in Whether the amendment constitutes legislation depend on whether the question. The Congressional amendment directs the committee to Budget Act, adopted by the House do that which it merely has discretion as an exercise of its rulemaking 12285 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS authority, specifies in several in- ‘‘(iii) not in excess of 3 years during stances that estimates furnished which the borrower is engaged as a by the Committee on the Budget full-time teacher in a public or non- profit private elementary or secondary are dispositive when a question is school in a teacher shortage area es- raised about the cost of legisla- tablished by the Secretary pursuant to tion. Language of the following paragraph (4) of this subsection; type is found in several sections of Page 177, strike lines 13 through the Act: ‘‘For purposes of this sec- 16 and redesignate the succeeding tion, levels of new budget author- subsections accordingly. Page 177, line 18, strike ‘‘428(b)(4) ity, spending authority . . . outlays of the Act as redesignated)’’ and in- . . . for a fiscal year shall be deter- sert ‘‘428(b)(5) of the Act’’. mined on the basis of estimates Page 178, line 4, and page 179, lines 14 and 23, redesignate para- made by the Committee on the graphs (6), (7), and (8) as paragraphs Budget. . .’’. (5), (6), and (7), respectively. (14) On Mar. 26, 1992, during MR. KLUG (during the reading): Mr. consideration of the Higher Edu- Chairman, I ask unanimous consent cation Amendments of 1992, an that the amendment be considered as amendment was offered by Mr. read and printed in the Record. Scott Klug, of Wisconsin, which THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wis- had the effect of enlarging the consin? class of borrowers under student There was no objection. loan provisions. The Committee on the Budget had told Mr. Klug POINT OF ORDER that there were no costs associ- MR. [WILLIAM D.] FORD of Michigan: ated with his amendment. The Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to Chair held to the contrary and and must make a point of order on this amendment. sustained a point of order raised THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will under section 303 of the Act. state his point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: (15) The Clerk will MR. FORD of Michigan: Mr. Chair- report the amendment. man, I would have reserved a point of The Clerk read as follows: order, but what just happened when we tried to do that is an illustration Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: that we will never get finished here if Page 169, line 23, and page 170, line 16, strike ‘‘and’’ and on page 170 we use the reservation of a point of after line 5 and after line 23, insert order for unlimited debate. For that the following new clauses: reason I make the point of order without a reservation. 14. 138 CONG. REC. 7185, 7186, 102d Mr. Chairman, in section 303(a) of Cong. 2d Sess. the Congressional Budget Act it is not 15. Don J. Pease (Ohio). in order to consider any measure

12286 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8 which creates entitlement authority or shortage of physicians in rural areas directs spending authority first effec- across the United States. tive in the fiscal year prior to the I accept the gentleman’s point of budget resolution for that fiscal year. order, but let me tell you, there is The amendment would require the some frustration that I feel in that we Government to pay an interest subsidy in good faith went to the Congressional for an extended period of time for indi- Budget Office last week and asked for viduals not otherwise subsidized by the an analysis, only to have now today an bill. indication that the CBO estimate no The amendment expands the class of longer holds. They told us there would individuals entitled to an interest sub- be no additional expense. We come to sidy in repayment of their student the floor and suddenly find out that in loans. Consequently, the amendment this case the Congressional Budget Of- establishes a beneficiary and a right to fice, which happens to support our po- the benefit in the subsidy satisfying sition, no longer holds. the definition of new entitlement au- I think that is a very dangerous thority under the Budget Act. precedent. If we are going to ask the While the Congressional Budget Of- CBO to do an analysis, then my sense fice did not credit the committee with is the CBO analysis should be the rule savings for changes in the deferment of law on this floor. terms of the student loan programs in THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else the act, the present amendment ex- wish to be heard on the point of order? pands the class of individuals entitled MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- to the economic benefit of loan prin- sylvania]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. cipal repayment deferments and inter- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from est subsidies.... Pennsylvania may proceed. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I am from Wisconsin wish to be heard on very troubled with what is happening the point of order? here. In previous iterations of this kind MR. KLUG: Yes, very briefly, I might of challenge, the Parliamentarians add, Mr. Chairman. have ruled that the Congressional THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman may Budget Office determinations with re- proceed. gard to the cost of an amendment MR. KLUG: First of all, Mr. Chair- would in fact hold. man, this amendment, like the amend- Now under this particular challenge, ment offered by my colleague, the gen- we have the Parliamentarians over- tlewoman from Hawaii just a few min- ruling the Congressional Budget Office utes ago, attempts to expand the high- in what the Congressional Budget Of- er education authority to also allow fice feels is the true nature of the situ- deferments for teachers involved in ation. As I understand it, the Congres- teacher shortage areas. In fact, right sional Budget Office has said that the now, 34 States have made application category of people that the gentleman to the Federal Government because of from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] wishes to shortages of teachers, much like the cover in his amendment were already

12287 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

assumed by them to be included, and porting the provision or so therefore there is no cost involved in amendment to prove that it extending this particular benefit.... does not violate the perti- MR. FORD of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of nent rule; but where a limita- order? tion of funds amendment is THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from challenged as being a ‘‘tax Michigan may proceed. provision’’ in violation of MR. FORD of Michigan: Mr. Chair- Rule XXI clause 5(b), the per- man, the gentleman from Pennsyl- son advocating the point of vania apparently was not on the floor order must show the inevi- when the previous ruling was made by the Chair on precisely the same point tability of tax consequences of order, and the point of order was in order to successfully raised from that side of the aisle. . . . press the point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else de- The proceedings of June 18, sire to be heard on the point of order? 1991,(16) show the difficulty of car- If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. rying the burden of proof where a The Chair would observe that the point of order is raised under rule fact that CBO assumed the inclusion of XXI clause 5(b), especially where these borrowers in its estimating the tax measure is a provision in model is not dispositive to the question or amendment to an appropriation of order under section 303. Moreover, bill. under section 303 the Chair must be guided by the text and, unlike sections The Clerk read as follows: 302 and 311, is not required to accept Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Budget Committee estimates as conclu- Page 13, line 7, insert before the pe- sive. riod the following: Having said that, the Chair would : Provided further, That additional point out that the issue here is iden- amounts above fiscal year 1991 lev- tical to what it was in the amendment els for the information reporting program shall be used instead for the raised by the gentlewoman from Ha- examination of the tax returns of waii, and based on the same reasoning high-income and high-asset tax- the Chair sustains the point of order. payers.

POINT OF ORDER Burden of Proof on Points of MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- Order sylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment. § 8.15 In response to most THE CHAIRMAN: (17) The gentleman points of order against provi- will state his point of order. sions in an appropriation bill 16. 137 CONG. REC. 15189–91, 102d or against amendments, the Cong. 1st Sess. burden is on those sup- 17. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.). 12288 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 8

MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I make 1986, against a provision in a Treas- a point of order against the amend- ury, Postal Service appropriations bill ment of the gentleman from Wisconsin to prohibit the use of funds in the bill on grounds that it violates clause 5(b) to implement certain specified Treas- of House rule XXI and ask to be heard ury regulations. Those regulations re- on my point of order. quired taxpayers to maintain detailed THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will information to substantiate the deduct- state his point of order. ibility of certain expenses on their tax MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, clause returns. 5(b) of rule XXI states at the relevant . . . And while new regulations could part that, and I quote: be promulgated, there would be a nec- No amendment in the House or pro- essary delay in doing so, and this posed by the Senate carrying a tax or would, and I quote, ‘‘necessarily result tariff measure [shall] be in order dur- in a direct loss of revenue to the Fed- ing the consideration of a bill or joint eral Treasury.’’ resolution reported by a committee not The Chair concluded that the pro- having that jurisdiction. gression of decisions under clause 5(b), The proposed amendment would rule XXI, support the proposition that transfer the increased funds in the bill a provision constitutes a tax or tariff over last year’s appropriation for the measure, and again I quote the Chair: Information Reporting Program to be Where it can be conclusively used instead for the examination of the shown that the imposition of the re- tax returns of high-income and high- striction on IRS funding for the fis- asset taxpayers. cal year will effectively and inevitably either preclude the IRS from It is my contention, Mr. Chairman, collecting revenues otherwise due that under the precedents surrounding and owing under provisions of the clause 5(b) of rule XXI, this amend- Internal Revenue Code or require ment constitutes a tax measure to a collection of revenue not legally due bill not reported by the committee hav- and owing.... ing jurisdiction over tax measures-the But all we are concerned with in this House Ways and Means Committee. point of order is whether shifting funds In this regard, I cite the footnote at from the information matching system section 846(b) of the House Rules and to audits will be a revenue gainer or Manual for the 101st Congress, and I loser in fiscal 1992. And the testimony quote: of the IRS commissioner is that keep- In determining whether a limitation ing that money in the Information Re- in a general appropriation bill con- porting System is more efficient and stitutes a tax or tariff measure pro- will yield a larger revenue return. scribed by this clause, the Chair will Finally, Mr. Chairman, while I think consider argument as to the certainty I have provided ample proof that this of impact on revenue collections and amendment will deprive the IRS of net tax status or liability. revenues it would otherwise receive in That particular reference was to a the coming fiscal year, under par- point of order raised on August 1, liamentary practice, the burden of

12289 Ch. 31 § 8 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

proof is on the proponent of the MR. WALKER: I thank the Chair. amendment to show that the amend- First of all, my point of order does ment does not violate the rule. In other not relate to clause 2 of rule XI. I am words, it is up to the gentleman from making my point of order based upon Missouri to prove that his amendment clause 5(b) of rule XXI.... will not ‘‘inevitably preclude the IRS Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would from collecting revenues otherwise due quote from section 835 of the House and owing under the provision of the Rules and Manual relating to points of Internal Revenue Code.’’ order on appropriations bills: I therefore urge that my point of order be sustained. If the amendment is susceptible to more than one interpretation, it is THE CHAIRMAN: The proponent of incumbent upon the proponent to the amendment is entitled to be recog- show that it is not in violation of the nized on the point of order. rule. MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: Moreover, it might be advisable here . . . There is no way to ascertain to apply the principle used for ger- whether an audit of a taxpayer will or maneness points of order, since clause will not result in increased revenue or 5(b) of rule XXI is very similar. To lowered revenue to the Treasury of the quote from section 594 of the manual: United States. And to suggest otherwise, I think, would be to suggest that The burden of proof is on the pro- this subcommittee could take virtually ponent of the amendment to estab- no action which would impact the rules lish its germaneness, and where an amendment is equally susceptible to of the IRS or any other agency that ei- more than one interpretation, one of ther audits or imposes fines. which will render it not germane, THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman the Chair will rule it out of order. from California [Mr. Roybal] wish to be I would submit in conclusion, Mr. heard on the point of order? Chairman, that even if the proponent MR. [EDWARD R.] ROYBAL [of Cali- were able to claim that his amendment fornia]: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to is a revenue gainer rather than a net add that the rule protects this amend- revenue loser, the existence of clear ment. The rule states as follows: evidence to the contrary should compel It shall be in order to consider the the Chair to rule against the amend- amendment printed in the report of ment on grounds that it is susceptible the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, and all to more than one interpretation.... points of order against said amend- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- ment for failure to comply with the pared to rule. provisions of clause 2 of rule XI are Whether greater scrutiny of certain hereby waived. tax returns will, by the use of funds I ask the Chair to rule on it. contained in this bill will, in fact, lead MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, may I to a loss or a gain in tax liability and be heard further on the point of order? in tax collection is a matter of conjec- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from ture as was pointed out by the gen- Pennsylvania may be heard further. tleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

12290 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9

The amendment itself goes only to is clear that the Chair is prepared to funding in the bill. It does not nec- sustain points of order where the essarily result in a loss or gain of reve- amendment is equally susceptible to nues, as was shown to be the case in more than one interpretation which the arguments on the points of order clearly this particular amendment is. I cited by the gentleman from Pennsyl- did not hear the Chair rule on the vania. point of order that I raised in that re- The test here is certainty and inevi- gard. tability of such a tax gain or loss, and THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will sim- just to complete the record, the gen- ply remind and repeat to the gentleman from Pennsylvania cited a rul- tleman that in this line of precedent on ing by Chairman Beilenson on August funding restrictions on appropriation 1, 1986. bills the test of inevitability of a tax in- Let the Chair read fully from that crease or decrease is consistent paragraph: through all the precedents. For that reason, again, the Chair rules the A limitation on the availability of point of order out of order. funds for the Internal Revenue Serv- ice otherwise in order under clause Under the rule, debate on this 2(c), rule XXI may still be construed amendment and all amendments as a tax measure in violation of thereto shall not exceed 1 hour. clause 5(b), rule XXI where it can be The Chair recognizes the gentleman shown that the imposition of the re- from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for 5 min- striction on IRS funding for the fis- utes. cal year will effectively and inevitably— And I underline the words ‘‘effectively and inevitably,’’— § 9. Waiver preclude the IRS from collecting revenues otherwise due and owing by The rules of the House are en- law or require collection of revenue forced by points of order, usually not legally due or owing. raised by a Member calling the at- Absent a showing of inevitable or ab- tention of the Chair and his col- solutely inevitable certain effects, the leagues to what the Member per- test is not met with respect to funding ceives to be an infraction of a rule. restrictions on annual appropriation On some occasions, the Speaker or bills and the point of order is over- Member presiding will move to ruled. bring a violation of a rule before PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY the body. The Chair will, for ex-

MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I have ample, on his own initiative, call a a parliamentary inquiry. Member to order for remarks ut- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will tered in debate which violate state his parliamentary inquiry. proper decorum.(18) MR. WALKER: The Chair did not refer to the rulings, however, where it 18. See §§ 9.17, 9.18, infra.

12291 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Since the House is given ‘‘rule- the House.(5) On one occasion, the making’’ authority by the Con- proceedings whereby a provision stitution (19) and creates its proce- in a bill was stricken by a valid dural and parliamentary code point of order was later vacated anew in each Congress, it can also by unanimous consent and the use this same authority to change provision was reinserted in the or waive a rule. A rule can be text.(6) Sometimes, too, the effect waived, mooted, or by-passed by of earlier proceedings is such that unanimous consent,(20) by suspen- a point of order is considered sion of the rules, or by adoption of waived and cannot later be as- a special order reported from the serted against the proposition in Committee on Rules. Even a rule question. Thus, if a motion that is based on a provision of a statute susceptible to a point of order is can be waived under the House’s agreed to by the House, no point ‘‘rule-making’’ authority.(1) A of order being raised against it, waiver can be put in place after the point is deemed waived.(7) consideration of a bill has com- Where the scope of a rule waiving menced.(2) points of order is questioned, the The requirement that points of Chair may be called upon to inter- order be made at the proper time pret the language.(8) It should also also may be waived by agreement be noted that a House Rule may in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.(3) The requirement 5. See § 9.3, infra. But where points of may also be waived by the adop- order againstconsideration of a bill are not specifically waived as part of tion of a special rule from the a unanimous-consent request for im- ( ) Committee on Rules, 4 or by the mediate consideration, a point of granting of unanimous consent by order that a quorum of the committee was not present when the bill 19. See Art. 1, Sec. 5, House Rules and was ordered reported will lie despite Manual § 58 (1997). the unanimous-consent request. See 20. See § 9.4, infra. the proceedings at 114 CONG. REC. 1. See § 9.2, infra. 30751, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 11, 2. See § 9.7, infra. 1968, wherein such a point of order 3. See Ch. 19, supra; and § 9.5, infra. was sustained against consideration 4. See § 9.1, infra. of S. 1507 although unanimous con- For more complete discussion of sent for immediate consideration of special rules from the Committee on the bill had been granted. Rules waiving points of order, see 6. See § 9.19, infra. § 10 of this chapter and Ch. 21, 7. See §§ 9.6, 9.16, infra. supra. 8. See § 9.8, infra.

12292 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9 specify that a particular type of ing appropriations for sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, point of order may be in order at commissions, corporations, agencies, any time. For example, under the offices, and the Department of Hous- provisions of Rule XXI clause 5, a ing and Urban Development for the point of order against an amend- fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, all points of order ment proposing an appropriation against the provisions contained on a bill reported by a committee under the heading ‘‘National Aero- not having that jurisdiction is in nautics and Space Administration’’ order at any time.(9) However, beginning on page 19, line 17, through page 21, line 8, are hereby even under this rule the prece- waived. dents dictate that the point of order must be timely, i.e., during Mr. Colmer advised that the the five-minute rule in Committee Committee on Rules in this in- of the Whole or before the amend- stance had waived the points of ment is adopted.(10) order against certain specific

items in the appropriations bill, rather than for all items in the In General bill. MR. COLMER: . . . I might add also § 9.1 Special ‘‘rules’’ or resolu- for the information of the gentleman— tions from the Committee on and of the Members of the House— Rules often contain provi- that the Committee on Rules has re- sions expressly waiving cently adopted a course of procedure where these rules waiving points of points of order against cer- order will be limited to specific items, tain language in the bill as has been done in this instance. rather than against all provi- Parliamentarian’s Note: Points sions in the bill. of order were waived against the On May 8, 1968,(11) Mr. William provisions of the bill pertaining to M. Colmer, of Mississippi, called the National Aeronautics and up House Resolution 1164, which Space Administration since the provided: annual authorization bill for that Resolved, That during the consid- agency had not yet become law. eration of the bill (H.R. 17023) mak-

9. Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Motion To Suspend Applica- Manual § 846 (1997). For further dis- tion of a Statutory Rule cussion, see Chs. 25, 26, supra. § 9.2 A motion to suspend the 10. See 92 CONG. REC. 2365, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 18, 1946. rules and pass a bill sus- 11. 114 CONG. REC. 12220, 12221, 90th pends all rules, including Cong. 2d Sess. statutory provisions of law 12293 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

enacted under the rule- United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a)(1) paragraph (2) making power of the House, of section 601(a) of the Legislative and since under article I, Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. section 5 of the Constitution, 31), relating to congressional salary adjustment, is amended by striking each House may make and out ‘‘Effective at the beginning of the change its rules, the House is first applicable pay period com- not precluded from waiving mencing on or after the first day of the month in which’’ and inserting in a rule enacted as a statute. lieu thereof ‘‘Effective at the begin- On Nov. 1, 1977,(12) Mr. Ste- ning of the Congress following any Congress during which’’.... phen J. Solarz, of New York, SEC. 2. (a) It shall not be in order moved to suspend the rules and in either the House of Representa- pass the Congressional Salary De- tives or the Senate to consider any ferral Act, H.R. 9282. Mr. Robert appropriation bill, budget, resolution, or amendment thereto, which di- E. Bauman, of Maryland, raised a rectly or indirectly prevents the pay- point of order against the suspen- ment of increases in pay rates result- sion motion on the ground that it ing from a pay adjustment deferred infringed the jurisdiction of the under the amendments made by the first section of this Act. Committee on the Budget, in vio- (b) For purposes of subsection (a), lation of section 306 of the Budget the term ‘‘budget resolution’’ means Act. The arguments on the point any concurrent resolution on the of order and the ruling of Speaker budget, as such term is defined in section 3(a)(4) of the Congressional Pro Tempore George E. Brown, Budget and Impoundment Control Jr., of California, are shown in the Act of 1974. Record of that date. (c) The provisions of subsection (a) are enacted by the Congress— CONGRESSIONAL SALARY DEFERRAL (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Rep- MR. SOLARZ: Mr. Speaker, I move to resentatives and the Senate, respec- suspend the rules and pass the bill tively, and as such they shall be con- (H.R. 9282) to provide that adjust- sidered as part of the rules of each ments in the rates of pay for Members House, respectively, and such rules of Congress shall take effect at the be- shall supersede other rules only to ginning of the Congress following the the extent that they are inconsistent Congress in which they are approved, therewith; and and for other purposes. (2) with full recognition of the con- The Clerk read as follows: stitutional right of either House to change such rules (so far as relating H.R. 9282 to such House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same ex- Be it enacted by the Senate and tent as in the case of any other rule House of Representatives of the of such House. SEC. 3. The provisions of this Act 12. 123 CONG. REC. 36309–11, 95th shall take effect on the date of the Cong. 1st Sess. enactment of this Act.

12294 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is a dure governing the Budget Act itself second demanded? are concerned, that is within the juris- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a diction of the Committee on Rules. point of order. This bill was reported by the Com- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The mittee on Post Office and Civil Service, gentleman will state his point of order. the committee of original jurisdiction, MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I make a and I understand the jurisdiction was point of order against the present con- waived by the Committee on Rules. sideration of the bill under suspension Nevertheless, section 306 makes it on the ground that the bill itself and plain that since this bill, if it becomes the manner in which it was considered statutory law, repeals part of the juris- is in violation of Public Law 93–344, diction of the Committee on the Budg- the Congressional Budget Act, specifi- et, it should have also been considered, cally section 306. in the opinion of the gentleman from Section 306 of the Budget Act says Maryland, by the Committee on the as follows: Budget or their jurisdiction should have been waived. This was not done. No bill or resolution and no amendment to any bill or resolution I would say further, Mr. Speaker, dealing with any matter which is that if in fact any committee of the within the jurisdiction of the Com- House is able to report a bill which mittee on the Budget of either House prevents the Committee on the Budget shall be considered in that House from dealing with subject matters unless it is a bill or resolution which has been reported by the Committee under that reporting committee’s juris- of the Budget of that House or from diction, then the Committee on the the consideration of which such com- Budget in fact could be, over a period mittee has been discharged, or un- of time, destroyed as far as its capa- less it is an amendment to such bill bility of dealing with the Budget Act. or resolution. For all of those reasons, I make a Mr. Speaker, the bill before us spe- point of order against consideration of cifically, in section 2, seeks to repeal this bill. I would further point out that part of the jurisdiction of the Com- section 306 does not deal with report- mittee on the Budget. Specifically it ing or with whether or not the House says the following: can suspend the rules, but it forbids SEC. 2. (a) It shall not be in order consideration by the House at any time in either the House of Representa- of any legislation that repeals or tives or the Senate to consider any changes the jurisdiction of the Com- appropriation bill, budget resolution, mittee on the Budget without that or amendment thereto, which directly or indirectly prevents the pay- committee’s acting upon it. ment of increases in pay rates result- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does ing from a pay adjustment deferred the gentleman from New York desire under the amendments made by the to be heard on the point of order? first section of this Act. MR. SOLARZ: I do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Act is very I have unbounded admiration for the clear that so far as the rules of proce- parliamentary sagacity of my good

12295 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

friend, the gentleman from Maryland. It is quite obvious that this is a Who am I, after all, to challenge the question of consideration. It is written validity of this rather sophisticated into the statutory law that no such bill parliamentary analysis? But may I can be considered, and I am not aware suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the sub- that that rule of consideration can be stantive merits of the gentleman’s ob- suspended or repealed by a simple mo- jection notwithstanding, the fact is tion to suspend the rules. If, in fact, that from a procedural point of view I that is the case, the Budget Act is do believe it has to be found wanting. meaningless. The reason for that is that under the MR. [ROBERT N.] GIAIMO [of Con- suspension of the rules, which are the necticut]: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard terms under which the legislation is on the point of order? being considered, all existing rules of the House are waived, and to the ex- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The tent that the provision to which the Chair recognizes the gentleman from gentleman from Maryland referred is Connecticut. itself incorporated in the rules of the MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, the charge House, which do, after all, provide for has been made and the objection has the consideration of these budget reso- been raised that this legislation, par- lutions, I would suggest that his objec- ticularly section 2, invades the jurisdiction is not relevant to this resolution tion of the Budget Committee in that it and, therefore, is not germane. purports to prohibit the Budget Com- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I be mittee from exercising its jurisdiction heard further? over budget resolutions insofar as they The gentleman makes the contention would apply to pay raises and cost-of- that by making a motion to suspend living increases. I must submit that the rules of the House, this wipes out that is a proper interpretation. a rule against consideration in any However, I do believe that the argu- form, including the suspension of the ment of the gentleman from New York requirements of the Budget Act. There that this matter is being brought up is ample precedent in the House for under suspension of the rules is a very situations in which the Chair has ruled valid one and that the House of Rep- that a bill may not even be brought up resentatives can in its wisdom by a under suspension if it has not in fact two-thirds vote suspend the rules and been considered by the committee of deprive the Budget Committee and in proper jurisdiction. I refer the Chair to fact the Appropriations Committee of Hinds’ Precedents, volume 5, section jurisdiction in effecting pay raises or 6848, page 925, in which it was ruled cost-of-living increases by a two-thirds by the Chair that a committee, the Committee on the Census, could not vote. bring up for consideration under a mo- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Are tion to suspend the rules a bill relating there any other Members who desire to to the printing of a compendium of a be heard on the point of order? If not, census, because it had not been the Chair is prepared to rule. brought before the Committee on The gentleman from Maryland Printing. makes a point of order against the con-

12296 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9 sideration of the bill H.R. 9282 under THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The suspension of the rules on the grounds Chair will hear the gentleman. that section 306 of the Congressional MR. BAUMAN: I thank the Speaker Budget Act states that no bill or reso- for permitting me to be heard further. lution nor amendment to any bill or I would just point out that the resolution dealing with any matter Speaker has pointed out that it is which is within the jurisdiction of the within the prerogatives of the House to Committee on the Budget of either change the rules of the House, but this House shall be considered in that is not a rule of the House. It is a provi- House unless it is a bill or resolution sion of a statute which is being waived, which has been reported by the Com- and while I would not appeal the ruling, I do not think that is a proper mittee on the Budget of that House or basis for the ruling. from consideration of which such com- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The mittee has been discharged or unless it specific provision which the gentleman is an amendment to such a bill or reso- states has the status of a rule of the lution. House of Representatives under the The Chair need not rule on the juris- statute and under the Constitution. dictional issue raised by the gentleman Is a second demanded? and points out to the gentleman from MR. [EDWARD J.] DERWINSKI [of Illi- Maryland that under the specific provi- nois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second. sions of section 904 of the Budget Act, the provisions of title III including sec- Interpreting What Waiver Cov- tion 306, which he cites, are stipulated ers as being an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives § 9.3 Instance where a unani- with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change mous-consent waiver of all such rules so far as relating to such points of order against a bill House at any time in the same manner combined with a unanimous- and to the same extent as in the case consent agreement to con- of any other rule of such House. It is sider the bill on a day cer- the opinion of the Chair therefore that it is within the discretion of the Chair tain was held to waive all under rule XXVII to entertain a motion points of order against the to suspend the rules and to consider consideration of the bill for the bill at this time. Of course, the failure of the accompanying precedent cited by the gentleman from report to be available or to Maryland applies only to a provision which is no longer in rule XXVII relat- be sufficient under the rules. ing to motions to suspend the rules On July 19, 1947,(13) Speaker made by committees. Accordingly the Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massa- point of order is overruled. MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I be 13. 93 CONG. REC. 9396, 80th Cong. 1st heard further, at the sufferance of the Sess. Under consideration was the Chair? National Security Act of 1947.

12297 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS chusetts, ruled on the effect of a ation of the bill (H.R. 4214) to promote waiver on several points of order the national security by providing for a raised against a bill. The points of Secretary of Defense; for a National Military Establishment; for a Depart- order had been waived pursuant ment of the Army, a Department of the to a unanimous-consent request Navy, and a Department of the Air which had been agreed upon three Force; and for the coordination of the days previously.(14) The unani- activities of the National Military Es- mous-consent agreement provided tablishment with other departments as follows: and agencies of the Government concerned with the national security; and MR. [CHARLES A.] HALLECK [of Indi- pending that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- ana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous imous consent that all those who may consent that it may be in order on Fri- speak on the bill may include in their day next and thereafter to consider the remarks any relevant material, and bill H.R. 4214, that all points of order that all Members who so desire may against the said bill be considered as have five legislative days in which to waived, and that there be not to exceed extend their remarks in the Record on 5 hours of general debate, to be con- this subject. fined to the bill and to be equally di- THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to vided and controlled by the chairman the request of the gentleman from and ranking minority member of the Michigan? Committee on Expenditures in the Ex- There was no objection. ecutive Departments; and further, Mr. MR. [W. STERLING] COLE of New Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that after the passage of the bill H.R. 4214 York: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in- the Committee on Expenditures shall quiry. be discharged from the further consid- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will eration of the bill S. 758, and it shall state it. then be in order in the House to move MR. COLE of New York: My par- to strike out all after the enacting liamentary inquiry is whether it would clause of the Senate bill and insert in be in order at this time to make a lieu thereof the provisions contained in point of order against the motion upon H.R. 4214 as passed. the ground that at least 24 hours have not intervened between the time the The proceedings on July 19 bill was available and the time the bill were as follows: was called up. MR. [CLARE E.] HOFFMAN [of Michi- THE SPEAKER: In reply to the inquiry gan]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the of the gentleman from New York, the House resolve itself into the Com- Chair would say that under the unani- mittee of the Whole House on the mous-consent agreement which was State of the Union for the consider- reached on July 16, appearing in the Congressional Record at page 9095, all 14. 93 CONG. REC. 9095, 80th Cong. 1st points of order against the bill were Sess., July 16, 1947. waived.

12298 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9

MR. COLE of New York: Mr. Speaker, THE SPEAKER: Yes. a further parliamentary inquiry. I am Parliamentarian’s Note: Under further advised that although the bill is available this morning, the report the modern practice, points of accompanying the bill is not. Would it order based upon insufficiency or be in order to raise a point of order unavailability of the accom- against the motion of the gentleman panying report or upon certain from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] upon the Budget Act violations go to the ground that the report is not now question of consideration and not available? to the bill itself and must be sepa- THE SPEAKER: It would not be in order because the same ruling would rately waived. If points of order apply. All points of order were waived against the consideration of a bill under the unanimous-consent agree- are waived by unanimous consent, ment. such waiver applies to the com- MR. COLE of New York: Mr. Speaker, mittee report on the bill. a further parliamentary inquiry. I am informed that the report does not com- Unanimous Consent for Con- ply with the rules of the House in that it does not set forth the alterations sideration of a Bill; What It proposed by the bill to existing law. My Waives inquiry is whether the request of the gentleman from Indiana, the majority § 9.4 A unanimous-consent leader, that points of order against the agreement ‘‘to consider a bill bill be waived also carried with it the in the House on tomorrow or waiving of points of order against the any day thereafter’’ may report which is supposed to accompany waive the three-day avail- the bill. ability requirement but does THE SPEAKER: The Chair is compelled to make the same ruling in this not waive other points of instance also. All points of order were order against consideration waived under the unanimous-consent when the bill is called up agreement and, therefore, the raising under the agreement. of that point of order at this time would not be in order. Where a non-privileged appro- MR. COLE of New York: Mr. Speaker, priation bill (not a general bill) without undertaking to dispute the de- was reported from the Committee cision, I call your attention to the fact on Appropriations, the chairman that the request for waiving points of of that committee made a unani- order was directed to the bill itself. mous-consent request so the bill Does the Speaker rule that the waiving of points of order against the bill car- could be called up without meet- ried with it the waiving of points of ing the three-day layover require- order against the report? ment. In response to an inquiry, 12299 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS the Speaker indicated that if the it in order to call the bill up under the request were granted, points of conditions stated. order under the Budget Act could MR. LOTT: If I could, Mr. Speaker, I would address the question to the still be raised when the bill was chairman, or perhaps the Chair could called up. The proceedings of Feb. respond. (15) 4, 1982, were as follows: THE SPEAKER: The Chair under- MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mis- stands the gentleman is speaking, of sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- course, with regard to the Budget Act, mous consent that it may be in order the budget authority. This request, as on tomorrow or any day thereafter to stated, does not waive a point of order, consider in the House the joint resolu- if some Member would get on the floor tion (H.J. Res. 391) making an urgent to offer a point of order under the supplemental appropriation for the De- Budget Act. partment of Labor for the fiscal year MR. LOTT: Mr. Speaker, is it my un- ending September 30, 1982. derstanding a point of order would lie THE SPEAKER: (16) Is there objection on this point of the Budget Act when it to the request of the gentleman from comes to the House? Mississippi? THE SPEAKER: The Chair would state MR. [TRENT] LOTT [of Mississippi]: that a proper point of order at that What about section 311(a) of the Budg- time would be entertained. et Act? Is there a budget problem of hitting the ceiling? Unanimous Consent for Protec- MR. WHITTEN: In the first place, I do tion of a Specific Section not know how that applies. It is my information that technically we are not § 9.5 The House may by unani- in excess of the budget right now. That mous consent agree to con- might be open to question on this, sider a section of a general that, or the other thing. My purpose in offering this is so we could move ahead appropriation bill without regardless. What I had in mind was the intervention of a point of the 3-day rule. order. THE SPEAKER: May I answer the On May 4, 1948,(17) as an alter- gentleman? It does not waive all points native to obtaining a rule waiving of order. points of order from the Com- MR. LOTT: Mr. Speaker, that is what I wanted to ask. mittee on Rules, the House grant- THE SPEAKER: I say to the gen- ed unanimous consent to consider tleman from Mississippi that it does a section [containing legislation in not waive all points of order but makes 17. 94 CONG. REC. 5264, 80th Cong. 2d 15. 128 CONG. REC. 844, 845, 97th Cong. Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 2d Sess. 6430, a District of Columbia appro- 16. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.). priations bill for fiscal 1949.

12300 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9 an appropriation bill] without that amendment may, by unani- section being vulnerable to a point mous consent, be offered and of order. considered notwithstanding Mr. Horan, from the Committee on this infirmity. Appropriations, reported the bill (H.R. On occasion, the Committee of 6430) making appropriations for the government of the District of Colum- the Whole may proceed to con- bia.... sider and debate an amendment Mr. Fogarty reserved all points of notwithstanding a decision that it order on the bill. is not germane. For example, on MR. [WALTER F.] HORAN [of Wash- Oct. 31, 1975,(19) the proponent of ington]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous an amendment not otherwise in consent that in the consideration of the bill making appropriations for the Dis- order was permitted to offer it al- trict of Columbia for the fiscal year though it was not germane. 1949 it may be in order to consider MR. [ROBERT G.] STEPHENS [Jr., of without intervention of a point of order a section which I send to the desk and Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an ask to have read. amendment. The Clerk read as follows: The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 2. Except as otherwise pro- Amendment offered by Mr. Ste- vided herein, all vouchers covering phens: Section 306 of title III of H.R. expenditures of appropriations con- 10024 as reported is amended by tained in this act shall be audited striking the word ‘‘person’’ on line before payment by or under the ju- 22, page 15 and substituting therefor risdiction only of the Auditor for the the phrase ‘‘state chartered deposi- District of Columbia and the vouch- tory institution’’ and by adding the ers as approved shall be paid by words ‘‘state chartered’’ before the checks issued by the Disbursing Offi- words ‘‘depository institution’’ on line cer without countersignature. 12, page 16....

THE SPEAKER: (18) Is there objection MR. [ALBERT W.] JOHNSON of Penn- to the request of the gentleman from sylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an Washington? amendment to the amendment. There was no objection. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. John- Where Valid Point of Order Is son of Pennsylvania to the amendment offered by Mr. Stephens: Insert Not Pressed Against an at the end of section 306(b) the fol- Amendment lowing language: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of this sub- § 9.6 An amendment which is section, compliance with the requirements imposed under this subsection not in order because it is not shall be enforced under— germane to a pending 19. 121 CONG. REC. 34563, 34564, 94th 18. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.). Cong. 1st Sess.

12301 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

‘‘(1) Section 8 of the Federal De- tain provision in a general posit Insurance Act in the case of national banks, by the Comptroller of appropriation bill has been the Currency; and considered and agreed to by ‘‘(2) Section 5(d) of the Home Own- the House after the general ers Loan Act of 1933 in the case of any institution subject to that provi- debate on the bill has been sion, by the Federal Home Loan concluded and reading for Bank Board.’’ amendment has begun in the THE CHAIRMAN: (20) The Chair ob- Committee of the Whole. serves that this is not a proper amend- (1) ment to the pending amendment and On May 21, 1969, a waiver of should be offered separately. the points of order against a par- The Chair will recognize the gen- ticular section of a bill was adopt- tleman after the amendment of the ed after the first paragraph of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ste- bill was read for amendment. The phens) has been disposed of. proceedings on the resolution MR. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary in- waiving points of order were as quiry. follows: THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will MR. [WILLIAM M.] COLMER [of Mis- state his parliamentary inquiry. sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of MR. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania: Mr. the Committee on Rules, I call up Chairman, would it be in order to tack House Resolution 414 and ask for its them together by unanimous consent immediate consideration. at this point? The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- THE CHAIRMAN: By unanimous consent, yes. Is the gentleman making lows: that request? H. RES. 414 MR. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent Resolved, That during the consid- that my amendment be offered as an eration of the bill (H.R. 11400) making supplemental appropriations for amendment to the pending amend- the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, ment. and for other purposes, all points of THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to order against title IV of said bill are the request of the gentleman from hereby waived. Pennsylvania? MR. COLMER: Mr. Speaker, I yield There was no objection. the customary 30 minutes to the minority, to the very able and distin- Time of Adoption of Resolution of Waiver 1. 115 CONG. REC. 13246, 13251, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration § 9.7 A resolution waiving was H. Res. 414, waiving points of points of order against a cer- order against title IV, H.R. 11400, supplemental appropriation bill of 20. Spark M. Matsunaga (Ha.). 1969.

12302 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9

guished gentleman from California lution in the House in deter- (Mr. Smith). Pending that I yield my- mining the scope of the waiv- self such time as I may consume. er. Mr. Speaker, I shall not use all the ( ) time on this resolution. This is a rath- On June 22, 1973, 3 Chairman er unusual situation that we find our- James G. O’Hara, of Michigan, selves in, parliamentarily speaking. was called upon to interpret the We have debated the supplemental ap- intention of the Committee on propriation bill at some length under Rules in the adoption of language the privileged status of the Appropria- tions Committee. Now we come in with waiving certain provisions of a a resolution from the Rules Committee House rule in the consideration of for one purpose and one purpose alone; an appropriation bill. that is, to waive points of order against THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- a particular section of the bill.... pared to rule. The language that the rule waives The Chair feels that it will be nec- the point of order against is found in essary first to speak on the contention title IV of the bill. Title IV of the bill raised by the gentleman from Rhode places a ceiling upon the amount of the Island (Mr. Tiernan) and amplified expenditures that the Chief Executive upon by the gentleman from Con- can make within the fiscal year. Now, necticut (Mr. Giaimo) with respect to that amount is, roughly, $192 billion. the provisions of the resolution under ... which the bill is being considered, and MR. COLMER: Mr. Speaker, I move whether or not the provisions of that the previous question on the resolu- resolution have an effect on the point tion. of order made by the gentleman from The previous question was ordered. Massachusetts (Mr. Boland). THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (2) The The gentleman from Connecticut question is on the resolution. (Mr. Giaimo) is correct in asserting The question was taken; and the that if the amendment offered by the Speaker pro tempore announced that gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. the ayes appeared to have it. Tiernan) is out of order at all it is out of order because of the second sentence Interpretation of Resolution of clause 2 of Rule XXI, which contains Providing Waiver the provisions that ‘‘nor shall any provision in any such bill or amendment § 9.8 In construing a resolution thereto changing existing law be in order,’’ and so forth setting forth excep- waiving certain points of tions. But the gentleman from Con- order, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 3. 119 CONG. REC. 20983, 93d Cong. 1st examine debate on the reso- Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 8825, the HUD-independent agencies 2. Edmond Edmondson (Okla.). appropriations for fiscal 1974.

12303 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

necticut (Mr. Giaimo) contends, and and would hope that in the future such the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. resolutions would be more precise in Tiernan) concurs, that the resolution their application. providing for the consideration of the bill waives the provisions of that rule. The Chair then sustained the The Chair has again read the rule. It point of order raised against the says: amendments offered by Mr. Resolved, That during the consid- Tiernan. eration of the bill (H.R. 8825) making appropriations for the Depart- Waiver Against Bill Does Not ment of Housing and Urban Develop- ment . . . the provisions of clause 2, Cover Amendments rule XXI are hereby waived. § 9.9 Where the House has It does not say that points of order are waived only with respect to mat- adopted a resolution waiving ters contained in the bill. It says ‘‘Dur- points of order against a bill, ing the consideration of the bill’’ the no immunity is granted to provisions of clause 2 of Rule XXI are Members to offer amend- waived. ments which are not ger- The Chair was troubled by that lan- mane. guage and has examined the statements made by the members of the On June 15, 1948,(4) Mr. Leo E. Committee on Rules who presented the Allen, of Illinois, called up House rule to see if their statements in any Resolution 671, which provided as way amplified or explained or limited follows: that language. The Chair has found that both the gentleman from Lou- Resolved, That upon the adoption of isiana (Mr. Long) and the gentleman this resolution it shall be in order to from Ohio (Mr. Latta) in their expla- move that the House resolve itself into nations of the resolution did, indeed, the Committee of the Whole House on indicate that it was their intention, the State of the Union for consider- and the intention of the committee, ation of the bill (H.R. 6401) to provide that the waiver should apply only to for the common defense by increasing matters contained in the bill and that the strength of the armed forces of the it was not a blanket waiver. United States and for other purposes, Therefore whatever ambiguity there and all points of order against said bill may have been in the rule as reported, are hereby waived. That after general the Chair is going to hold, was cured debate, which shall be confined to the by the remarks and legislative history bill and continue not to exceed 3 hours, made during the presentation of the to be equally divided and controlled by rule, which were not disputed in any the chairman and ranking minority way by the gentleman from Con- member of the Committee on Armed necticut or anyone else. However, the Chair recognizes that it is a rather im- 4. 94 CONG. REC. 8340, 80th Cong. 2d precise way of achieving that result Sess.

12304 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9

Services, the bill shall be read for be necessary to the protection of the amendment under the 5-minute rule. health, morals, and welfare of such At the conclusion of the reading of the persons who are receiving training under this act and shall designate bill for amendment, the Committee and publish in general orders or bul- shall rise and report the same to the letins, to establish or keep houses of House with such amendments as may ill fame, brothels, bawdy houses, or have been adopted, and the previous places of entertainment which are question shall be considered as ordered public nuisances, or other like facili- on the bill and amendments thereto to ties detrimental to the health and morals of persons who are being final passage without intervening mo- trained under this act, or to receive tion except one motion to recommit. or permit to be received for immoral After the passage of the bill (H.R. purposes any person in any vehicle, 6401) it shall be in order in the House place, structure, or building used for to take from the Speaker’s table the the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution within said distance bill, S. 2655, and to move to strike out determined by the Secretary of De- all after the enacting clause of said fense or to knowingly rent, lease, or Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof permit the use of any property for the provisions contained in H.R. 6401 such purposes. Any person, corpora- as passed. tion, partnership, or association vio- (5) lating any of the provisions of this The resolution was agreed to. subsection shall be deemed guilty of On June 17, 1948,(6) an amend- a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of ment to the bill was offered by not more than $1,000 or imprison- Mr. Edward H. Rees, of Kansas. ment for not more than 12 months, or both. The Clerk read as follows: ‘‘(c) The sale of or dealing in, beer, Amendment offered by Mr. Rees: wine, or any intoxicating liquors by At the end of line 12, page 23, add any person in any post exchange, the following and number the suc- canteen, ship’s store, or Army, Navy, ceeding sections accordingly: or Marine transport or upon any premises used for military or naval ‘‘Sec. 8. (a) The training under this purposes by the United States is act shall be administered and carried hereby prohibited. The Secretary of out on the highest possible moral, re- Defense is authorized and directed to ligious, and spiritual plane. take appropriate action to carry out ‘‘(b) It shall be unlawful within the provision of this subsection.’’ such reasonable distance of any military camp, station, fort, post, canton- MR. [WALTER G.] ANDREWS of New ment, or training or mobilization York: Mr. Chairman, I make the point place, where training under this act of order against the amendment that is being given, as the Secretary of the provisions thereof are not germane National Defense may determine to to the provisions of this bill. THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. Francis H. Case 5. Id. of South Dakota): The Chair is ready 6. 94 CONG. REC. 8685, 8686, 80th to rule. Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration The gentleman from New York [Mr. was H.R. 6401, Selective Service Act Andrews] has made the point of order of 1948. that the amendment offered by the

12305 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Rees] is On May 1, 1968,(7) Speaker Pro not germane to the bill. Several of the Tempore Carl Albert, of Okla- Members who have spoken have called homa, advised Mr. Durward G. attention to other provisions in the bill. The Chair must remind the committee Hall, of Missouri, as to whether that the provisions in the bill as re- points of order would lie against ported by the committee were made in amendments to a bill after the order by a special rule adopted by the adoption of a House resolution House of Representatives. There may waiving points of order against be provisions in the bill which would the bill. not be germane if offered as an amendment by individual Members, but are MR. [CLAUDE D.] PEPPER [of Florida]: in order in the bill because they were Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com- made in order by the rule adopted by mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso- the House. lution 1150 and ask for its immediate So every amendment offered must consideration. stand on its own bottom as to whether The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- or not it is germane. lows: The Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment includes such H. RES. 1150 language as ‘‘It shall be unlawful to Resolved, That upon the adoption maintain certain institutions,’’ and fur- of this resolution it shall be in order ther on says, ‘‘Any person, corporation, to move that the House resolve itself partnership, or association violating into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for any of the provisions of this subsection the consideration of the bill (H.R. shall be deemed guilty of a mis- 16729) to extend for two years cer- demeanor’’ and so forth. In that respect tain programs providing assistance it seems to the Chair that the amend- to students at institutions of higher ment goes beyond the provisions of the education, to modify such programs, bill, imposing penalties and sanctions and to provide for planning, evaluation, and adequate leadtime in such on persons outside the armed forces. programs, and all points of order Therefore, the Chair is constrained against said bill are hereby waived. to sustain the point of order. ...

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Effect on Amendments gentleman from Florida [Mr. Pepper] is recognized for 1 hour.... § 9.10 Where a resolution pro- MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, a par- viding for the consideration liamentary inquiry. of a bill specifies that ‘‘all points of order against said 7. 114 CONG. REC. 11304–06, 90th bill are hereby waived,’’ the Cong. 2d Sess. Being discussed was H. Res. 1150, providing for consider- waiver is applicable only to ation of H.R. 16729, extending the the text of the bill and not to higher education student loan pro- amendments. gram. 12306 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The On Aug. 20, 1951,(8) the Chair- gentleman will state it. man (9) held that points of order MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in view of would lie against amendments of- our colloquy and our understanding of fered from the floor, despite a rule House Resolution 1150, which says, on waiving points of order against lines 8 and 9, that ‘‘all points of order the bill. against such bill are hereby waived,’’ MR. [JOHN J.] DEMPSEY [of New my parliamentary inquiry is whether Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, a point of or not amendments submitted—inas- order. much as on line 1, page 2, the resolu- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state it. tion states ‘‘the bill shall be read for MR. DEMPSEY: The amendment is amendment under the 5-minute not germane to this section, and in ad- rule’’—could not be subject to a point dition to that, it is purely legislation of order or a point of order made and on an appropriation bill. lie against such amendments if they THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to address him- were nongermane or otherwise did not self to the point of order? come under a rule of the House? A MR. [GERALD R.] FORD [of Michigan]: mirror image of my question is, does a Mr. Chairman, in reply to the point of point of order lie against all amend- order made by the gentleman from ments that might be offered? New Mexico, I would like to say first that under the rule adopted at the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The time this legislation came to the floor resolution does not apply to amend- all points of order were waived. Sec- ments that might be offered.... ondly, I think that the amendment is There is nothing in the resolution germane.... MR. DEMPSEY: Mr. Chairman, the which would provide for a waiver of Committee on Rules waived points of points of order against any amendment order to the bill, but they certainly which might be offered to the bill, if cannot waive points of order to an such amendment were not germane amendment which might be offered, under the rules of the House. which the gentleman is proposing to do. § 9.11 Where the House by 8. 97 CONG. REC. 10408, 82d Cong. 1st adoption of a resolution Sess. [H.R. 5215, a supplemental ap- waives all points of order propriation bill for fiscal 1952]; Id. at against any provisions in an p. 11682 [H.R. 2982, to readjust appropriation bill, such ac- postal rates]; 100 CONG. REC. 9629, tion does not waive points of 83d Cong. 2d Sess., July 2, 1954 [H.R. 9680, Agricultural Act of order against amendments 1954]. offered from the floor. 9. Edward J. Hart (N.Y.).

12307 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready into the bill when a full quorum was to rule. present in a regularly constituted With respect to the question of meeting of the District of Columbia waiving all points of order, that runs Committee. I am not sure what the only to the provisions of the bill and vote was, but it was a substantial vote. not to amendments offered to the bill. Therefore it is not being offered here today as a new amendment.... A proposition in an appropriation bill (11) proposing to change existing law but THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule. permitted to remain, may be perfected In response to the parliamentary in- by germane amendments, provided quiry propounded by the gentleman they do not add further legislation. The from Nebraska [Mr. Miller] the Chair Chair is of the opinion that this may say that the committee amend- amendment does add further legisla- ment assumes the same status in the tion, and, therefore, sustains the point House as any other amendment that of order. might be offered from the floor. That is why the Committee on Rules is some- § 9.12 Where points of order times asked to report special rules have not been waived waiving points of order against com- against committee amend- mittee amendments. Those points of order usually involve questions of ger- ments in a bill, such com- maneness.... mittee amendments occupy The Chair is of the opinion that the the same status as those of- amendment is not germane and, there- fered from the floor with re- fore, sustains the point of order. spect to points of order. § 9.13 A resolution adopted by On Aug. 9, 1954,(10) absent a the House waiving points of special rule waiving points of order against a committee order, a committee amendment substitute does not waive was ruled nongermane. such points against amend- MR. [JOSEPH P.] O’HARA of Min- ments to the substitute. nesota: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of On Aug. 31, 1944,(12) the Com- order against the amendment on the mittee of the Whole considered S. ground that it is not germane to the bill as passed by the Senate.... 2051 pursuant to a House Resolu- tion (H. Res. 627), adopted two MR. [ARTHUR L.] MILLER of Min- nesota: Mr. Speaker, this amendment days previously by the House. ( ) was offered not here today in the This resolution provided: 13 House but . . . was voted and written 11. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.). 10. 100 CONG. REC. 13807, 83d Cong. 2d 12. 90 CONG. REC. 7463, 7464, 78th Sess. Under consideration was S. Cong. 2d Sess. 3506, amending the District of Co- 13. 90 CONG. REC. 7350, 78th Cong. 2d lumbia Alley Dwelling Act. Sess., Aug. 29, 1944.

12308 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9

Resolved, That upon the adoption of mittee substitute was limited to this resolution it shall be in order to these provisions only, and the move that the House resolve itself into waiver did not apply, according to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consider- Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of ation of the bill S. 2051, an act to Texas, to possible amendments to amend the Social Security Act, as the committee substitute.(14) amended, to provide a national pro- MR. [AIME J.] FORAND [of Rhode Is- gram for war mobilization and recon- version, and for other purposes, and all land]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend- points of order against said bill are ment. hereby waived. That after general de- The Clerk read as follows: bate, which shall be confined to the bill Amendment offered by Mr. and continue not to exceed 2 days to be Forand: Page 39, after the period in equally divided and controlled by the line 24, add a new section as follows: chairman and ranking minority mem- ‘‘UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FOR ber of the Committee on Ways and FEDERAL EMPLOYEES Means, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. ‘‘Sec. 403. (a) The Social Security Act, as amended, is further amended It shall be in order to consider without by adding at the end thereof the fol- the intervention of any point of order lowing new title:... the substitute amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways MR. TABER: Mr. Chairman, I make and Means now in the bill, and such the point of order against the amend- substitute for the purpose of amendment that it is an appropriation of ment shall be considered under the 5- funds in violation of clause 4 of rule minute rule as an original bill. At the XXI of the House.... conclusion of such consideration, the THE CHAIRMAN: . . . Can the gen- committee shall rise and report the bill tleman from Rhode Island show how to the House with such amendments as that is not included in the prohibition may have been adopted, and any Mem- in the rule cited by the gentleman from ber may demand a separate vote in the New York? House on any of the amendments MR. FORAND: Mr. Chairman, I have adopted in the Committee of the Whole not studied that point. I did not expect to the bill or committee substitute. The it was going to be raised. It has been previous question shall be considered carried in the Senate bill all the way as ordered on the bill and amendments through without a question, and I con- thereto to final passage without inter- tend that title 301(a), under title III, is vening motion except one motion to re- in the same category. No point of order commit. has been raised against that. So if one In response to a point of order is subject to a point of order, I imagine both would be. raised by Mr. John Taber, of New York, it was held that the waiver 14. 90 CONG. REC. 7463, 7464, 78th of points of order against a com- Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 1944.

12309 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state H. RES. 714 to the gentleman from Rhode Island Resolved, That upon the adoption that the rule under which we are con- of this resolution it shall be in order sidering this measure, waives points of to move that the House resolve itself order against the committee substitute, into the Committee of the Whole but not against the amendments which House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. would be offered to that substitute. 4249). . . . It shall be in order to ... consider, without the intervention of any point of order, the text of the bill Waiver for Text of Bill Offered H.R. 12695 as an amendment to the bill. At the conclusion of the consid- as Amendment May Not Cover eration of H.R. 4249 for amendment, Portions Thereof Individually the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have [been] § 9.14 Where a resolution pro- adopted.... viding for the consideration of a bill makes in order the MR. MACGREGOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. text of a specific bill as an THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The amendment, points of order gentleman will state it. are considered as waived MR. MACGREGOR: Mr. Speaker, only against the complete under the resolution (H. Res. 714), if text of the proposed bill and adopted, should the bill, H.R. 12695, be considered and rejected, would it then not against portions thereof. be in order, following rejection of H.R. On Dec. 10, 1969,(15) Speaker 12695, should that occur, to offer a Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Okla- portion or portions of H.R. 12695 as amendments to H.R. 4249? homa, explained the effect of a THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The waiver to Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Chair will state that would be in order Minnesota. subject to the rule of germaneness, if germane to the bill H.R. 4249. MR. [RAY J.] MADDEN [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com- mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso- Constructive Waiver lution 714, and ask for its immediate consideration. § 9.15 Parliamentarian’s Note: The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- Where a motion which might lows: have been subject to a point of order (if a point of order 15. 115 CONG. REC. 38123, 38130, 91st had been raised in a timely Cong. 1st Sess. Being discussed was fashion) is, in the absence of H. Res. 714, which provided for the consideration of H.R. 4249, extend- a point of order, agreed to— ing portions of the 1965 Voting it represents the will of the Rights Act. House and governs its proce- 12310 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9

dure until the House orders There was discussion then con- otherwise (or until a proper cerning whether this motion collateral challenge to that would have been subject to a point procedure is made). of order, had one been made. The On Oct. 9, 1968,(16) following Speaker stated that the motion as the Chair’s disclosure of the ab- adopted expressed the will of the sence of a quorum, the House majority of the Members present, adopted the following motion and indicated that the question made by Mr. Brock Adams, of was moot. Washington: MR. BROCK: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. MR. [CARL] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]: THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the state it. House. MR. BROCK: Is it not so that the MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, as a part rules of the House provide for the of the motion of a call of the House, I highly unusual procedure of calling in further move under Rule II, under absent Members only in the case of the which a call of the House is in order, establishment of a nonquorum? Is that that a motion be made for the majority not true? And was the motion not ille- here that those who are not present be gal and improper on its face, having sent for wherever they are found and been made prior to the establishment returned here on the condition that of no quorum? they shall not be allowed to leave the THE SPEAKER: The Chair will ob- Chamber until such time as the pend- serve that we can always attempt to ing business before this Chamber on have Members attend who are not this legislative day shall have been present at this time or actually in the completed. Chamber at some particular time. Fur- (17) THE SPEAKER: The question is on ther, the Chair might also observe that the motion offered by the gentleman every effort is being made on the from Washington [Mr. Adams]. Democratic side in connection with no- The motion was agreed to. tifying Members of the situation that The Clerk proceeded to call the has existed for the past 12 or so hours. (18) roll. ... MR. BROCK: But the parliamentary THE SPEAKER: On this rollcall 222 inquiry, Mr. Speaker, was to the ques- Members have answered to their tion of whether or not the motion was names, a quorum. in fact outside the normal rules of the House. 16. 114 CONG. REC. 30212–14, 90th MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, will the Cong. 2d Sess. At the time the Clerk Chair yield? was reading the Journal. THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman 17. John W. McCormack (Mass.). from Oklahoma desire to be heard on 18. 114 CONG. REC. 30213, 30214, 90th the parliamentary inquiry of the gen- Cong. 2d Sess. tleman from Tennessee?

12311 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. ALBERT: The gentleman from clarify the situation so that Oklahoma would only suggest if a the amendment may be de- point of order would have been eligible as against the motion made by the dis- bated and voted on. tinguished gentleman from Wash- The proceedings of Mar. 21, ington, it certainly has come too late in 1975,(19) illustrate the discretion view of the action of the House. that the Chair may sometimes ex- THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state ercise to allow the Committee of without passing on the question as to whether or not a point of order would the Whole to work its will in an lie if made at the proper time when ambiguous situation. the gentleman from Washington made Mrs. Millicent Fenwick, of New his motion, that after the motion had Jersey, had offered a perfecting been adopted no point of order was amendment to the pending section made. Therefore, the motion express- ing the will of the majority of the of the Emergency Middle-Income Members present will be adhered to. Housing Act of 1975, which was being read for amendment under Parliamentarian’s Note: As indi- the five-minute rule. Her amend- cated in the Parliamentarian’s ment struck out one paragraph of note in Chapter 11, § 3.2, supra, the section under consideration this instance does not establish a and inserted new language. After precedent that a ‘‘constructive debate on the Fenwick amend- waiver of a point of order’’ may be ment Mr. Les AuCoin, of Oregon, accomplished in the absence of a offered ‘‘a perfecting amendment’’ quorum. In such circumstances, a which was not in order, since only proper collateral challenge to an one perfecting amendment can be improper order of the House may pending at a time. When no point be made, as the discussion in that of order was raised, the AuCoin chapter indicates. amendment was debated. The Where No Point of Order Is Chair could have treated the second amendment as a substitute Lodged, Proceedings May for the first but chose to entertain Continue it as a perfecting amendment to § 9.16 Where an amendment is the text which would be stricken offered and no point of order if the Fenwick amendment were ( ) is raised against its consider- adopted. 20 The relevant pro- ation, although a valid point 19. 121 CONG. REC. 7950, 7952, 7953, of order could have been 94th Cong. 1st Sess. raised, the Chair may use his 20. See § 469 of Jefferson’s Manual, parliamentary discretion to House Rules and Manual (1997), for 12312 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9 ceedings are carried in § 15.21, to the Senate has changed. But infra. the duty of the Chair remains as stated by Jefferson. Chair’s Initiative in Enforcing An example of the Chair tak- Rules ing the initiative is shown in the following exchange of Apr. 17, § 9.17 In certain instances, 1975,(2) which predated the particularly with respect to amendment to Rule XIV men- questions of propriety in de- tioned herein. bate, the Chair takes the initiative in enforcing the rules (Mr. Cleveland asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 and does not await a point of minute, and to revise and extend his order. remarks.) Jefferson’s Manual provides MR. [JAMES C.] CLEVELAND [of New that ‘‘it is the duty of the House, Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that four Democratic members and more particularly of the of the Rules Committee of the other Speaker, to interfere immediately, body, reviewing the challenge of Demo- and not to permit expressions to crat John Durkin to the seating of Sen- go unnoticed which may give a ator-elect Louis Wyman, should have ground of complaint to the other yesterday voted to take away from (1) Wyman 10 straight Republican ballots House.’’ Because of this admoni- that had been properly counted for him tion from Jefferson, the Chair has in New Hampshire. These critically im- customarily differentiated be- portant votes belong to Mr. Wyman by tween debate which engages in settled New Hampshire law in a con- personalities toward other House test with an existing margin of two Members, where the Chair nor- votes. As even Durkin’s counsel acknowl- mally awaits a point of order from edged before the committee, the ballots the floor, and debate which raises were and would have consistently been the issue of comity between the counted for Wyman in New Hamp- Houses. shire. On each the voter had voted a Since the amendment to Rule cross in the straight Republican circle XIV clause 1, in the 101st Con- with no marks on the Democratic side of the ballot. He had also voted a cross gress, the standards of what is in every voting square except Mr. permissible debate with reference Wyman’s. By operation of statute and court decision in New Hampshire for discussion of the doctrine of per- 60 years-as well as in other States fecting text proposed to be stricken. 1. House Rules and Manual § 374 2. 121 CONG. REC. 10458, 94th Cong. (1997). 1st Sess.

12313 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

having the straight ticket option-a vote Points of Order Against Im- in the straight ticket circle is a vote for proper Debate every candidate under the circle and a vote in every box under the circle by § 9.18 The Speaker reaffirmed operation of law. his intention to enforce the Worse yet, similar ballots for Durkin in the original New Hampshire recount provision in Jefferson’s Man- had not been challenged by Wyman be- ual which prohibits im- cause under settled New Hampshire proper references to the Sen- law they were recognized as valid ate and to exercise his own votes. These remain in the totals relied initiative in calling Members on by the Senate committee, counted for Durkin. to order where infractions On April 9 in this Record I called for occur. a new election in New Hampshire and On June 16, 1982,(4) Speaker surely this has now become a compel- Thomas P. O’Neill, of Massachu- ling necessity, unless we are to witness a legislative Watergate. setts, anticipating that the House THE SPEAKER: (3) The Chair must ask would shortly be considering an the gentleman to desist and must call amendment directed at activities to the attention of the gentleman from of the Senate, cautioned Mem- New Hampshire that his remarks are bers against violating the provi- in violation of the rules of the House sion of Jefferson’s Manual. The and rules of comity. The Chair has announcement and subsequent in- been very lenient, but this goes far beyond the bounds. quiries are carried below. It is not proper to criticize the ac- THE SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates tions of the other body, or any com- the fact that there is an amendment mittee of the other body, in any matter that will be offered very shortly con- relating to official duties. cerning the Senate. MR. CLEVELAND: Mr. Speaker, would The Chair deems it necessary to it be in order for me to quote a Mem- make a statement at this time to firm- ber of the other body who character- ly establish an understanding that im- ized this? proper references to the other body or THE SPEAKER: No, it would not be. its Members during debate are con- The Chair was very lenient by letting trary to the rules and precedents of the the gentleman make his point, but the House and will not be tolerated. The Chair is going to be strict in observing Chair will quote from section 374 of the rules of comity between the two Jefferson’s Manual which is a part of bodies. Otherwise we cannot function the rules of the House: as an independent, separate legislative It is the duty of the House, and body under the Constitution of the more particularly of the Speaker, to United States. 4. 128 CONG. REC. 13843, 13873, 97th 3. Carl Albert (Okla.). Cong. 2d. Sess.

12314 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 9

interfere immediately, and not to MR. [DAVID R.] OBEY [of Wisconsin]: permit expressions to go unnoticed If the gentleman will yield on that which may give a ground of com- point, I do not want to behave like the plaint to the other House, and introduce proceedings and mutual accusa- other body. I am fed up with Members tions between the two Houses, which of the other body posing for holy pic- can hardly be terminated without tures on congressional pay and then difficulty and disorder. running around, collecting $60,000 in Traditionally when a Member inad- outside income. vertently transgresses this rule of the ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO House, the Chair upon calling the TEMPORE Member to order prevails upon that Member to remove the offending re- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The marks from the Record. With the ad- Chair is constrained to admonish the vent of television, however, the Chair body, in accordance with the warning is not certain that such a remedy is of the Speaker earlier, that the Mem- sufficient. Henceforth, where a Mem- bers should be careful in their ref- ber’s references to the other body are erences to the other body. contrary to the important principle of comity stated in Jefferson’s Manual, Vacating Point of Order Pro- the Chair may immediately deny fur- ceedings ther recognition to that Member at that point in the debate subject to per- § 9.19 Where several items in mission of the House to proceed in order. The Chair requests all Members an appropriation bill had to abide by this rule in order to avoid been stricken on points of embarrassment to themselves and to order, the Committee of the the House. Whole subsequently agreed MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachu- to vacate the point of order setts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- proceedings, thereby causing liamentary inquiry. the stricken language to be THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it. reinserted in the bill. MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, in order to On June 7, 1991,(5) during the abide by the rules, which are very dif- consideration of the Defense ap- ficult, does the Senate have the same propriation bill, fiscal 1992, Mr. rule? Does the other body? James A. Traficant, Jr., of Ohio, THE SPEAKER: No; the Senate does not have the same rule, but it is a rule successfully made several points of our House and we are going to abide of order against provisions in the by it as long as I am Speaker. Operation and Maintenance title MR. CONTE: Is it permissible to refer of the bill. He announced his in- to them as ‘the other body’? THE SPEAKER: That is permissible, 5. 137 CONG. REC. 13976, 102d Cong. the other body... 1st Sess.

12315 Ch. 31 § 9 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS tention to challenge many provi- of title II stricken by my objections to sions by raising points of order, such provisions for having constituted but reversed his position when legislation on an appropriation bill be promised that an amendment he vacated and the bill stand as it is. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from wished to offer, also legislative in Ohio asks unanimous consent to va- concept, would not be opposed by cate proceedings under points of order the bill managers when offered. raised by the gentleman from Ohio He then sought to rectify his ac- only, not the gentleman from Indiana, tions. under title II. Is there objection to the request of MR. [JOHN P.] MURTHA [of Pennsyl- vania]: Mr. Chairman, we have an the gentleman from Ohio? agreement with the gentleman from There was no objection. Ohio that he can offer his amendment THE CHAIRMAN: Those provisions, ac- at the appropriate place, if he would cordingly, are restored to title II of the ask unanimous consent to put back the bill. provisions that he has taken out. MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to do that if I could feel that when we got to conference and got § 10. Role of Committee on everybody in the back room, that when Rules in Waiving Points the law is signed by the President the Traficant amendment would be in of Order there... MR. MURTHA: Mr. Chairman, as the In the ‘‘modern House,’’ at least gentleman knows, I will do the best I since the 95th Congress, the Com- can with every provision we have put mittee on Rules has been called in, including the provisions that the gentleman has put in the bill. We will upon to craft special orders gov- do the best that we can to hold that erning the consideration of most provision. major pieces of legislation to be I agree with the gentleman on the brought before the House. Even provision. I think it is a very important bills otherwise given ‘‘privilege’’ by provision, and I agree with the gentleman completely on it. standing rules of the House, such THE CHAIRMAN: (6) Are there any as general appropriation bills, are other points of order against title II? often considered pursuant to or If not, are there any amendments to are protected by a special rule.(7) title II? Special rules can insulate a bill or VACATING PROCEEDINGS ON PREVIOUS amendments from points of order; POINTS OF ORDER BY MR. TRAFICANT they often are designed to expe- (8) MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Chairman, I ask dite consideration. unanimous consent that any provisions 7. See § 10.16, infra. 6. James L. Oberstar (Minn.). 8. See §§ 10.15, 10.19–10.22, infra.

12316 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

In recent Congresses, these spe- thority to make its own cial orders have become more rules, change or temporarily complex. Some waive the applica- waive provisions of law tion of all rules which would in- which have been enacted as hibit consideration of a meas- rules of each House insofar ure; (9) some waive specific rules.(10) Others protect vulner- as that law applies to the able amendments (11) or provisions procedure of that House. of the bill text, structure an On Mar. 20, 1975,(17) the chair- ( ) amendment process, 12 or modify man of the Committee on Rules normal debate rules. Some special called up for consideration a reso- orders contain a variety of such lution reported as privileged by provisions and more.(13) that committee. A point of order A special order can be selective, protecting some provisions or was raised against the consider- amendments and leaving others ation of the report on the ground vulnerable.(14) that it purported to waive certain A special order may recommend statutory provisions of the Budget the waiver of any rule, even one Act in order to permit consider- created in a statute enacted pur- ation of H.R. 4485, the Emergency suant to the rulemaking authority Middle-Income Housing Act of of the House.(15) Such an order, if 1975. The resolution contained a adopted by the House, can even provision waiving the applicability modify the normal application of a of section 401 of the Budget Act (16) standing rule or order. which prohibits consideration of a bill containing ‘‘new spending authority’’ not limited by amounts Waiving Points of Order specified in an appropriation act. Against Violation of Rule Es- In support of the point of order tablished by Statute raised by Mr. John B. Anderson, § 10.1 One House may, pursu- of Illinois, Mr. Robert E. Bauman, ant to its constitutional au- of Maryland, also pointed out that the report on the resolution did 9. See §§ 10.6, 10.14, infra. not contain a ‘‘Ramseyer’’ showing 10. See §§ 10.3, 10.13, infra. the waiver of section 401 of the 11. See §§ 10.5, 10.18, infra. Budget Act, arguing that the reso- 12. See § 10.23, infra. lution ‘‘changed existing law’’ and 13. See § 10.16, infra. therefore had to comply with Rule 14. See §§ 10.7, 10.9, 10.11, infra. 15. See §§ 10.1, 10.2, infra. 17. 121 CONG. REC. 7676, 7677, 7678, 16. See §§ 10.8, 10.10, infra. 94th Cong. 1st Sess.

12317 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

IX clause 4(d), making the so- MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. called ‘‘Ramseyer rule’’ applicable Speaker, I make a point of order to reports from the Committee on against House Resolution 337 and I Rules. would like to be heard on the point of order. Several collateral parliamentary THE SPEAKER: (18) The gentleman will issues were raised in the argu- state his point of order. ment on the point of order and are MR. ANDERSON of Illinois: Mr. carried herein. Speaker, I raise a point of order MR. [CLAUDE] PEPPER [of Florida]: against House Resolution 337 on the Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com- grounds that the Budget Act by direct mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso- inference forbids any waiver of the sec- lution 337, and ask for its immediate tion 401 ban on new backdoor spend- consideration. ing in the House of Representatives. The Clerk read the resolution as fol- Mr. Speaker, my point of order is lows: grounded on two basic facts: First, H. RES. 337 there is no specific provision in section 401 for an emergency waiver of its pro- Resolved, That upon the adoption visions; and yet, in section 402, which of this resolution it shall be in order to move, clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI and generally prohibits consideration of section 401 of Public Law 93–344 to bills authorizing new budget authority the contrary notwithstanding, that after May 15, there is specific provision the House resolve itself into the for an ‘‘Emergency Waiver in the Committee of the Whole House on House’’ if the Rules Committee deter- the State of the Union for the consid- mines that emergency conditions re- eration of the bill (H.R. 4485) to provide for greater homeownership op- quire such a waiver. It is my conten- portunities for middle-income fami- tion that if the authors of section 401 lies and to encourage more efficient had intended to permit a waiver of its use of land and energy resources. provisions, they would have specifically After general debate, which shall be written into law as they did with sec- confined to the bill and shall con- tion 402. Section 402 makes a similar tinue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the provision for waiving its provisions in chairman and ranking minority the Senate. member of the Committee on Bank- Second, section 904 of the Budget ing, Currency, and Housing, the bill Act, in subsections (b) and (c) states shall be read for amendment under that ‘‘any provision of title III or IV the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill may be waived or suspended in the for amendment, the Committee shall Senate by a majority vote of the Mem- rise and report the bill to the House bers voting,’’ thus extending a waiver with such amendments as may have procedure in the Senate to section 401 been adopted, and the previous ques- as well as 402. But section 904 con- tion shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto tains no similar waiver provision for to final passage without intervening the House of Representatives. motion except one motion to recommit. 18. Carl Albert (Okla.).

12318 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

It should be clear from these two The report goes on to state: facts that the House was intentionally With respect to new contract and excluded from waiving the provisions borrowing authorities, it is very of section 401 of the Budget Act. much in the interest of the new budg- Mr. Speaker, the point may be made et process to prohibit a last-minute that the Budget Act’s provisions are rush of new backdoor authorities. part of the rules of the House, and, as Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that such, are subject to change at any time section 401 was activated on March 3, under the constitutional right of the the Committee on Banking and Cur- House to determine the rules of its rency did not see fit to report a clean proceedings. But I think a fine distinc- bill on March 14 which was in con- tion should be drawn here. This resolu- formity with the section 401 require- tion is presented for the purpose of ment. And on March 18, some 15 days making a bill in order for consider- after the activation of 401, the Bank- ation, and is not before us for the pur- ing and Currency Committee asked the pose of amending or changing the Rules Committee to waive section 401 Budget Act. Since section 401 of the against its bill. Budget Act deals concurrently with the Mr. Speaker, the relevance of all this House and the Senate and their inte- to my point of order should seem quite grated procedures for prohibiting new obvious. It is not relevant whether the backdoor spending, any attempt to committee promises to offer the appro- alter this would have to be dealt with priate amendment at a later point. It in a concurrent resolution at the very may or may not offer such an amend- minimum, if not a joint resolution or ment, and it may or may not be adopt- amendment to the Budget Act. It is ed. But it should be quite clear that one thing for the House to amend its there never was any intention to per- rules; it is quite another for it to at- mit the Rules Committee to waive the tempt, by simple resolution, to waive a provisions of section 401; for by so provision of law relating to the joint doing, we would in effect be repealing rules of procedures of both Houses. the backdoor spending ban of the Budget Act by permitting side-door Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 1975, sec- spending through the Rules Com- tion 401 of the Budget Act, as well as mittee. It is my contention that the au- certain other provisions, was activated thors of the Budget Act never intended by the issuance of House report 94–25 for side-door spending in the Rules by the House Budget Committee. On Committee and for that reason specifi- page 4 of that report, under the head- cally excluded any provision for emer- ing, ‘‘Controls on New Backdoor Au- gency waivers in section 401 in the thorities,’’ it is written: House. I therefore urge that my point The Budget Committees are imple- of order be sustained. menting immediately those portions THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman of section 401 of the Act which (1) from Missouri desire to be heard on make new contract and borrowing authority effective only to the extent the point of order? and amounts provided in appropria- MR. [RICHARD] BOLLING [of Mis- tions acts (section 401(a)). souri]: I do, Mr. Speaker.

12319 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Mr. Speaker, there are a variety of committee in working its way into the grounds on which it would be possible process. to address this point of order. It could It has been pointed out by the gen- be dismissed very quickly on the tleman from Illinois that when the grounds that the rules of the House amendment of the committee is adopt- provide that it shall always be in order ed, or the amendments of the com- to call up for consideration a report mittee are adopted to the bill reported from the Committee on Rules on a by the committee, that the bill then rule, joint rule or the order of business, will be in compliance even with the and then it proceeds to give the very Budget Control Act. But, this exception limited number of exceptions. The one is fully justified on the grounds of the intent of the Congress in giving the that the gentleman from Illinois makes Congress itself an opportunity of 1 as his point of order, and all the dif- year in which to try out the process ferent ones he makes as his points of without requiring that every specific order, are not included in those specific provision of that process as provided in exceptions. law be followed. So, the rules of the House specifi- So, on the general grounds, the con- cally make it clear that the Rules Com- stitutional grounds and the specific mittee is in order when it reports a grounds, it seems to me very clear that rule dealing with the order of business, the point of order is not good. and it does not qualify that authority MR. [CHALMERS P.] WYLIE [of Ohio]: except in a very limited degree. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard Furthermore, it is an established on the point of order. fact that the House can always change Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a its rules. It is protected by so doing. question of the gentleman from Mis- Mr. Speaker, the Chair will note I souri on the point of order. On page 6 have not relied on the fact that as a of the bill H.R. 4485, at line 14, it says: member of the committee that dealt fi- [The Secretary of the Treasury is nally with the Budget and Impound- authorized and directed to purchase ment Control Act, I might have an any obligations of the Association opinion as to what the authors of that issued under this section, and for such purposes the Secretary of the act, and consequently the House, felt. I Treasury is authorized to use as a know, as a matter of fact, that the au- public debt transaction the proceeds thors of that bill in its final form were from the sale of any securities issued well aware of the points that I have under the Second Liberty Bond Act.] just made. It seems to me very clear Would the gentleman please explain that the point of order is not valid on to me the meaning of the language? those grounds. MR. BOLLING: I think it would be I think, however, it is important to more appropriate if the gentleman will add the fact that the Committee on the allow me to suggest that a member of Budget is a new committee. Quite spe- the Committee on Banking and Cur- cifically, the legislation gave it a year rency should explain it. in which it could work its way into the MR. WYLIE: It relates to the point of process, and that this rule aids that order, and that is the point I want to

12320 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10 make. This provides for back-door grounds that that Committee has no spending and, indeed, suggests that authority to report as privileged a reso- the Secretary of the Treasury is au- lution waiving the provisions of section thorized under the act, which was 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of passed many years ago, to increase the 1974. Section 401 prohibits the consid- public debt without congressional ac- eration in the House of any bill which tion or approval of the Committee on provides new spending authority un- Appropriations. It seems to me as if it less that bill also provides that such goes directly to section 401(a), as pro- new spending authority is to be avail- vided in the new Budget Procedures able only to the extent provided in ap- Act. propriations acts. MR. BOLLING: I am not prepared to The Chair would point out that disagree with the gentleman on his in- while section 401 has the force and ef- terpretation of that particular point, fect of law, section 904 of the Congres- but I do not see where it is pertinent sional Budget Act clearly recites that to the point of order. I think the dis- all of the provisions of title IV, includ- cussion we have had on the point of ing section 401, were enacted as an ex- order makes it clear that, despite the ercise of the rulemaking power of the fact, this rule is in order. House, to be considered as part of the MR. WYLIE: Does not the Budget rules of the House, with full recogni- Control Act, section 401(a) prohibit tion of the constitutional right of each back-door spending? House to change such rules at any MR. BOLLING: It also is possible for time to the same extent as in the case that provision to be waived. What I of any other rule of the House. House tried to do in my discussion in opposi- Resolution 5, 94th Congress, adopted tion to the validity of the point of order all these provisions of the Budget Act made by the gentleman from Illinois as part of the rules of the House for was to point out the very broad basis this Congress. on which such a matter could be Much of the argument of the gen- waived, a constitutional basis and a tleman from Illinois goes to the merits specific provision of clause 4 of rule XI or the propriety of the action rec- granting the Committee on Rules a ommended by Committee on Rules and very broad authority to report matters not to the authority of that committee that relate to order of business. It is a to report this resolution. well-known fact that the Committee on The Chair, therefore, overrules the Rules often reports waivers of points of point of order. order, and this is, in effect, a waiver of MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, a point a point of order. of order. THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will rule. state it. The gentleman from Illinois makes MR. BAUMAN: I make a further point the point of order against the consider- of order against the consideration of ation of House Resolution 337 reported this rule based on the ruling just made from the Committee on Rules, on the by the Chair.

12321 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The Chair has just ruled section 904 (Mr. Bolling). The Chair would state of the Budget Control Act permits the further that the objection raised by the House to exercise its power to change gentleman from Maryland (Mr. the rules of the House. Bauman) refers to permanent Under the rules of the House, in rule changes—amendments or repeals—in IX, 4(d), it requires that— the rules of the House and not to tem- Whenever the Committee on Rules porary waivers. reports a resolution repealing or MR. [JOHN J.] RHODES [of Arizona]: amending any of the Rules of the Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary House of Representatives or part inquiry. thereof it shall include in its report THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will or in an accompanying document— state his parliamentary inquiry. (1) the text of any part of the Rules of the House of Representa- MR. RHODES: Mr. Speaker, in accord- tives which is proposed to be re- ance with the ruling of the Chair, I in- pealed; and quire as to whether or not the ruling of (2) a comparative print.... the Chair has the effect of rescinding the rule which is the subject of the The report of the Rules Committee, Report 94–80, contains no such com- point of order made by the gentleman parative print. It shows nothing as to from Illinois or whether it merely sus- the effect of this rule as it applies to pends the application of that rule for any waiver or change of the rules of the purposes of the resolution which is the House; and, therefore, is in direct now before the House. contradiction, on the basis the Chair THE SPEAKER: In answer to the par- just cited. I, therefore, make a point of liamentary inquiry, the Chair will order this is not in order at this time. state that all the ruling of the Chair THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman does is make in order the consideration from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) desire to of the resolution before the House. It be heard on the point of order? does not change the permanent rules MR. BOLLING: I do, Mr. Speaker. of the House. It seems to the gentleman from Mis- MR. RHODES: Mr. Speaker, a further souri that the constraint purported to parliamentary inquiry. be placed on the House by that par- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will ticular language is not equal to the state it. specific, clear, constitutional provision MR. RHODES: Mr. Speaker, would it which states that the House will make then be necessary for the resolution its rules and change its rules. which is before the House to be agreed Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me to by a two-thirds vote? that no subsidiary provision would be THE SPEAKER: It would not. prevailing when the House would be The gentleman from Florida (Mr. stopped from modifying its rules re- Pepper) is recognized for 1 hour. peatedly by technical arguments. MR. PEPPER: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to minutes to the able gentleman from Il- rule. linois (Mr. Anderson), pending which I The Chair agrees with the statement yield myself such time as I may con- made by the gentleman from Missouri sume.

12322 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

Authority of Committee on showing the waiver of a provision Rules To Waive Rules Put in of the Budget Act which would Place by Statute have prevented consideration of the measure had it been applica- § 10.2 The Committee on Rules ble. The arguments raised against can call up as privileged a the resolution were similar to resolution which provides those raised against another spe- for temporary waivers of cial order reported by the Com- House rules, even though mittee on Rules on the preceding those rules may be part of a day. The proceedings were as fol- statutory scheme enacted lows:

into law as an exercise of MR. [RICHARD] BOLLING [of Mis- congressional rulemaking souri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the authority. Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 352 and ask for its imme- House Resolution 352 which diate consideration. provided for the consideration of The Clerk read the resolution as fol- the National School Lunch and lows: Child Nutrition Act of 1975, was H. RES. 352 reported on Mar. 23, 1975, and Resolved, That upon the adoption called up as privileged on the fol- of this resolution it shall be in order lowing day.(19) Mr. Robert E. to move, section 401 of Public Law Bauman, of Maryland, raised a 93–344 to the contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve point of order against consider- itself into the Committee of the ation of the resolution, claiming Whole House on the State of the that a special procedural resolu- Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4222) to amend the Na- tion could not waive provisions of tional School Lunch and Child Nutri- a statutory law, in this instance a tion Acts in order to extend and revise the special food service program section of the Congressional Budg- for children and the school breakfast et Act of 1974 which prohibits program, and for other purposes reconsideration of measures con- lated to strengthening the school lunch and child nutrition programs. taining ‘‘new spending authority’’ After general debate, which shall be not subject to limitation by an ap- confined to the bill and shall con- propriation act. He also argued tinue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the that the report of the Committee chairman and ranking minority on Rules was defective insofar as member of the Committee on Edu- cation and Labor, the bill shall be it did not contain a ‘‘Ramseyer’’ read for amendment under the five- minute rule. It shall be in order to 19. 121 CONG. REC. 8418, 94th Cong. 1st consider the amendment in the na- Sess., Mar. 24, 1975. ture of a substitute recommended by

12323 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

the Committee on Education and ing of the Chair on last Thursday in Labor now printed in the bill as an which the Chair said in part: original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute ‘‘. . . section 401’’ and the provi- rule, and all points of order against sions thereof ‘‘were enacted as an ex- sections 13 and 15 of said substitute ercise of the rulemaking power of the for failure to comply with the provi- House, to be considered as part of sions of clause 5, rule XXI are here- the rules of the House, with full rec- by waived. At the conclusion of such ognition of the constitutional right of consideration, the Committee shall each House to change such rules at rise and report the bill to the House any time to the same extent as in with such amendments as may have the case of any other rule of the been adopted, and any Member may House.’’ demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the This leads me to state my second Committee of the Whole to the bill or point of order against the report, to the committee amendment in the House Report 94–107, accompanying nature of a substitute. The previous House Resolution 352, on the grounds question shall be considered as or- that this report violates rule XI of dered on the bill and amendments clause 4(d), of the Rules of the House thereto to final passage without in- which in essence requires that at any tervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instruc- time a rule of the House is amended or tions. changed, there shall be printed in the text of the report a comparative print MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a showing such changes. point of order. Mr. Speaker, in support of this sec- ( ) THE SPEAKER: 20 The gentleman will ond point, I have researched the state his point of order. records of the House; to the best extent MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I make a one Member can. I realize that rule XI point of order against the consideration 4(d) is a new provision, but it has a of House Resolution 352 on two comparative predecessor in the grounds. The first ground is that the Ramseyer Rule. I have found, in look- rule itself attempts to permit a waiver ing up the Ramseyer Rule, that there of section 401 of Public Law 93–344, is no comparable case in which the the Budget Control Act. Chair has ever ruled that a waiver by In support of this point of order, I a simple resolution making in order a cite the argument by the gentleman rule has extended to the right to from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), which ap- change the statutes of the United peared in the Congressional Record on States, without at least attempting to page H2074 of last Thursday, which I comply with the Ramseyer Rule. The adopt by reference, the argument being only close case that I found was a case in essence that a procedural resolution on January 9, 1930, in which the Chair of the House cannot repeal, amend, or [Speaker Longworth of Ohio] ruled waive a section of statutory law. that the Ramseyer Rule did not apply Mr. Speaker, anticipating the Chair’s to an appropriations statute being en- ruling on my first point, I cite the rul- acted by the Congress which permitted a temporary waiver of another statute, 20. Carl Albert (Okla.). but this did not apply to a simple rule.

12324 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on both of temporary waiver, and the Chair has these points, I suggest that the consid- previously stated his position with re- eration of this resolution and its report spect to temporary waivers in the case is not in order at this time. of that portion of the gentleman’s argu- THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman ment which cites the Ramseyer rule. from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) desire to That is only applicable with respect to be heard on the point of order? amendments or repeals of laws or MR. BOLLING: I do, Mr. Speaker, rules. It is not applicable simply to a very briefly. waiver of a rule. Mr. Speaker, I would cite the case The Chair overrules the point of cited by the gentleman from Maryland order. (Mr. Bauman), the arguments which I The gentleman from Missouri is rec- happen to have made on that day, and ognized. the various rulings of the Chair in support of the position that the rule is in Waiver Policy of Committee on order. Rules THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to rule if the gentlemen do not desire to § 10.3 In certain Congresses, be heard further. the Committee on Rules has For the reasons stated by the Chair followed a policy of not last week on the point of order raised granting ‘‘blanket waivers’’ by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) and on the point raised by but only waivers of specified the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. An- House rules. derson), the Chair finds no reason to In the 100th Congress, a mem- reverse the ruling he made last week ber of the minority leadership in- and therefore overrules the point of order. cluded in the Record a list of spe- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a cial orders which contained blan- parliamentary inquiry. ket waivers, and a copy of his let- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will ter to the then chairman of the state his parliamentary inquiry. Committee of Rules requesting ad- MR. BAUMAN: Is it the Chair’s posi- herence to the policy of granting tion that henceforth, rule XI, clause only specific waivers. The inser- 4(d) does not apply at all in any in- tion of Nov. 20, 1987,(1) is carried, stance where a waiver of a permanent rule of the House, or a statute which in part, below. has the status of a permanent rule of MR. [TRENT] LOTT [of Mississippi]: the House is involved; that in any of Mr. Speaker, the House Rules Com- those instances there is no need for the mittee is rapidly becoming the ruleless Committee on Rules to inform the committee. This week alone, of the four House of its impending action? THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state 1. 133 CONG. REC. 33209, 33210, 100th that, firstly, the rule if adopted is a Cong. 1st Sess.

12325 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

rules we granted for the consideration turn to our policy of specifying waivers of bills and conference reports, all four in the rules we grant. This is the best waived all points of order against con- way Members will know what’s in- sideration. In other words, for all we volved with both the rules we report know, each of those measures could and the bills they make in order. And, have violated every rule in the book, it is the best way to keep committees including the entire Budget Act, but honest and ensure that our rules are the Rules Committee was saying, ‘‘It’s honored to the maximum extent pos- okay.’’ sible. Mr. Speaker, about 9 years ago, At this point in the Record, Mr. Speaker, I will insert my letter to when Congressman Bolling became Chairman Pepper and two tables I chairman of the Rules Committee, a have prepared on blanket waivers. The conscious policy was instituted to avoid materials follow: blanket waivers of the rules in favor of specified waivers. This policy has Congress of the United States, proved extremely useful to Rules Com- House of Representatives, mittee members, the rest of the House, Washington, DC, Nov. 20, 1987. and to committees. Hon. CLAUDE PEPPER, Chairman, House Committee on When our current chairman, Senator Rules, Washington, DC. Pepper, took over in 1983, he continued to observe this policy, and, accord- Dear Mr. Chairman: Several years ago, the Rules Committee made a ing to my research, during his first conscious decision to avoid waiving term as chairman in the 98th Con- all points of order against measures, gress, 1983–84, not once did we have a and instead to specify in our rules blanket waiver for a bill, a substitute just which House rules and Budget made in order as original text, or a Act provisions were being waived. conference report. In the last Congress, As a result of this policy, our Com- mittee Members were better pre- though, such blanket waivers compared to explain the potential rules prised 17 percent of all rules. And thus violations that were being protected; far in this Congress, they constitute 23 House Members were consequently percent of all rules. better informed about the necessity for the rule and problems with the Mr. Speaker, I don’t think commit- bills made in order; and, I think, tees have become all that more fla- committees were likely to be more grant in their violations of rules than careful about not violating House before to warrant such a heavy reli- rules in drafting their bills and re- ance on blanket waivers. It’s just that ports. such rules are easier to draft and ex- In reviewing rules granted in the last three Congresses, I was pleased plain away. In short, we are becoming to learn that none of the 190 rules sloppy and lazy, and, in so doing, we granted in the 98th Congress waived will eventually be encouraging commit- all points of order against a bill or tees to become so as well when it its consideration, against a sub- comes to complying with House rules. stitute as original text, or against a conference report. However, in the I have therefore today written to 99th Congress, such waivers com- Chairman Pepper, urging that we re- prised 17% of all rules, and, in this

12326 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

Congress, amount to 23% of the Chairman of the Budget Com- rules reported to date. In fact, in this week alone, all four of the rules re- mittee Announced Policy Re- ported waived all points of order garding Waivers of Budget against the measures involved. (See Act Provisions Preventing enclosed tables.) I would like to strongly urge that Consideration of Bills our Committee return to our former policy of specifying waivers for the § 10.4 In the first year of the benefit of our Committee members, implementation of the Con- the rest of the House, and as a de- terrent against even more violations gressional Budget Act of by committees. While waiving all the 1974, the chairman of the rules may be easy and convenient on Committee on the Budget the surface, it only glosses over deep- er troubles that are bound to disrupt stated to the House the poli- surface appearances and conditions cies to be followed by his the more the practice is relied on. committee regarding waivers With warm personal regards, I am recommended by the Com- Sincerely yours, mittee on Rules for bills vio- TRENT LOTT. lating restrictions against Enclosures. ‘‘back-door spending’’ contained in the Budget Act. The following is a list of rules After several resolutions pro- containing waivers of all points of viding special orders of business order in the 98th Congress: reported from the Committee on 100th Congress (as of Nov. 19, 1987) Rules had been challenged by H. Res.: points of order when called up for 38 ...... H.R. 2. 124 ...... H.R. 2 (CR). consideration, and the Speaker 116 ...... H.J. Res. 175. had held them to be in order as 151 ...... H.R. 3. proper exercises of rulemaking au- 191 ...... H.R. 4. 227 ...... H.R. 2470. thority, the chairman of the Com- 233 ...... H.R. 3022. mittee on the Budget, Mr. Brock 236 ...... H.R. 27. Adams, of Washington, explained 238 ...... H.J. Res. 132. 247 ...... H.J. Res. 324 (CR). the policies to be followed by the 265 ...... H.R. 3030. Committee on the Budget in en- 296 ...... H.R. 3545. forcement of the restrictions in 298 ...... H.R. 3545. 308 ...... H.R. 1451 (CR). the Budget Act. He acknowledged 309 ...... H.R. 1748 (CR). the authority of the House to 310 ...... H.R. 1720 (CR). waive provisions of the Budget 314 ...... H.R. 1346. 316 ...... H.R. —. Act but stated a policy of moni- (CR) denotes conference report. toring such waivers, supporting or 12327 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS opposing them as necessary to Thus the Budget Committee will have protect the integrity of the budget the opportunity to appear before the Committee on Rules and argue the process. The statement by Mr. matter of whether a rule waiving Adams on Mar. 24, 1975,(2) fol- points of order should be granted. It is lows: not the general intention of this Mem- ber, as chairman of the Budget Com- MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank mittee, to expect any waiver of such the gentleman for yielding me this rule. time. I would like to have at this time Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con- the attention of the House so that I sent that a copy of my letter of March might outline the procedure which will 21, 1975, to the chairman of the Com- be followed by the Budget Committee. mittee on Rules setting forth this posi- As the gentleman from Missouri has tion be included in the Record at this explained, these rules came up without point. ( ) an opportunity for us to debate this THE SPEAKER: 3 Is there objection to motion before the Rules Committee. I the request of the gentleman from blame no one for this, because we are Washington? in the process of implementing a new There was no objection. The letter follows: statute, which, as was described in the March 21, 1975. earlier colloquy, puts together a proc- Hon. RAY J. MADDEN, ess to be used for closing back-door Chairman, Committee on Rules, U.S. spending. House of Representatives, The Speaker has ruled, as the stat- Washington, D.C. ute (Public Law 93–344) provides in DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you section 401 that it shall not be in order know, on March 3, 1975, the Com- under the rules of the House to engage mittee on the Budget filed a report in new backdoor spending—as pro- with the House (H. Rept. No. 94–25) vided in the act—unless this provision implementing certain new budget is waived by rule. This can be rec- procedures contained in P.L. 93–344, the Congressional Budget and Im- ommended by the Committee on Rules, poundment Control Act of 1974. and that is proposed in this case. The Two of the important new proce- Budget Committee intends to imple- dures implemented (effective March ment this procedure in the following 3) are as follows: (1) section 401(a), fashion: which prohibits floor consideration of any new contract or borrowing au- First, I have written to the chairman thority legislation unless it contains of the Committee on Rules, and stated a provision that such new authority that it will be the position of the Budg- is to be effective only to the extent or et Committee that it wishes to be in such amounts as are provided in heard on any proposed waiver of the appropriations acts; and (2) section 401(b)(1), which prohibits floor con- rules of the Budget Committee Act sideration of entitlement legislation with regard to backdoor spending. having an effective date before the start of the next fiscal year. 2. 121 CONG. REC. 8419, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).

12328 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

In order to assure effective imple- (The letter follows:) mentation of these provisions, I would ask that any request to the IDENTICAL LETTER TO ALL CHAIRMEN Rules Committee for a waiver of OF STANDING COMMITTEES points of order relating to sections March 21, 1975. 401(a) or 401(b)(1) of P.L. 93–344 be Hon. RAY ROBERTS, called immediately to the attention Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ of the Budget Committee. In such Affairs, U.S. House of cases, the Committee will make known to you its views on the waiver Representatives, Washington, D.C. request as promptly as possible. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On March 3, With warmest regards, 1975, the Committee on the Budget BROCK ADAMS, filed a report with the House (H. Chairman. Rept. No. 94–25) implementing certain new budget procedures con- MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have also tained in P.L. 93–344, the Congres- contacted all of the seated committee sional Budget and Impoundment chairmen of the House again by a spe- Control Act of 1974. cial letter of March 21, 1975, and have Two of the important new procedures implemented (effective March indicated to them the procedure which 3) are as follows: (1) section 401(a), is required to be followed if back-door which prohibits floor consideration of spending is to be allowed, indicating any new contract or borrowing au- the alternatives, and indicating that if thority legislation unless it contains a committee wishes to have a waiver of a provision that such new authority is to be effective only to the extent or the rule, that we are available to dis- in such amounts as are provided in cuss this matter with them before the appropriations acts; and (2) section matter is presented to the Rules Com- 401(b)(1), which prohibits floor con- mittee. This has just been done with sideration of entitlement legislation the other two bills that were involved having an effective date before the start of the next fiscal year. before the Rules Committee last week. In order to assure effective imple- In those bills the back-door spending mentation of these provisions, I have has been removed. We now have made asked the Rules Committee to bring clear the procedure to be followed so to the attention of the Budget Com- that when the Budget Committee mittee any request for a waiver of members appear before the Committee points of order relating to sections 401(a) or 401(b)(1) of P.L. 93–344. In on Rules, any chairman looking for a such cases, the Budget Committee waiver of this rule will know the proce- plans to inform the Rules Committee dure to be followed. of its views on the waiver request as Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con- promptly as possible. sent that a copy of my letter of March Similarly, I would like to ask you to bring to the attention of the Budg- 21, 1975, which was sent to each chair- et Committee any request you plan man of a standing committee, be in- to make for such a waiver. I assure cluded in the Record at this point. you that our Committee will do ev- THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to erything possible to work out with you any problems relating to these the request of the gentleman from new provisions of the Budget Act. Washington? I have asked George Gross, the There was no objection. Budget Committee’s General Coun-

12329 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

sel, to contact your staff concerning late to challenge the amend- any questions you may have on these new procedures. ment as modified even With warmest regards, though its text is no longer BROCK ADAMS, that protected by the explicit Chairman. description in the waiver. MR. ADAMS: Mr. Speaker, I might state that the reason we have had The special order providing for these problems is that the imple- consideration of the Energy Con- menting report of the committee was servation and Oil Policy Act of only filed on March 3, 1975. We were 1975 made an amendment offered then required to wait for the filing of by Mr. Robert Krueger, of Texas, the Senate committee report which in order, notwithstanding the fact was filed on March 5, 1975. It was this that it was arguably not germane. process which put into effect section 401 of Public Law 93–344. If we had The rule did not address amend- not filed this report the back-door ments to the protected amend- spending closure would not have gone ment, and it was this aspect of the into effect until next year. So we were special rule which presented the implementing this provision a year in procedural questions that arose in advance, and it is now in effect. the July 22, 1975,(4) proceedings.

MRS. [PATRICIA] SCHROEDER [of Colo- Where Special Order Waives rado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amend- Point of Order Against Spe- ment to the amendment. cific Amendment, Germane The Clerk read as follows: Amendments Thereto May Be Amendment offered by Mrs. Considered and the Amend- Schroeder to the amendment offered by Mr. Krueger: In section 8(d)(2)(E) ment as Modified Remain (ii)(a)(1) of the Emergency Petroleum Protected Allocation Act of 1973 as amended by Mr. Krueger’s amendment) strike § 10.5 Where a special rule the words ‘‘(including development or production from oil shale,’’ and insert waives points of order a comma after ‘‘gas’’. against the consideration of In section 8(d)(2)(E)(ii)(a)(2) of the a designated amendment Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 (as amended by Mr. which might otherwise be Krueger’s amendment) strike the ruled out as not germane, words ‘‘oil shale,’’. and does not specifically pre- MR. [BOB] ECKHARDT [of Texas]: Mr. clude the offering of amend- Chairman, I reserve a point of order, ments thereto, germane and pending that I have a parliamentary inquiry. amendments to the amendment may be offered and 4. 121 CONG. REC. 23990, 23991, 94th adopted but it is then too Cong. 1st Sess. 12330 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

THE CHAIRMAN: (5) The gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will have from Texas reserves a point of order, to state he believes the point of order and the gentleman will state his par- comes too late. liamentary inquiry. MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, I am MR. ECKHARDT: The parliamentary not making one at this time if I need inquiry is what determines germane- not make one, but I would certainly ness of this amendment, if it is ger- make one at such time as the Krueger mane, to the Krueger amendment? It amendment would be voted on. would then be admissible at this time THE CHAIRMAN: Will the gentleman as germane, as I understand it. In restate what he is doing? Is he making other words, the relation to the Krueger amendment would determine a point of order against the Krueger germaneness in this instance, I would amendment? assume. MR. ECKHARDT: I am making a point THE CHAIRMAN: If the gentleman is of order against the Krueger amend- asking whether the amendment offered ment. by the gentlewoman from Colorado has THE CHAIRMAN: That comes too late. to be germane, the answer, of course, MR. ECKHARDT: If the Chairman is ‘‘yes.’’ Is the gentleman contending would hear me on the point of order I that it is not germane? will be glad to explain. MR. ECKHARDT: No. The gentleman MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- merely asks whether or not on the gan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of question of germaneness with respect order against the point of order. It to this amendment, the question is de- comes too late. termined on whether or not this THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will be amendment is germane to the Krueger amendment. glad to hear the gentleman from Texas on the timeliness of his point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, if the MR. ECKHARDT: I thank the Chair. Chair would permit me, I should make Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order. a point of order now if I must do so or I will at such time as the vote arises THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- on the Krueger amendment on the woman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) ground that the Krueger amendment is to the amendment offered by the gen- now outside the rule. tleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger). If the Chair will recall, I queried of The question was taken; and on a di- the Chair whether or not the question vision (demanded by Mr. Brown of of germaneness on the amendment of- Ohio) there were—ayes 39, noes 31. fered by the gentlewoman from Colo- So the amendment to the amend- rado was based upon its germaneness ment was agreed to. to the Krueger amendment or if that MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, I re- were the standard. The Chair an- serve a point of order against the swered me that it was. Therefore, the Krueger amendment. amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado was not subject 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.). to a point of order at that time and I

12331 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

point out to the Chair that the ques- housing measures was ruled out as tion of germaneness rests upon wheth- not germane. er or not the amendment is germane to There are a number of other authori- the amendment to which it is applied. ties in that connection, that is, an At that time it was not in order for amendment postponing the effective- me to urge that the amendment offered ness of legislation pending contin- by the gentlewoman from Colorado was gency. not germane because it was indeed Now, with respect to the question of germane to the Krueger amendment, timeliness, the gentleman from Texas but the rule protects the Krueger could not have raised the point of order amendment itself from a point of order against the Schroeder amendment be- on the grounds of germaneness and cause of the fact that the Schroeder specifically says that it shall be in amendment was, in fact, germane to order to consider without the interven- the Krueger amendment. It is clearly tion of any point of order the text of an stated that the test of germaneness amendment which is identical to the must rest on the question of the body text of section 301 of H.R. 7014 as in- upon which the amendment acts, and troduced and which was placed in the as I queried the Chair at the time, I Congressional Record on Monday and asked that specific question, would the it is described. germaneness of the Schroeder amend- The Krueger amendment upon the ment rest upon the question whether it adoption of the Schroeder amendment is germane to the Krueger amendment. becomes other than the identical The Chair answered, I think cor- amendment which was covered by the rectly, that it was germane. I could not rule. At this point the question of ger- quarrel with that ruling and I could maneness of the Krueger amendment not at that point raise a question rests on the question of whether or not whether it was effective to the main it is at the present time germane to body involved here; but at this time is the main body before the House. the very first time I have had an op- It is not germane to the main body portunity and I raise the point of order before the House because of the—and I that the Krueger amendment as now cite in this connection Deschler on 28, constituted is not protected by the rule. section 24 in which there are several THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other precedents given to the effect that an Member desire to be heard on the amendment which purports to create a point of order? condition contingent upon an event MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: happening, as for instance the passage Mr. Chairman, I only state that it of a law, is not in order. For instance seems to me that the rule makes the 24.6 on page 396 says: Krueger amendment in order by its To a bill authorizing funds for context, but it does not prohibit it being struction of atomic energy facilities amended by subsequent action of this in various parts of the Nation, an amendment making the initiation of body and that if the text had been any such project contingent upon the changed by the gentleman from Texas enactment of federal or state fair (Mr. Krueger) in its introduction, the

12332 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10 point of order might have been appro- MR. ECKHARDT: Mr. Chairman, I priate; but the point of order that is at- wish to be heard only because of the tempted to prohibit this body from statement of the gentleman from amending the text of the Krueger Michigan, who is a very correct man amendment after it has been properly with respect to points of order, but the introduced and been made germane by gentleman is now not quite correct. the rule would prohibit those others in The gentleman from Michigan did, in the majority of this body from acting truth, ask that the rule include the on any perfection of the Krueger specific provision protecting the amendment. I do not think that is the purpose of the rule. Krueger amendment, if amended; but the Committee on Rules did not in- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready to rule, unless another Member desires clude the gentleman’s request, but to be heard. rather very sharply and definitely prescribed that the matter that would be MR. DINGELL: Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by this point of order. I think, relevant and nothing else was the body first of all, it comes too late. I think of that amendment as printed in the the amendment, Mr. Chairman, comes, Record. first of all, too late. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready Second, it would make a nullity of to rule. the actions of the Committee on Rules, The rule under which the matter is which very specifically made in order being considered did in fact make in the Krueger amendment. order the so-called Krueger amend- As a matter of fact, it was at the re- ment, and any amendment to that quest of this particular Member and amendment which is germane to that the gentleman from Texas that that amendment was thus, at the same was done and also it was at the re- time, made in order. There was no quest of this particular Member of this need for special provision to make body that the Committee on Rules amendments germane to the Krueger made appropriate amendments to the amendment in order, and the argu- Krueger amendment. If the point of ment made by the gentleman from order of the gentleman from Texas Ohio (Mr. Brown) is very much to the would prevail, the gentleman would be point. able to ex post facto undo the work of the Committee on Rules and convert a The Chair, therefore overrules the prior amendment, which may or may point of order. not have been germane, into such a vehicle that it would strike at the actions Waiving Points of Order of the Committee on Rules. The time to raise this point of order § 10.6 Rules of the House was at the time of offering the amend- which are designed to pro- ment by the gentlewoman from Colo- hibit consideration of a bill rado. can be waived if the House THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready to rule, but the Chair would be glad to adopts a special order which hear from additional Members. makes consideration in order 12333 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

notwithstanding violations of eration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report Budget Act provisions or in- the bill to the House with such adequacies in the committee amendments as may have been report. adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the House Resolution 601 of the 95th bill and amendments thereto to final Congress, 1st Session, providing for passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. the consideration of the Victims of Crime Act (H.R. 7010), illustrates the THE SPEAKER: (7) The Chair recog- type of special order which may be nizes the gentleman from Massachu- used to allow a bill to be considered setts (Mr. Moakley). where, absent the adoption of such a MR. [JOHN JOSEPH] MOAKLEY [of rule, points of order would prevent con- Massachusetts]:.... sideration. Section 401(b)(1) of the Congres- The content of the special order and sional Budget Act of 1974 prohibits the explanation of its provisions are in- consideration of any bill containing cluded below.(6) new entitlement authority which could The Clerk read the resolution as fol- take effect before the first day of the lows: fiscal year which begins during the calendar year in which the bill is re- H. RES. 601 ported. H.R. 7010 is clearly an entitle- Resolved, That upon the adoption ment within the meaning of the act. of this resolution it shall be in order The Committee on Judiciary has to move, section 401(b)(1) of the Con- agreed to offer an amendment on the gressional Budget Act of 1974 (Pub- lic Law 93-344), clause 2(l)(3)(A) of floor which will insure that the entitle- rule XI, and clause 7 of rule XIII to ment provision cannot take effect be- the contrary notwithstanding, that fore October 1, 1977. The amendment the House resolve itself into the will bring the bill into full compliance Committee of the Whole House on and, on the basis of this agreement, the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7010) to pro- the Committee on Budget has sup- vide for grants to States for the pay- ported a waiver of the point of order ment of compensation to persons in- and the Committee on Rules has re- jured by certain criminal acts and ported a resolution containing the omissions, and for other purposes. waiver. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall con- Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI provides tinue not to exceed one hour, to be that reports of committees shall con- equally divided and controlled by the tain oversight findings and rec- chairman and ranking minority ommendations. Of course, the Victims member of the Committee on the Ju- diciary, the bill shall be read for of Crime Act establishes an entirely amendment under the five-minute new program. Since the program does rule. At the conclusion of the consid- not yet exist, the Committee on Judici- ary could hardly exercise any oversight 6. 123 CONG. REC. 17965, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1977. 7. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

12334 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10 at this point. The committee intends to rule contains three waivers, two of exercise vigorous oversight and a sim- which would have been unnecessary if ple statement like the one I am mak- the committee had taken more care in ing contained in the committee report preparing its report. The first waiver, would have satisfied the requirement mentioned at line 2 of the rule, is of of the rule. It is a purely technical section 401(b)(1) of the Budget Act waiver and I am aware of no possible which prohibits consideration of any controversy. new spending authority which would Clause 7 of rule XIII requires any re- take effect prior to the beginning of the port to contain a cost estimate. This fiscal year. This waiver is necessary was added to the rules of the House by because subsection 2(c) of the bill, be- the Legislative Reorganization Act of ginning on line 22 of page 2, provides 1970 and has been rendered largely ob- an automatic entitlement of travel, solete by enactment of the Congres- transportation and per diem expenses sional Budget Act creating the Con- to the members of the Advisory Com- gressional Budget Office. The act mittee on Victims of Crime. Since this added to the rules of the House a rule advisory committee presumably could (clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI) which re- be in operation before October 1 of this quires all committee reports to contain year, the waiver became necessary. I a cost estimate prepared by the Con- would hasten to add, though, that the gressional Budget Office. Since CBO waiver does not apply to the grants has greater professional expertise in made available to victims of crime. this area, the old rule is usually com- Under section 9 of the bill, the complied with by a single sentence stating pensation grants to victims of crime the committee reporting the bill ac- does not begin until fiscal year 1978. cepts the CBO estimate as accurate. The violation of the rule occurs simply Resolutions Providing Partial because the report does not contain a Waivers, Leaving Certain statement conceding the CBO estimate. It should be noted that a de- Provisions Unprotected From tailed cost estimated by CBO is in- Points of Order cluded in the report (H. Rept. 95–337) on pages 11 through 14 inclusive. § 10.7 A resolution may pro- While the Committee on Judiciary ne- pose the waiver of points of glected to include a statement that it order against legislative pro- accepts the estimate, it does agree and visions in a general appro- notes that the departmental estimate is in the same range. This waiver is priation bill except for cer- quite technical and presents no contain enumerated provisions troversy at all.... which then remain vulner- MR. [JOHN B.] ANDERSON of Illinois: able to points of order. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 601 is a 1-hour, open rule providing for the When the Committee on Rules consideration of H.R. 7010, the Victims has a hearing to consider a rule of Crime Act of 1977. Mr. Speaker, this waiving points of order against 12335 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS provisions in a general appropria- mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso- tion bill, Members may appear at lution 655 and ask for its immediate that hearing to ask that certain consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- language not receive the protec- lows: tion of a waiver. The special rule granting waiv- H. RES. 655 er protection to certain provisions Resolved, That during the consid- in the Defense appropriation bill eration of the bill (H.R. 7933) making appropriations for the Depart- for fiscal 1978 was called up in ment of Defense for the fiscal year the House on June 24, 1977.(8) In ending September 30, 1978, and for the debate on the rule, the neces- other purposes, all points of order against the following provisions in sity for certain explanatory lan- said bill for failure to comply with guage in the rule, limiting the ef- the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI fect of a point of order against an are hereby waived: beginning on page 13, line 14 through page 16, unprotected provision to the pre- line 9; beginning on page 17, line 17 cise words targeted by the point of through page 20, line 19; beginning order, was explained by Mr. Del- on page 21, line 15 through page 23, line 21; beginning on page 25, line 8 bert L. Latta, of Ohio, a minority through page 27, line 25; and begin- member on the Committee on ning on page 40, line 25 through Rules.(9) page 42, line 16; and all points of order against the following provi- MR. [GILLIS W.] LONG of Louisiana: sions in said bill for failure to comply Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com- with the provisions of clause 6, rule XXI are hereby waived: beginning on 8. 123 CONG. REC. 20706, 95th Cong. page 15, line 13 through page 24, 1st Sess. line 15, except with respect to the language on page 19 beginning with 9. Since the special rule identified the the word ‘‘and’’ on line 17 and all parts of the bill which were to be that follows up to the semicolon on protected by page and line numbers, line 21: Provided however, That a the Parliamentarian suggested to point of order if sustained against the Committee on Rules that a pro- the language falling within the exception in the preceding sentence viso be added to the rule making it shall apply only to that language clear that the remainder of a para- and not to the entire paragraph in graph would not be ruled out if a which it appears. portion thereof was unprotected. The ( ) THE SPEAKER: 10 The gentleman fact that the remainder of a para- from Louisiana (Mr. Long) is recog- graph was protected by a waiver of a nized for 1 hour.... particular House rule would not of MR. LATTA: Mr. Speaker, I agree itself alter the general principle that with the statements that were just an entire paragraph of an appropria- made by the gentleman from Louisiana tion bill is subject to a point of order (Mr. Long). if any provision therein is vulnerable to a point of order. 10. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

12336 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

I would like to point out that there Special Order Modifying Appli- is a proviso in this rule which would cation of Germaneness Rule seem to set a new precedent. I have reference to line 5, page 2 of the rule § 10.8 The Committee on Rules where the following proviso appears: may report a special order Provided however, That a point of altering the ordinary test of order if sustained against the language falling within the exception in germaneness, such as ren- the preceding sentence shall apply dering only one portion of an only to that language and not to the entire paragraph in which it ap- amendment subject to chal- pears. lenge by a point of order as Mr. Speaker, this unusual provision being not germane, while was included in the rule as a result of protecting the consideration an amendment offered in the Rules of the remainder of the Committee. A member objected to the amendment. waiver of clause 6, rule XXI as it ap- The Defense Department au- plied to language transferring funds for the hydrofoil missile ship program thorization bill, 1979 was consid- to other purposes. He strongly favored ered in the House on May 24, the hydrofoil ship program and did not 1978. A special order, with the favor transferring the funds from the unique feature which permitted a hydrofoil ship program to other pur- point of order to lie against one poses. Therefore, he moved to amend provision in an amendment in the the rule so that the waiver of clause 6, nature of a substitute, had been rule XXI would not apply to the language transferring funds from the hy- adopted on May 23. The critical drofoil ship program to other purposes. part of the special rule and the re- The Rules Committee adopted his sulting proceedings in Committee amendment excepting from the waiver of the Whole under this rather of clause 6, rule XXI, the language in unique rule were as follows. the bill on page 19, beginning with the The pertinent language in H. word ‘‘and’’ in line 17 and all that fol- Res. 1188, adopted by the House lows up to the semicolon on line 21. on May 23, 1978,(11) was as fol- Once part of the paragraph was exempted from the waiver, it was then lows: necessary to add the proviso clause, in- H. RES. 1188 suring that the rest of the paragraph would still stand. This was necessary Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order because the House precedents state to move that the House resolve itself that an entire appropriating paragraph into the Committee of the Whole is subject to a point of order when a part of that paragraph is subject to a 11. 124 CONG. REC. 15094, 15095, 95th point of order. Cong. 2d Sess.

12337 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

House on the State of the Union for The proceedings of May 24,(12) the consideration of the bill (H.R. when the amendment in the na- 10929) to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1979, for pro- ture of a substitute was pending curement of aircraft, missiles, naval in the House were as follows: vessels, tracked combat vehicles, tor- ( ) pedoes, and other weapons, and re- THE CHAIRMAN: 13 When the Com- search, development, test and eval- mittee rose on Tuesday, May 23, 1978, uation for the Armed Forces, and to all time for general debate on the bill prescribe the authorized personnel had expired. Pursuant to the rule, the strength for each active duty compo- Clerk will now read by titles the com- nent and of the Selected Reserve of mittee amendment in the nature of a each Reserve component of the substitute recommended by the Com- Armed Forces and of civilian per- mittee on Armed Services now printed sonnel of the Department of Defense, to authorize the military training in the reported bill as an original bill student loads, and to authorize ap- for the purpose of amendment. propriations for civil defense, and for The Clerk read as follows: other purposes.... It shall be in Be it enacted by the Senate and order to consider the amendment in House of Representatives of the the nature of a substitute rec- United States of America in Congress ommended by the Committee on assembled, That this Act may be Armed Services now printed in the cited as the ‘‘Department of Defense bill as an original bill for the pur- Appropriation Authorization Act, poses of amendment, said substitute 1979’’. shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections and all MR. [CLEMENT J.] ZABLOCKI [of Wis- points of order against said sub- consin]: Mr. Chairman, in accordance stitute for failure to comply with the with the rule, House Resolution 1188, provisions of clause 5, rule XXI and I make a point of order that section clause 7, rule XVI, are hereby 805 of the committee amendment in waived, except that it shall be in the nature of a substitute, if offered as order when consideration of said a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 substitute begins to make a point of order that section 805 of said sub- as introduced, would be in violation of stitute would be in violation of clause 7 of House Rule XVI regarding clause 7, rule XVI if offered as a sep- germaneness. This provision which arate amendment to H.R. 10929 as deals with the withdrawal of troops introduced. If such point of order is from Korea, and section 805 which sustained, it shall be in order to con- deals with the withdrawal of troops sider said substitute without section from Korea, is not germane to the De- 805 included therein as an original partment of Defense authorization bill for the purpose of amendment, bill.... said substitute shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by Thus, by whatever test of germane- sections and all points of order ness one examines, section 805 is not against said substitute for failure to germane to H.R. 10929. comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 5, rule XXI 12. Id. at pp. 15293–95. are hereby waived.... 13. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).

12338 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

Mr. Chairman, without regard to the makes a point of order against section merits of the issue, H.R. 10929 is not 805 of the committee amendment in the proper vehicle for House consider- the nature of a substitute rec- ation of the issue of U.S. troop with- ommended by the Committee on drawal from Korea. Accordingly, I Armed Services, on the grounds that must insist on the point of order. section 805 of said amendment would THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman not have been germane if offered to the from New York desire to be heard on bill H.R. 10929, as introduced. the point of order? As indicated by the gentleman from MR. [SAMUEL S.] STRATION [of New Wisconsin, the special order providing York]: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be for consideration of this measure, heard on the point of order. House Resolution 1188, allows the Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Chair to entertain a point of order on Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki), makes the the basis stated by the gentleman, that point of order that section 805 is not section 805 of the committee amend- germane on the ground that it deals ment would not have been germane as with a matter that is related to some- a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 thing that has been before his com- in its introduced form. mittee. As he indicated before the The bill as introduced and referred Committee on Rules, if this had been to the Committee on Armed Services introduced as an original bill, it would contains authorizations of appropria- have been referred sequentially to the tions and personnel strengths of the Committee on International Relations Armed Services for fiscal year 1979. It as well as to the Committee on Armed contains no permanent changes in law Services. or statements of policy except for mi- I submit, Mr. Chairman, that, first nor conforming changes to existing law of all, the question of germaneness relating to troop and personnel does not depend on what committee it strengths. might be referred to sequentially. In Section 805 of the committee amend- fact, the whole idea of sequential refer- ment in the nature of a substitute pro- ral is a relatively new concept. I be- hibits: First the withdrawal of ground lieve, in fact, that it has only been combat units from the Republic of practiced in this House during this Korea until the enactment of legisla- present Congress, and perhaps a few tion allowing the retention in Korea of times previously.... the equipment of such units, and sec- So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that the ond, the reduction of combat units point of order be overruled. Section 805 below a certain level in the Republic of is clearly within the authority of the Korea until a peace settlement is committee. It is clearly germane to the reached between said Republic and the broad purposes of the bill and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea House should have the right to vote on ending the state of war on the Korean this important question. peninsula. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready The subject matter of section 805 of to rule. The gentleman from Wisconsin the committee amendment is unrelated

12339 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

to H.R. 10929 as introduced. The procedure adopted for the first time in strength levels prescribed in the bill this Congress the rules allow sequen- are for 1 fiscal year only and deal with tial referral at the discretion of the the overall strength of the Armed Speaker, does that mean that a committee that has primary jurisdiction, Forces, not with the location of Armed such as the Committee on Armed Serv- Forces personnel. As indicated in the ices, may be challenged on the floor argument of the gentleman from Wis- and have a point of order sustained re- consin, the withdrawal of American moving a provision that might be par- Forces stationed abroad pursuant to an tially under the jurisdiction of another international agreement, and the rela- committee on a sequential referral? tionship of that withdrawal to peace THE CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the agreements between foreign nations Chair does not stand for that propo- and to the transfer of American mili- sition. tary equipment to foreign powers, are MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland understood issues not only beyond the scope of the the Chair to say that the argument of bill but also within the jurisdiction of the gentleman from Wisconsin was the Committee on International Rela- persuasive to the Chair regarding ju- tions. Although committee jurisdiction risdiction. If that is the case, it seems over an amendment is not the sole test to me every committee of this House is of germaneness, the Chair feels that it somehow going to be challenged on the is a convincing argument in a case floor henceforth if its jurisdiction is such as the present one where the test shared to the slightest degree by another committee. of germaneness is between a limited 1- THE CHAIRMAN: All the Chair has year authorization bill and a perma- stated is that section 805 is not ger- nent statement of policy contingent mane to the introduced bill, and the upon the administration of laws within rule provides that the point of order the jurisdiction of another committee. would lie on that ground. For the reasons stated, the Chair MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Chairman, I have sustains the point of order. this further parliamentary inquiry: MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- Then the ruling of the Chair is based land]: Mr. Chairman, I have a par- on germaneness of this amendment to liamentary inquiry. this bill and does not go to any effect the sequential jurisdiction would have THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will on the provision? state his parliamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Chairman, the correct. Chair may have just stated a novel concept which has never before been Special Order Waiving Points heard in a ruling. That is that the se- of Order and Refining Appli- quential referral rule somehow serves as the basis for jurisdiction, and thus cation of Rule XXI Clause 2 can support a point of order dealing to Particular Provision in with a section in a bill such as the one Bill before us. The parliamentary inquiry I have is § 10.9 Form of a special order this: Simply because under the new providing that during con- 12340 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

sideration of a general ap- MR. FROST: . . . House Resolution propriation bill, all points of 332 provides for the consideration of these items by waiving all points of order under Rule XXI clause order against consideration of the bill 2 are waived except with re- for failure to comply with the provi- spect to a portion of one sions of clause 2, rule XXI. A number of provisions in the bill are not author- paragraph, which is left un- ized and there is also language in the protected. bill which is considered legislation, The form of the resolution thus necessitating the waiver of clause 2 of rule XXI. There is, however, one waiving certain points of order exception to this blanket waiver. In against House Resolution 332, the chapter I of the bill, the Committee on supplemental appropriation bill Appropriations added legislative lan- for fiscal 1984, is carried in full, guage to the provision of funds for the below: (14) Emergency Veterans’ Job Training Act of 1983 which would have changed the MR. [MARTIN] FROST [of Texas]: Mr. eligibility requirements for job training Speaker, by direction of the Committee as provided in the authorizing act. on Rules, I call up House Resolution Consequently, the Committee on Rules 332 and ask for its immediate consid- did not provide the waiver of clause 2, eration. rule XXI for this language and a point The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- of order against this language, but not lows: against the entire paragraph, will stand if it is raised during consider- H. RES. 332 ation of the bill. Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3959) making supplemental appropriations for Altering Application of Ger- the fiscal year ending September 30, maneness Rule by Special 1984, and for other purposes, all Order points of order against the bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI are hereby § 10.10 Example of a special waived, except against the language order which alters the appli- beginning with the word ‘‘Provided’’ cation of the germaneness on page 2, line 21 through the colon on page 2, line 25: Provided That a rule, making part of an point of order against that provision amendment in the nature of may be made only against that provision and not against the entire a substitute vulnerable to a paragraph. separate challenge as ‘‘not THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (15) The germane’’ to the bill as intro- gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) is duced, while protecting the recognized for 1 hour.... remainder of the amendment. 14. 129 CONG. REC. 27329, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 5, 1983. The special rule providing for 15. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.). consideration of the Civil Service 12341 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Reform Act of 1979 permitted stitute for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI are points of order to be lodged hereby waived, except that it shall against two titles of the sub- be in order when consideration of stitute. The text of the rule, as ex- said substitute begins to make one point of order that titles IX and X cerpted from the proceedings of would be in violation of clause 7, Aug. 11, 1978,(16) is set forth here- rule XVI if offered as a separate in: amendment to H.R. 11280 as introduced. If such point of order is sus- MR. [LLOYD] MEEDS [of Washington]: tained, it shall be in order to con- Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com- sider said substitute without titles mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso- IX and X included therein as an lution 1307 and ask for its immediate original bill for the purpose of amendment, said substitute shall be consideration. read for amendment by titles instead The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- of by sections and all points of order lows: against said substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of clause H. RES. 1307 7, rule XVI are hereby waived. At Resolved, That upon the adoption the conclusion of the consideration of of this resolution it shall be in order the bill for amendment, the Com- to move, section 402(a) of the Con- mittee shall rise and report the bill gressional Budget Act of 1974 (Pub- to the House with such amendments lic Law 93–344) to the contrary not- as may have been adopted, and any withstanding, that the House resolve Member may demand a separate itself into the Committee of the vote in the House on any amend- Whole House on the State of the ment adopted in the Committee of Union for the consideration of the the Whole to the bill or to the bill (H.R. 11280) to reform the civil amendments in the nature of a sub- service laws. After general debate, stitute made in order by this resolu- which shall be confined to the bill tion. The previous question shall be and shall continue not to exceed one considered as ordered on the bill and hour, to be equally divided and con- amendments thereto to final passage trolled by the chairman and ranking without intervening motion except minority member of the Committee one motion to recommit with or on Post Office and Civil Service, the without instructions. bill shall be read for amendment THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The under the five-minute rule. It shall gentleman from Washington (Mr. be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute Meeds) is recognized for 1 hour. recommended by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service now Rules Selectively Protecting printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under Provisions Against Point of the five-minute rule, said substitute Order shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections, and all § 10.11 The Committee on points of order against said sub- Rules can protect portions of 16. 124 CONG. REC. 25705, 95th Cong. a general appropriation bill 2d Sess. from points of order under 12342 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

Rule XXI clause 2, and leave page 26, lines 7 through 14; beginning on page 26, line 19 through other portions unprotected page 33, line 14; beginning on page and subject to being ruled 33, line 16 through page 34, line 6; out on points of order. beginning on page 34, line 15 through page 36, line 11; beginning The special order reported from on page 39, lines 4 through 18; be- (17) ginning with the word ‘‘to’’ on page the Committee on Rules to gov- 7, line 19 through page 7, line 20; ern consideration of the State, beginning with the word ‘‘Provided’’ Justice, Commerce, and the Judi- on page 24, line 13 through page 24, line 16; and all points of order ciary appropriations bill, fiscal against the following provisions in 1982, is a valid example of how said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 6, rule XXI special rules can be tailored to are hereby waived: beginning on meet particular circumstances. page 6, lines 6 through 12: Provided, That in any case where this resolu- MR. [LEO C.] ZEFERETTI [of New tion waives points of order against York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the only a portion of a paragraph, a Committee on Rules, I call up House point of order against any other pro- Resolution 188 and ask for its imme- vision in such paragraph may be diate consideration. made only against such provision and not against the entire para- The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- graph.... lows: MR. ZEFERETTI: . . . Clause 2 of rule H. RES. 188 XXI prohibits unauthorized appropria- Resolved, That during the consid- tions and legislation in an appropria- eration of the bill (H.R. 4169) mak- tion bill. H.R. 4169 includes various ing appropriations for the Depart- programs which have not yet comments of Commerce, Justice, and pleted the authorization process and State, the Judiciary, and related without this waiver would be subject to agencies for fiscal year ending Sep- tember 30, 1982, and for other pur- a point of order. poses, all points of order against the Clause 6 of rule XXI prohibits reap- following provisions in said bill for propriations in an appropriations bill. failure to comply with the provisions This waiver is required due to one item of clause 2 of rule XXI are hereby in title I permitting administrative waived; beginning on page 3, lines 1 through 4; beginning on page 3, line costs for the coastal energy impact 20 through page 6, line 12; begin- fund to be derived from unobligated ning on page 8, line 4 through page funds in the expired account for envi- 10, line 7; beginning on page 13, ronmental grants. lines 6 through 23; beginning on As in House Resolution 171, HUD page 17, line 3 through page 23, line 21; beginning on page 25, lines 1 appropriations, House Resolution 188 through 14; beginning on page 25, includes a provision that insures in lines 16 through 20; beginning on any case where this resolution waives points of order against only a portion 17. 127 CONG. REC. 18799, 18800, 97th of a paragraph, a point of order against Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1981. any other provision in such paragraph

12343 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

may be made only against such provi- FIRST CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON sion and not against the entire para- THE BUDGET—FISCAL YEAR 1983 graph. MR. [CLAUDE] PEPPER [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com- Points of Order Against Spe- mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso- cial Rules lution 496 and ask for its immediate consideration. § 10.12 No point of order lies The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- against a special order of lows: business reported from the H. RES. 496 Committee on Rules waiving Resolution providing for the consid- points of order or otherwise eration of the concurrent resolu- altering procedures gov- tion (H. Con. Res. 352) revising the congressional budget for the erning consideration of a United States Government for the measure, where no rule of fiscal year 1982 and setting forth the House or law enacted as the congressional budget for the United States Government for the rulemaking authority pro- fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985 hibits such consideration. Resolved, That upon the adoption Public Law 96–389 amended of this resolution it shall be in order, section 305(a)(1) of the Congres- Public Law 95–435 to reaffirm sional Budget Act of 1974 (Public congressional commitment toward Law 93–344) to the contrary not- achieving a balanced budget. A withstanding, to move that the House resolve itself into the Com- fair summary of the law was that mittee of the Whole House on the beginning with fiscal year 1981, State of the Union for the consider- the total budget outlays of the fed- ation of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 352) revising the congres- eral government shall not exceed sional budget for the United States its receipts. This statute did not Government for the fiscal year 1982 constitute a rule of the House and and setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Govern- did not prevent consideration of ment for the fiscal years 1983, 1984, any budget resolution or other and 1985, and the first reading of measure providing budget outlays the resolution shall be dispensed with. General debate in the Com- in excess of revenues. mittee of the Whole on said resolu- The resolution and the budget tion shall continue not to exceed two hours, with not to exceed one hour resolution which it made in order equally divided and controlled as are excerpted from the Record of provided in section 305(a)(2) of the June 10, 1982,(18) and carried Congressional Budget Act and not to exceed one hour for debate on eco- herein: nomic goals and policies as provided in section 305(a)(3) of the Congres- 18. 128 CONG. REC. 13352, 13353, 97th sional Budget Act. No amendment to Cong. 2d Sess. the resolution shall be in order ex-

12344 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10 cept the amendment in the nature of then appoint conferees without inter- a substitute printed in the Congres- vening motion. sional Record of June 8, 1982, by Representative Latta of Ohio, said MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- amendment shall be in order any sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve a rule of the House to the contrary point of order against consideration of notwithstanding and shall be consid- the rule. ered as having been read, and said (19) amendment shall be debatable for THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has not to exceed one hour, to be equally to state his point of order. There is no divided and controlled by the chair- reserving a point of order against con- man and ranking minority member sideration of a report from the Com- of the Committee on the Budget. mittee on Rules. Said amendment shall not be subject to amendment except for a sub- MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I request stitute consisting of the text of the a point of order against the legislation amendment in the nature of a sub- for the fact that it puts in order consid- stitute printed in the Congressional eration of a bill which, if passed, would Record of June 8, 1982, by Rep- violate the law of the land; namely, resentative Jones of Oklahoma, said Public Law 95–435; and that the rule amendment shall be in order any rule of the House to the contrary provides no waiver for that particular notwithstanding and shall be consid- violation of law, nor does the resolu- ered as having been read and said tion that we will be taking up provide amendment shall not be subject to any waiver of that law. amendment but shall be debatable So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, we will for not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the be considering a rule and legislation chairman and ranking minority which would be in direct contravention member of the Committee on the of a law which was reaffirmed by this Budget. The resolution shall not be House yesterday by a vote of 375 to 7. subject to a demand for a division of Mr. Speaker, I would demand a rul- the question in the House pending final adoption. It shall also be in ing on my point of order. order to consider the amendment or THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman amendments provided in section from Florida (Mr. Pepper) wish to 305(a)(6) of the Congressional Budg- speak on the point of order? et Act of 1974 necessary to achieve mathematical consistency. Upon the MR. PEPPER: Mr. Speaker, I invite adoption of H. Con. Res. 352, the the ruling of the Chair. concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 92 THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to shall be considered to have been rule. taken from the Speaker’s table, to have been amended with an amend- Section 904 of the Budget Act makes ment in the nature of a substitute it clear that that act was adopted as consisting of the text of H. Con. Res. an exercise of rulemaking powers. 352 as adopted by the House, to Those rules and laws which do con- have been adopted by the House as stitute rules of the House may be so amended, and the House shall be considered to have insisted on its waived at any time by either House of amendment to S. Con. Res. 92 and to the Congress of the United States, and have requested a conference with the Senate thereon; the Speaker shall 19. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

12345 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

this power lies in the Rules Com- the interaction of two House rules mittee. are carried herein. However, the statute that the gentleman cites which has been amended MR. [C. W. BILL] YOUNG of Florida: is not a rule of the House. It triggers Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. no point of order, it needs no waiver, The Clerk read as follows: so the gentleman’s point of order is not Amendment offered by Mr. Young well taken. of Florida: On page 15, line 4 strike The gentleman from Florida (Mr. ‘‘$1,194,132,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,203,625,000’’.... Pepper) is recognized for 1 hour. MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. Example of the Interaction of Chairman, I reserve a point of order on Two House Rules Governing the amendment. Admissibility of Amendments MR. [DON] EDWARDS of California: Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of § 10.13 Where an amendment order on the amendment.... THE CHAIRMAN: (1) Does the gen- may be protected by a spe- tleman from California [Mr. Edwards] cial order from vulnerability insist on his point of order? to a point of order under one MR. EDWARDS of California: Mr. rule of the House, it may still Chairman, did the gentleman from be susceptible to a point of Florida [Mr. Young] withdraw his order under another rule. amendment? MR. YOUNG of Florida: Mr. Chair- ( ) On July 17, 1985, 20 the Com- man, I did not withdraw the amend- mittee of the Whole had under ment, no. consideration the Commerce, Jus- MR. EDWARDS of California: Mr. tice, State, and the Judiciary ap- Chairman, it was my understanding propriation bill for fiscal 1986. there was a commitment made to withdraw the amendment. If that is not Points of order had been waived true, I insist on my point of order, Mr. against unauthorized items in the Chairman. bill by a special rule. An amend- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from ment was offered to a paragraph California [Mr. Edwards] will state his of the bill which increased the un- point of order. authorized figure therein. Two MR. EDWARDS of California: Mr. Chairman, the amendment violates points of order were raised clause 2 of House rule XXI, which pro- against the amendment: the Chair vides no appropriation shall be re- overruled one and sustained the ported in any general appropriation second. The proceedings showing bill for any expenditure not previously authorized by law. 20. 131 CONG. REC. 19432, 19435, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. 1. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).

12346 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman ing with the Budget Act, again, Mr. from Iowa [Mr. Smith] desire to press Chairman, I suggest that the point of his point of order? order is not well taken. The purpose of MR. SMITH of Iowa: I do, Mr. Chair- House Resolution 221, the rule cov- man. I have a different point of order. ering points of order against the Budg- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will et Act, is to allow an appropriations state it. bill to be considered on the House floor before the first concurrent budget reso- MR. SMITH of Iowa: I am very reluc- lution has been approved by Congress. tant to make a point of order, but I feel And since consideration of an appro- I have to in this case. priations bill on the House floor It would add budget authority for fis- general- ly does not require a rule and cal year 1986. The waiver of the points does not limit amendments, interpreta- of order against the provisions in the tion of this language should follow bill did not waive points of order usual House procedures and allow against amendments. Therefore, an amendments to appropriations bills amendment to add money to the bill whether the amendment would in- would not be in order. crease or decrease an uncertain budget I am very constrained to do that, but ceiling. if I do not do that in this case, I know Therefore, the point of order I think there will be a lot of amendments all should be overruled. I make the point over the place. again that the first budget resolution THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman is still pending, it has still not been fi- from Florida [Mr. Young] wish to be nalized by the Congress. heard on the point of order? Second, on the same point, Mr. MR. YOUNG of Florida: Mr. Chair- Chairman, House Resolution 221, the man, I do. rule covering points of order against Regarding the point made by our col- the Budget Act, provides that all league, the gentleman from California points of order for failure to comply [Mr. Edwards], that it is an unauthor- with the provisions of section 303(a) of ized item, this paragraph in question is the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, not authorized but it is protected by Public Law 93–344, are hereby waived. Section 303(a) of the Budget Act states the rule. It is well established under that ‘‘it shall not be in order in either the precedents of the House that where the House of Representatives or the an unauthorized appropriation is per- Senate to consider any bill or resolu- mitted to remain in the bill by waiver tion (or amendment thereto) ***.’’ of points of order, that appropriation Since House Resolution 221 does not may be amended to increase the sum, specifically limit amendments and provided the amendment does not add since it is to be read in conjunction unauthorized items. with section 303(a), my amendment of- My amendment does exactly that, fered during consideration of a general and I believe that that point of order appropriations bill that was reported should be overruled. by the Appropriations Committee prior On the point of my friend and col- to July 12, 1985, should be allowed league from Iowa [Mr. Smith], deal- and the point of order overruled.

12347 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: If no one else wishes monplace. The following special to be heard on the point of order, the order excerpted from the pro- Chair is prepared to rule. ceedings of Sept. 12, 1986,(2) is il- With regard to the point of order lustrative: raised by the gentleman from Cali- fornia [Mr. Edwards], as to appropria- WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER tion without authorization, the Chair AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF H.R. is constrained to overrule that point of 5313, DEPARTMANT OF HOUSING AND order on the grounds that a waiver has URBAN DEVELOPMENT-INDEPENDENT been provided in the rule against the AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, amount in the bill, and the amendment 1987 merely increases that amount without an earmarking for an unauthorized MR. [ANTHONY C.] BEILENSON [of purpose. California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up With regard to the point of order House Resolution 532 and ask for its made by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. immediate consideration. Smith] as to whether it has not been The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- waived by the rule, the Chair is con- lows: strained to uphold that point of order on the grounds that, while consider- H. RES. 532 ation of the bill itself has in House Resolved, That during the consid- Resolution 221 received a waiver from eration of the bill (H.R. 5313) mak- section 303(a) of the Budget Act, that ing appropriations for the Depart- does not apply to amendments adding ment of Housing and Urban Develop- new budget authority to the bill and ment, and for sundry independent the Chair, therefore, sustains the point agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal of order. year ending September 30, 1987, and for other purposes, all points of order Rules Committee May Protect against the following provisions in the bill for failure to comply with the Various Types of Amendments provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI are hereby waived: beginning on page 2, § 10.14 On occasion, the Com- line 8 through page 7, line 9; beginning on page 7, line 22 through page mittee on Rules will report a 9, line 11; beginning on page 10, line resolution which protects an 1 through page 13, line 21; begin- amendment from all points ning on page 14, lines 13 through 16; beginning on page 15, line 21 of order if offered by a spe- through page 16, line 9; beginning cific Member. on page 16, line 23 through page 18, line 4; beginning on page 18, line 10 Rules which self-execute the through page 19, line 12; beginning adoption of amendments, or pro- on page 20, line 10 through page 25, line 3; beginning on page 26, line 1 tect a stated amendment from points of order if offered by a par- 2. 132 CONG. REC. 23154, 99th Cong. ticular proponent, are more com- 2d Sess. 12348 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

through page 29, line 4; beginning XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI prohibits un- on page 29, line 13 through page 33, authorized appropriations and legisla- line 8; beginning on page 35, line 20 tive provisions in an appropriations through page 36, line 9; and beginning on page 39, line 7 through page bill. The specific provisions of the bill 41, line 22. It shall be in order to for which the waiver is provided are consider an amendment to the bill detailed in the rule by page and line. printed in section two of this resolu- Also, Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in tion, if offered by Representative Bo- order an amendment offered by Rep- land of Massachusetts, and all points of order against said amendment for resentative Boland of Massachusetts. failure to comply with the provisions The amendment is printed in section 2 of clause 2 of rule XXI are hereby of the rule. The rule waives points of waived. order against the amendment under SEC. 2. On page 26, line 14, insert clause 2 of rule XXI which, as I stated at the end of the sentence: ‘‘: Pro- earlier, prohibits the inclusion of unau- vided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not to thorized appropriations and legislation exceed $160,000,000 shall be pro- in general appropriation bills. vided for space station phase C/D development and such funds shall not Authority of Committee on be available for obligation until the enactment of a subsequent appro- Rules To Grant Waivers priations Act authorizing the obligation of such funds.’’.... § 10.15 Where a special report MR. BEILENSON: . . . Mr. Speaker, from the Committee on House Resolution 532 is the rule Rules, filed on a preceding waiving certain points of order against day, specifies that only consideration of H.R. 5313, the Depart- ‘‘amendments printed in the ment of Housing and Urban Develop- ment and independent agencies appro- report accompanying this priations for fiscal year 1987. resolution’’ are eligible for Since general appropriation bills are consideration, and the report privileged under the rules of the has not been printed at the House, the rule does not provide for time the resolution is called any special guidelines for the consideration of the bill. Provisions related to up for consideration, no time for general debate are not in- point of order lies against cluded in the rule. consideration of the report Customarily, Mr. Speaker, general on that ground. debate time is limited by a unanimous- (3) consent request by the chairman of the On Apr. 28, 1988, a second Appropriations Subcommittee prior to rule was reported to govern the the consideration of the bill. further consideration of the De- Mr. Speaker, the rule protects speci- fense authorization bill, fiscal fied provisions of the bill against points of order for failure to comply 3. 134 CONG REC. 9194, 9196, 100th with the provisions of clause 2 of rule Cong. 2d Sess.

12349 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

1989. This second rule limited the the amendments designated in section 2 of this resolution, in the report number of amendments which of the Committee on Rules accom- could be considered during the panying this resolution, or by para- further consideration of the bill graph (2) of section 2 of H. Res. 435. Said amendments shall be consid- and specified the order of considered only in the order and in the eration and debate time allotted manner specified. The amendments designated in this resolution shall be to amendments printed in a re- printed in the report of the Com- port accompanying the resolution. mittee on Rules accompanying this The report had not been returned resolution and shall be considered as having been read when offered. Each from the Government Printing Of- amendment may only be offered by fice and was thus not available to the Member designated for such amendment in the report of the Members when the rule was Committee on Rules, or this resolu- called up. Several parliamentary tion, or their designee. Debate on inquiries were raised as the de- each of said amendments shall not exceed the time designated in said bate on the rule commenced. report, to be equally divided and controlled between the proponent and PROVIDING FOR FURTHER an opponent. All points of order are CNSIDERATION OF H.R. 4264, NA- waived against the amendments con- TIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION tained in sections 1 and 2, and ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1989 against amendments numbered 5, 6, 7, 11, 19, 20, 28, 35, 47, and 50 in MR. [CLAUDE] PEPPER [of Florida]: section 3 of the report of the Com- Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com- mittee on Rules. No amendment, ex- mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso- cept for amendments printed in section 3 of the report of the Committee lution 436 and ask for its immediate on Rules, shall be subject to amend- consideration. ment except as specified in this reso- The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- lution or in the report of the Com- lows: mittee on Rules accompanying this resolution, or to a demand for a divi- H. RES. 436 sion of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. De- Resolved, That during the further bate on any amendment offered to consideration of the bill (H.R. 4264) an amendment printed in section 3 to authorize appropriations for the of the report of the Committee on fiscal year 1989 amended budget re- Rules shall be limited to ten min- quest for military functions of the utes, equally divided and controlled Department of Defense and to pre- by the proponent of the amendment scribe military personnel levels for and a member opposed thereto. Any such Department for fiscal year particular amendment under consid- 1989, to amend the National Defense eration when the Committee of the Authorization Act for Fiscal Years Whole rises on a legislative day shall 1988 and 1989, and for other pur- be completed when the Committee of poses, no further amendment to the the Whole next resumes its sitting bill or to the amendment in the na- on H.R. 4264. During the consider- ture of a substitute, as modified and ation of the bill, pro forma amend- as amended, shall be in order except ments for the purpose of debate shall

12350 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

be in order only if offered by the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The chairman or ranking minority mem- gentleman is not stating a point of ber of the Committee on Armed order. He is perhaps stating a reason Services. Any period of general de- to vote against the rule. bate specified in this resolution shall MR. GINGRICH: I believe it was a be equally divided and controlled by parliamentary inquiry whether or not the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Members are protected and have any Services. recourse in the rules of the House against having a report printed. ( ) THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 4 The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Pepper) is question of consideration cannot be recognized for 1 hour. raised against a rule filed on a prior day. The Chair would suggest that PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Members could vote against the rule. MR. [NEWT] GINGRICH [of Georgia]: MR. GINGRICH: So, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary Members who want a printed report inquiry. should vote ‘‘no,’’ is the Chair’s recommendation. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the gentleman will state it. gentleman is dissatisfied with the re- MR. GINGRICH: Mr. Speaker, this report he has, that would be a rec- fers to a report which I believe will ommendation. contain the various amendments and MR. GINGRICH: I thank the Chair. explain precisely what the Clerk so lengthily just read. § 10.16 Special order providing Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding for consideration of a gen- that that report is not available, that that report has not been printed. eral appropriation bill, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: There waiving points of order is a copy at the minority table. against legislation in viola- MR. GINGRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would tion of Rule XXI clause 2, re- suggest, under the rules of the House appropriations in violation in terms of the individual Members’ access to information, they should be of Rule XXI clause 6, where given a document which has been the authorizing committees marked up, edited. This has various had consented to the waiv- handwriting and is not available to ers; permitting consideration Members. This is a loose collection of of specified amendments papers. This is not a published report at this time, and would it not be bet- which were not germane and ter, I would ask the Speaker, for the specifying the order of House to delay considering this rule amendments to be consid- until we have the report of the Com- ered under a ‘‘king of the mittee on Rules so Members could see mountain’’ procedure. what they are voting on? The rule providing for consider- 4. Marvin Leath (Tex.). ation of the dire emergency sup- 12351 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS plemental appropriation bill for of sections 302(f) and 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 fiscal 1989, H.R. 2072, on Apr. 26, (Public Law 93–344, as amended by 1989,(5) provides an example of Public Law 99–177) are hereby the complexities often required to waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and permit the timely consideration of which shall not exceed one hour, to appropriation measures which be equally divided and controlled by precede the authorization process the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appro- and interact with the constraints priations, the bill shall be considered of the Congressional Budget Act. for amendment under the five- minute rule. During the consider- WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER ation of the bill, all points of order AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF H.R. against the bill for failure to comply 2072, DIRE EMERGENCY SUPPLE- with the provisions of clause 2 and 6 of rule XXI are hereby waived, ex- MENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND TRANS- cept against the provisions beginning FERS, URGENT SUPPLEMENTALS, AND on page 20, line 19 through page 21, CORRECTING ENROLLMENT ERRORS line 6; beginning on page 31, lines 5 ACT OF 1989 through 12; and beginning on page 34, lines 19 through 25. It shall be in MR. [JOE] MOAKLEY [of Massachu- order to consider the amendments setts]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the printed in the report of the Com- Committee on Rules, I call up House mittee on Rules accompanying this Resolution 135 and ask for its imme- resolution, said amendments shall be considered in the order specified in diate consideration. the report, may be offered only by The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- the Member specified or his des- lows: ignee, shall be considered as having been read, shall be debatable for not H. RES. 135 to exceed one hour each, equally divided and controlled by the offeror Resolved, That at any time after and a Member opposed thereto, and the adoption of this resolution the shall not be subject to amendment or Speaker may, pursuant to clause to a demand for a division of the 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House question in the House or in the Com- resolved into the Committee of the mittee of the Whole. All points of Whole House on the State of the order against said amendments are Union for the consideration of bill hereby waived, except for points of (H.R. 2072) making dire emergency order under clause 2 of rule XXI supplemental appropriations and against provisions identical to those transfers, urgent supplementals, and provisions in the bill against which correcting enrollment errors for the points of order were not waived by fiscal year ending September 30, this resolution. Any such point of 1989, and for other purposes, and order may lie only against those the first reading of the bill shall be specified portions of an amendment, dispensed with. All points of order and not against an entire amend- against consideration of the bill for ment. If both of said amendments failure to comply with the provisions are adopted, only the latter amendment which is adopted shall be con- 5. 135 CONG. REC. 7489, 7490, 101st sidered to have been finally adopted Cong. 1st Sess. and reported back to the House.

12352 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The provisions deal with adjusting pay gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. rates for certain health care occupa- Moakley) is recognized for 1 hour. tions within the Defense and Veterans MR. MOAKLEY: . . . Mr. Speaker, the Departments, and a provision that di- rule waives points of order under two rects the Federal Aviation Administra- specified sections of the Congressional tion to initiate rulemaking procedures Budget Act against consideration of to require airlines to use a particular the bill, section 302(f) and section type of explosive detection equipment. 311(a). These sections Mr. Speaker, were Section 302(f) of the Congressional left unprotected at the request of the Budget Act prohibits consideration of committees that have legislative juris- measures that would exceed the sub- diction on these matters. committee allocations of new discre- Clause 6 of rule 21 prohibits reap- tionary budget authority made pursu- propriations in a general appropria- ant to section 302(b) of the Budget Act. tions bill, because the bill contains Since the bill provides new budget au- transfers of previously appropriated thority in excess of the Appropriations funds the waiver is necessary. Committees 302(b) allocations the bill Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule makes would violate section 302(f) of the in order two amendments that are Budget Act. printed in the report accompanying Mr. Speaker, the second budget act this resolution. The amendments are waiver against consideration of the bill to be offered by the member named or is section 311(a). Section 311(a) of the his designee, and only in the order Budget Act prohibits consideration of specified in the report. any measure which would cause the budget authority or outlay ceilings es- § 10.17 The Chair will not tablished by the concurrent resolution render an advisory opinion on the budget for such fiscal year to be as to whether a particular breached. Since the budget authority amendment against which and outlays set forth in House Concur- rent Resolution 268, the concurrent points of order are waived by resolution on the budget for fiscal year a special rule would in fact 1989, have already been exceeded, the be subject to a point of bill would violate section 311(a) by order. causing the spending ceilings to be further exceeded.... The Committee on Rules, in re- Mr. Speaker, the rule also waives porting a special order waiving clause 2 and 6 of rule 21, against the points of order against a specified bill, except for certain provisions. amendment, sometimes does so Clause 2, of rule 21, prohibits the in- out of an abundance of caution. clusion of legislation and unauthorized appropriations in any appropriation The fact that a waiver is included bill. does not necessarily mean that a There are three provisions that are valid point of order would in fact subject to points of order. The first two lie if the amendment were unpro- 12353 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS tected. The inquiry raised by Mr. order would not do so in this particular Coleman on June 28, 1989,(6) is il- instance, is that correct? THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is lustrative: not stating a parliamentary inquiry. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MRS. MARTIN MR. COLEMAN of Texas: I thank the Chairman. OF ILLINOIS MRS. [LYNN] MARTIN of Illinois: Mr. Waiver of Points of Order by Chairman, I offer an amendment. Special Order The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mrs. Mar- § 10.18 Where a special order tin of Illinois: Page 13, line 24, strike adopted by the House waived the period and insert the following: ‘‘: Provided further, That the Sec- points of order against cer- retary of the Army, acting through tain of the amendments car- the Chief of Engineers, shall use $600,000 of the funds appropriated ried in the committee report, under this heading for a flood control those amendments not pro- project on Loves Park Creek, Loves tected by the waiver remain Park and vicinity, Illinois, as authorized by Public Law 99–662, sec. subject to points of order 401.’’. when offered, despite certain

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY debate to the effect that ‘‘all specified amendments’’ (7) THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose (those in the report) could be does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Coleman) rise? considered. MR. [RONALD D.] COLEMAN of Texas: Where the Chairman of the I have parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Committee of the Whole is faced Chairman. with a point of order against an THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will amendment enumerated in the restate his inquiry. port of the Committee on Rules MR. COLEMAN of Texas: I under- accompanying the special order stand, am I correct, that this amend- setting the terms for the consider- ment is in violation of clause 2 of rule ation of the bill, he is guided by XXIII, that it was granted a waiver, is that correct, under the rule? the language in the special order, not on interpretations of the de- THE CHAIRMAN: The rule waives that point of order against the amendment. bate accompanying its adoption. MR. COLEMAN of Texas: And those Where the rule is clear, it must be Members on the other side of the aisle followed literally. that object to rules that waive points of On June 24, 1992,(8) disagreement over the protection afforded 6. 135 CONG. REC. 13688, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. 8. 138 CONG. REC. 16106, 16107, 102d 7. Don J. Pease (Ohio). Cong. 2d Sess.

12354 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10 a particular amendment mani- MR. [GEORGE] GEKAS [of Pennsyl- fested itself during the five- vania]: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself minute rule. such time as I may consume....

THE CHAIRMAN: (9) The Clerk will POINT OF ORDER designate the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman The text of the amendment is as fol- from California [Mr. Fazio] wish to be lows: heard on his point of order? Amendment offered by Mr. Gekas: MR. FAZIO: Mr. Chairman, I would Page 36, after line 5, insert the fol- simply say that the Committee on lowing new section: Rules has made distinctions between SEC. 312. Section 313 of the Fed- those which they protected and which eral Election Campaign Act of 1971 they did not. This clearly is not in the (2 U.S.C. 439a) is amended by striking out ‘‘may be’’ the first place it ap- protected category, and I would indi- pears and all that follows through cate to the chairman that while many, the end of the section and inserting many Members of this body are not at in lieu thereof ‘‘shall, when the indi- all affected by the grandfather clause vidual ceases to hold Federal office, and while many who are covered by it as determined by the individual— have made public their decision not to ‘‘(1) be submitted to the Secretary exercise it or have, by their decision to of the Treasury for deposit in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts; seek reelection, made themselves ineli- ‘‘(2) be contributed to any organi- gible to utilize it, it is important that zation described in section 170(c) of we keep faith with the Ethics Reform the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; Act which was passed overwhelmingly ‘‘(3) be returned to the persons in this body several years ago. who made the contributions; Mr. Chairman, I make a point of ‘‘(4) be transferred without limita- order against the amendment because tion to any national, State, or local committee of any political party; or it proposes to change existing law and ‘‘(5) be contributed to an author- constitutes legislation in an appropria- ized committee of a candidate for tions bill and, therefore, violates clause Federal, State, or local office, within 2 of rule XXI. the limits provided for by law.’’. MR. GEKAS: Mr. Chairman, a point of parliamentary inquiry. MR. [VIC] FAZIO [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman the gentleman’s amendment and wish from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] wish to that he would explain it to the Mem- be heard on the point of order? bers. MR. GEKAS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Is there time available to debate the California reserves a point of order on point of order undertaken by the gen- the amendment. tleman? The gentleman from Pennsylvania THE CHAIRMAN: Within the Chair’s [Mr. Gekas] is recognized for 10 min- discretion, the gentleman is recognized utes. to debate the point of order. MR. GEKAS: Mr. Chairman, the point 9. Brian J. Donnelly (Mass.). of order that has been exercised is the

12355 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

one to which I made my previous re- rule, and it should be allowed to be marks, that it is legislating, if I am made in order.... correct, that it is legislating in an ap- As I say, there are two interpreta- propriations bill. If that is the stem of tions. One interpretation is that it the point of order, then I submit, means only amendment 1 and amend- again, for the record, that standing ment 9. However, when the staff of the alone, any one of a dozen provisions in Committee on Rules on our side origi- this legislative appropriations bill that nally read that rule, they believed, is before us, had it exchanged places based upon what they had heard in the with me and with this amendment, Committee on Rules, that it meant all would be subject to the same point of nine of the amendments.... order.... THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will re- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will respond. The Chair is constrained by the spond that the rule waived certain language of the resolution adopted by points of order against provisions in the House, line 25, ‘‘All points of order the bill, but not against all amend- under clause 2 of rule XXI against ments, and the rule was adopted by amendments in the report numbered 1 the House. The Chair is prepared to and 9 are waived.’’ rule. The Chair is prepared to rule on the MR. GEKAS: I understand. I made a point of order of the gentleman from point of parliamentary inquiry. California [Mr. Fazio].... THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will con- The Chair would again respond that tinue that the rule did not exempt this the Chair is constrained by the adop- amendment from a point of order. tion of the rule earlier today by the Does any other Member wish to be House on which only certain points of heard on the point of order? order against amendments 1 and 9 MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- were waived. sylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be MR. GEKAS: As a point of parliamen- heard on the point of order.... tary inquiry, is the Chair saying to me Mr. Chairman, if I understand cor- that the rule as fashioned overrules rectly, the rule did in fact allow certain any further consideration of the con- amendments to be brought forward on tent of the rule? the floor.... THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has ear- On the other hand, the committee lier ruled twice during consideration of did say, I think the language was amendments in the Committee of the ‘‘amendments 1 and 9.’’ Some could put Whole that two other amendments an interpretation on that, that that which were offered by a different gen- meant the entire scope of the amend- tleman from Pennsylvania were in fact ments that were listed in the bill, of legislation on an appropriation bill in amendments 1 through 9. I think that violation of the rules of the House, and of the gentleman from Pennsylvania were not given waivers by the rule [Mr. Gekas] is one of those amend- that was adopted by the House. ments, and therefore does deserve the The Chair is restrained by the rule protection that was accorded by the that was adopted by the House.

12356 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman ‘‘hereby’’ resolutions have been from California [Mr. Fazio] insist on challenged by points of order on his point of order? other occasions.(11) MR. FAZIO: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I certainly do. While assuming that the Senate THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from amendment to the bill H.R. 1, the California makes the point of order Family and Medical Leave Act of that the amendment offered by the 1993, would indeed by subject to gentleman from Pennsylvania violates consideration in Committee of the clause 2 of rule XXI by proposing legis- Whole if called up for consider- lation on a general appropriation bill. ation, the Chair in this instance The gentleman’s amendment simply and directly amends the Federal Elec- ruled that vulnerable amendment tion Campaign Act of 1971. As such it was not in fact before the House. proposes legislation and does not mere- Proceedings were as follows: ly perfect provisions in the bill. MR. [BART] GORDON [of Tennessee]: The point of order is sustained. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com- mittee on Rules, I call up House Reso- ‘‘Hereby’’ Resolutions and lution 71 and ask for its immediate Points of Order consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- § 10.19 The Committee on lows: Rules may recommend a spe- H. RES. 71 cial order of business pro- Resolved, That upon the adoption viding that a Senate amend- of this resolution the bill (H.R. 1) to ment pending at the Speak- grant family and temporary medical er’s table is ‘‘hereby’’ adopt- leave under certain circumstances be, and the same is hereby, taken ed, and a point of order does from the Speaker’s table to the end not lie against the resolution that the Senate amendment thereto on the basis that the Senate 11. A clear precedent for this ruling can amendment requires consid- be found in 6 Deschler’s Precedents, eration in the Committee of Ch. 21, § 16.11. It should be noted the Whole. that the Committee on Rules could The proceedings on Feb. 4, have recommended a resolution providing for the consideration of the (10) 1993, when H. Res. 71, re- Senate amendment but waiving the ported from the Committee on applicability of Rule XX clause 1. See Rules, was called up for consider- also House Rules and Manual § 728 ation were not unique. So-called (1997) for related parliamentary situations where specific rules were in- 10. 139 CONG. REC. 2499, 2500, 103d directly waived by the use of ‘‘here- Cong. 1st Sess. by’’ resolutions.

12357 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

be, and the same is hereby, agreed the parliamentary status that we are to. now in. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (12) The MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, a further gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gor- parliamentary inquiry. don] is recognized for 1 hour. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his inquiry. POINT OF ORDER MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, where is MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- the Senate amendment if it is not in sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point this language? It has to be before the of order. House as a part of this language be- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The cause once this language is adopted, gentleman will state his point of order. and the Chair has ruled that the Sen- MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, pursuant ate amendment will not come up sepa- to House rule XX, I make the point of rately, and so therefore, it has to be order that House Resolution 71, the contained in this resolution. rule that we are taking up, should be THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: What considered in the Committee of the will be adopted will be the rule. Whole, and I ask to be heard on my MR. WALKER: But the rule enacts the point of order. bill, so the bill is a part of the rule. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Again, gentleman will state his point of order. the bill is not before the House. The MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, House Senate amendment is not before the rule XX provides that, and I quote: House. The resolution of the Rules Any amendment of the Senate to Committee is before the House. The any House bill— Chair has ruled on the point of order. The Chair recognizes the gentleman And I repeat: from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon]. An amendment of the Senate * * * shall be subject to a point of § 10.20 A special order re- order that it shall first be considered in the Committee of the Whole on ported from the Committee the State of the Union, if, originating on Rules may provide for the in the House, it would be subject to ‘‘self-execution’’ of a Senate that point. amendment, providing that it And the rule goes on to provide just be agreed to, even though if one exception to this requirement is possible, and that is if a motion to dis- the amendment were before agree to the Senate amendment and the House it might be chal- request a conference is made. lenged by a variety of points THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Again, of order (under Rule XVI cl. rule XX which the gentleman has cited 7, (germaneness); Rule XXI applies only if the Senate amendment itself is before the House, which is not cl. 5(a) (an appropriation in a legislative bill), or certain 12. David E. Skaggs (Colo.). Budget Act infractions). 12358 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

By the use of ‘‘hereby’’ or ‘‘self- ment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying executing’’ resolutions the House this resolution shall be considered as can sometimes reduce the par- adopted. All points of order against liamentary steps required to the bill, as amended, and against its consideration are waived. Debate on achieve a legislative goal. the bill shall not exceed two hours On Feb. 24, 1993,(13) a rule was equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority called up which provided for con- member of the Committee on Ways sideration of the Emergency Un- and Means. The previous question employment Compensation Act, shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage 1993. Because the rule provided without intervening motion except that certain amendments be ‘‘con- one motion to recommit. sidered as adopted,’’ the number of votes necessary to perfect the POINTS OF ORDER text of the bill in the desired man- MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- ner were consolidated in the vote sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order against the resolution. on the rule. The points of order THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (14) The against the rule and the various gentleman will state his point of order. responses of the Chair are carried MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I make a herein. point of order against House Resolu- tion 103 on the ground that two EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT amendments self-executed by the reso- COMPENSATION AMENDMENTS OF 1993 lution are in violation of two different MR. [DAVID E.] BONIOR [of Michi- House rules, and I ask to be heard on gan]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the my point of order. Committee on Rules, I call up House THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Resolution 103 and ask for its imme- gentleman from Pennsylvania wishes diate consideration. to be heard, and the gentleman may The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- proceed. lows: MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, first, House Resolution 103 is in violation of H. RES. 103 clause 5(a) of rule XXI because it pro- Resolved, That upon the adoption poses to adopt the Ways and Means of this resolution it shall be in order Committee amendment printed as sec- to consider in the House the bill tion 4 in H.R. 920 as reported. That (H.R. 920) to extend the emergency section deals with financing provisions unemployment compensation program, and for other purposes. The and in effect reappropriates advance amendment recommended by the account funds to make payments to the Committee on Ways and Means States to provide these additional ben- printed in the bill and the amend- efits. Clause 5(a) of rule XXI prohibits appropriations provisions in a bill not 13. 139 CONG. REC. 3542, 3543, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. 14. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).

12359 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

reported by the appropriations com- Act—that any reported bill mittee. or resolution or committee Second, Mr. Speaker, House Resolu- tion 103 attempts to adopt an amend- amendment thereto pro- ment contained in the report to accom- viding new budget authority pany the resolution extending coverage shall contain in the accom- of the bill to railroad employees. That amendment is in violation of clause 7 panying report a statement of rule XVI which prohibits the consid- of the estimated costs—does eration of germane amendments. The not apply to a resolution re- amendment contained in the Rules ported from the Committee Committee report is under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce on Rules which ‘‘self-exe- Committee and is therefore not ger- cutes’’ into a bill an amend- mane to this bill from the Ways and ment providing new budget Means Committee. authority, since the resolu- Mr. Speaker, since both of those amendments will be considered to be tion itself does not finally adopted when this rule is adopted, enact new budget authority. they are currently before us and must Neither the consideration nor be subject to points of order. It is clear from the rule that once the rule is the adoption of a resolution re- adopted, the bill as amended by them ported from the Committee on is not subject to points of order. But, Rules which self-executes an prior to the adoption of this resolution, amendment carrying new budget those two amendments are obviously a part of this resolution and subject to authority is susceptible to a point the two points of order I have raised. of order under section 308(a) of ( ) THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does the Budget Act. 15 On Feb. 24, any Member wish to be heard on the 1993,(16) the Chair pointed out point of order? that the amendment was not be- If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. fore the House during consider- The fact that amendments which if offered separately would be violative of ation of the resolution and the the rules does not prevent the Rules resolution itself did not enact new Committee from self-executing the budget authority. The point of adoption of those amendments together order and the debate thereon are in the rule itself, by providing for their adoption upon the adoption of the rule. carried below. The amendments are thus not sepa- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (17) ... rately before the House at this time. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have another point of order? ‘‘Hereby’’ Resolutions and Budget Act Relationships 15. See also § 10.20, supra. 16. 139 CONG. REC. 3542, 3543, 103d § 10.21 The requirement of sec- Cong. 1st Sess. tion 308(a) of the Budget 17. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.). 12360 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I make another The gentleman from Pennsylvania point of order against House Resolu- raises an objection based on section tion 103 on the ground that it is in vio- 308(a) of the Budget Act on the basis lation of section 308(a) of the Congres- that the report accompanying this res- sional Budget Act of 1974, and I ask to olution coming from the Rules Com- be heard on my point of order. mittee would have to have a CBO esti- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The mate of the potential cost involved by gentleman may proceed. virtue of adoption of the amendment. MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, section However, the Chair, after consulting 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act precedents and the rules of the House, provides that, and I quote, ‘‘Whenever rules that the cost estimate does not a committee of either House reports to have to be made a part of the report its House a bill or resolution, or com- accompanying the rule being brought mittee amendment thereto, providing from the Rules Committee, but rather new budget authority * * * new spending authority described in section the point of order might lie against the 401(c)(2), or new credit authority * * * underlying bill. The resolution itself the report accompanying that bill or does not enact budget authority and, resolution shall contain a statement, therefore, the resolution coming from the report accompanying that bill or the Rules Committee does not itself resolution shall contain a statement, or have to have the cost estimate in the the committee shall make available accompanying report. such a statement * * * prepared after Therefore, the Chair now would consultation with the Director of the overrule the gentleman’s point of Congressional Budget Office’’ detailing order. . . . the costs of that provision. The Chair would state that the Mr. Speaker, the amendment con- Budget Act, section 308(a) of the Budg- tained in the Rules Committee report, et Act, does not require budget esti- which would be adopted upon the mates to be included in the report adoption of this resolution, extends since the amendments are not adopted coverage of this bill to railroad work- until such time as the rule is adopted. ers. It is my understanding that this At that time, then, the amendments may entail a cost of $20 million, but which are contained and which would the Rules Committee has not provided be self-actuated under the rule would a cost estimate from CBO in its report then be subject to section 308(a) of the on this amendment as required by sec- Budget Act. tion 308 of the Budget Act. This is an amendment reported by the Rules Prior to the adoption by the House of Committee and therefore is subject to Representatives of this resolution, that the CBO cost estimate requirements. I underlying budget estimate is not re- therefore urge that my point of order quired to be a part of the report on the be sustained. resolution itself. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does any Member wish to be heard on the § 10.22 The adoption of a spe- point of order? cial order for the consider- 12361 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

ation of a bill that ‘‘self-exe- So the previous question was or- cutes’’ the adoption of an dered. amendment providing new The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. budget authority to a bill to be subsequently called up POINT OF ORDER does not, itself, provide new MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I make a budget authority within the point of order against the amendment meaning and application of printed in the Rules Committee report, which I understand is now before us, section 308 of the Budget based upon the Chair’s previous ruling. Act. I make my point of order on the House Resolution 103, called up ground that the report in this resolu- in the House on Feb. 24, 1993,(18) tion violates section 308(a) of the attracted several points of order Budget Act requiring a cost estimate. Section 308(a) of the Budget Act, at various times during its consid- which requires the CBO cost estimate eration. As indicated in § 10.20, in the report on any committee bill, supra, points of order when the resolution or amendment, contains no resolution was first called up by exemption for the report of the Com- the Rules Committee were over- mittee on Rules. ruled. The point of order carried I quote from the section 308(a) of the in this section was raised after Congressional Budget Act: the ordering of the previous ques- Whenever a committee of either house reports to its house a bill or tion on the special order. Mr. Rob- resolution or committee amendment ert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, thereto providing new budget au- was trying to show that the Budg- thority, new spending authority described in section 402(c)(2) or new et Act requirement that a report credit authority, the report accom- contain a Congressional Budget panying that bill or resolution shall Office estimate of the budget au- contain a statement or the committee shall make available such a thority was being completely oblit- statement prepared after consulta- erated by the type of special order tion with the director of the Congres- being utilized here. A point of sional Budget Office. . . . order was not entertained by the Section 308(a) clearly applies to the Chair at any stage of the pro- committee amendment, and the ceeding. The waivers were all-en- amendment contained in the Rules compassing. Committee or report is a Rules Com- mittee amendment. It was not reported Mr. [Jim] Slattery [of Kansas] by the Ways and Means Committee, it changed his vote from ‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’ was not reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee and so therefore 18. 139 CONG. REC. 3554, 3555, 103d is exclusively in the jurisdiction of the Cong. 1st Sess. Rules Committee.

12362 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 10

The amendment contained in the tion reported by the Committee on Rules Committee report on this resolu- Rules, but rather by the bill as amend- tion will be considered to have been ed. adopted when this resolution is adopt- At this point, the point of order does ed. So there is no question who should not lie. That all points of order against provide the CBO cost estimate. It is the bill as amended will be waived by the Rules Committee. They are not House Resolution 103, if adopted, does above the rules. not cause such points of order to lie at Mr. Speaker, I ask that my point of some earlier stage. order be sustained. . . . The rules of the House authorize the Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard Committee on Rules to report a resolu- further on the point of order. . . . tion providing a special order of busi- When it comes to a question in the ness, and a point of order under Sec- bill itself, the point of order with re- tion 308 of the Budget Act does not lie against such a resolution on the gard to the Budget Act will not be in ground that its adoption would have order because that point of order has the effect of abrogating clause 2(l)(3) of been waived. The only time we can get rule XI, which incorporates the re- at this particular item is in the self-en- quirement of section 308 in the stand- acting amendment which is a part of ing rules. the rule. Accordingly, the point of order is The gentleman has not referred to overruled. the self-enacting amendment. That is the question to which this particular Use of Special Order To Avoid point of order pertains and it is up to the Chair, I think, to sustain the point Budget Act Points of Order of order based upon the fact that the self-enacting amendment within this § 10.23 Where the Congres- rule does in fact add costs. It is new sional Budget Act provides budget authority and is therefore in for points of order against violation of the Congressional Budget reported measures which do Act. . . . not meet certain Budget Act ( ) THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 19 The criteria, the Committee on Chair is prepared to rule. Rules can recommend, in a The amendment printed in the bill and the amendment printed in House special order for consider- Report 103–18 will be considered as ation of a bill, that the text of adopted by the operation of House Res- an unreported measure be olution 103, which is the special order considered in lieu of that re- now pending before the House. . . . ported. The Chair has in- As the Chair indicated previously, dicated in response to a par- the new budget authority at issue would be provided not by the resolu- liamentary inquiry, that points of order under sec- 19. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.). tions 302, 303, 311, 401, and 12363 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

402 apply only to reported THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The measures. gentleman is correct. MR. MCDERMOTT: Mr. Speaker, con- Following the adoption of a spe- tinuing that inquiry, is it true that the cial order which made in order the Budget Act points of order which are text of an unreported bill in lieu designed to assure that the budget of the reported version of a bill rules we established for ourselves are providing for welfare reform, the adhered to apply only to measures that have been reported by the committee Chair entertained a parliamen- of jurisdiction? tary inquiry which explored the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The relationship of the Congressional Chair observes that sections 302, 303, Budget Act to the bill which 311, 401, and 402 of the Congressional would be considered under the Budget Act of 1974 all establish points provisions of the special order. of order against the consideration of bills or joint resolutions as reported. While the Chair does not normally That is, in each case the point of order give anticipatory rulings, he did in against consideration operates with re- this instance clarify the par- spect to the bill or joint resolution in liamentary situation. The pro- its reported state. Thus, in the case of ceedings of Mar. 21, 1995, follow: an unreported bill or joint resolution, such a point of order against consider- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY ation is inoperative.

MR. [JIM] MCDERMOTT [of Wash- ington]: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. § 11. As Related to Other THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (1) The gentleman will state it. Business MR. MCDERMOTT: Mr. Speaker, does the rule we have just adopted make in Certain points of order may in- ( ) order general debate on H.R. 4 or H.R. terrupt business or debate. 2 A 1214? timely point of order may be made THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The while another Member has the rule makes in order debate on H.R. 4. floor, and his consent is not re- MR. MCDERMOTT: As I understand quired.(3) A point of order may it, Mr. Speaker, the committees of jurisdiction reported out three other even interrupt a Member stating ( ) bills, none of which is before the House a question of privilege. 4 A timely today. Am I correct that H.R. 4 has not been reported out by any committee of 2. The special case of the point of order jurisdiction? that a quorum is not present is discussed in detail in Ch. 20, Calls of 20. 141 CONG. REC. p. b jAyto ÄmlBZ jst the House; Quorums. 7qssZ 3. See § 11.1, infra. 1. John T. Doolittle (Calif.). 4. See § 11.2, infra.

12364 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 11 point of order takes precedence of under consideration back to the House a parliamentary inquiry.(5) There with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out.] are motions which supersede a MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON of Mis- point of order, however. One such souri: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. motion is a motion that the Com- THE CHAIRMAN: (10) The gentleman mittee of the Whole rise(6) or that from Missouri will state the point of the House adjourn. It may be en- order. tertained by the Chair pending a MR. [ANDREW J.] MAY [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I have not yielded for a (7) decision on a point of order. The point of order. Chairman of the Committee of the MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Chair- Whole may entertain a unani- man, I make the point of order that mous-consent request to withdraw under the unanimous-consent agree- or modify an amendment even ment all time for debate has expired and the gentleman cannot be recog- though a point of order is pending nized on a motion to strike out the en- ( ) against it. 8 acting clause offered to secure time for

debate, and not offered merely to secure time for debate. Interrupting Members in De- THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman from Kentucky desire to be heard on bate the point of order? MR. MAY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. § 11.1 Points of order may be THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear made while a Member has the gentleman briefly. the floor, and the consent of MR. MAY: In the first place, Mr. such Member is not required. Chairman, I did not yield to the gentleman from Missouri for the purpose (9) On Mar. 13, 1942, a Member of his making a point of order. was permitted to interrupt an- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from other to make a point of order. Missouri did not have to ask the gentleman from Kentucky to yield in order [Mr. May, of Kentucky, was pro- to submit a point of order. ceeding to debate a motion that the Committee rise and report the bill § 11.2 A point of order may in- 5. See § 11.4, infra. terrupt a Member stating a 6. See § 11.3, infra. question of privilege. 7. See § 11.3, infra. On June 30, 1939,(11) Speaker Wil- 8. See § 11.5, infra. liam B. Bankhead, of Alabama, per- 9. 88 CONG. REC. 2439, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 10. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.). 6709, an agricultural appropriation 11. 84 CONG. REC. 8468, 8469, 76th bill for 1943. Cong. 1st Sess.

12365 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

mitted several Members to raise points MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Speaker, have I of order while Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of the floor or not? Michigan, stated a question of personal THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has privilege. the floor, but unless the gentleman THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from proceeds to state his point of privilege Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] will state his he will not occupy the floor very much question of personal privilege. longer. MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Speaker . . . . endeavoring to state the point as con- MR. [JACK] NICHOLS [of Oklahoma]: cisely as I may, and I trust that the Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order Speaker will bear with me in my igno- that the gentleman is not stating a rance and my inexperience and let me question of personal privilege. state it. . . . THE SPEAKER: The Chair will allow Mr. Speaker, may I be free from the gentleman some latitude in stating such interruptions as occurred then his question, but the gentleman must when a Member of the House [Mr. state a question of privilege. Hook] said, ‘‘I agree’’? Otherwise, I will MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- have to demand that the words be gan]: I insist that the gentleman be al- taken down. lowed only a small amount of latitude. MR. [JOHN E.] RANKIN [of Mis- MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Speaker, I did sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. not hear the remarks made by the gen- MR. HOFFMAN: I do not yield for a tleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. point of order, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from THE SPEAKER: The Chair is interested in hearing the gentleman state Mississippi will state his point of order. his question of personal privilege. MR. RANKIN: Mr. Speaker, I make MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am in- the point of order that the statement terested in the right of free speech, that the gentleman from Michigan is and when the gentleman interrupts to making does not in any way constitute make a remark I am entitled to hear a question of high constitutional privi- it. . . . lege. . . . MR. NICHOLS: Mr. Speaker, a point MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a of order. strange situation when I cannot state a THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will question of personal privilege without state it. interruption. MR. NICHOLS: I make the point of THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from order, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman Mississippi had a perfect right to make is not stating a question of personal the point of order. The Chair is enti- privilege. tled to hear the point of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi. MR. HOFFMAN: I do not yield for that, Mr. Speaker. Motions Interrupting Point of MR. NICHOLS: In order to state a question of privilege the gentleman Order must state something that somebody said about him. The gentleman is § 11.3 In the Committee of the quoting statements he himself made. Whole, a motion that the

12366 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 11

Committee rise may be enter- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- tained pending a decision of pared to rule on the point of order, but the motion offered by the gentleman the Chair or further argu- from North Carolina that the Com- ment on a point of order. mittee do now rise is in order, and the On June 4, 1957,(12) a proponent Chair will put the question. of a bill, Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North Carolina, forestalled a rul- Precedence of Point of Order ing by Chairman Brooks Hays, of Over Parliamentary Inquiry Arkansas, on a point of order, by moving that the Committee of the § 11.4 A timely point of order Whole rise.(13) takes precedence over a parliamentary inquiry, and the MR. [JOHN J.] ROONEY [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point reservation of a parliamen- of order against the entire bill, H.R. tary inquiry gives no priority 6974, on the ground that it is a bill for that purpose, since rec- from a committee not having authority ognition is in the discretion to report an appropriation. . . . of the Chair. MR. COOLEY: . . . I am a little bit ap- prehensive that the point of order may On June 7, 1977,(14) the Com- be sustained, if the Chair is called mittee of the Whole, chaired by upon to rule on it. But, I think it Mr. James R. Mann, of South would be very unfortunate for us to delay final action on the bill, and in Carolina, was operating under the the circumstances we have no other al- five-minute rule. The following ternative other than to move that the proceedings are related to the Committee do now rise, and so, Mr. topic of this section: Chairman, I make that motion. MR. [THOMAS N.] KINDNESS [of 12. 103 CONG. REC. 8318, 8319, 85th Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer amend- Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration ments, and I wish to make a par- was H.R. 6974, to extend the Agri- liamentary inquiry with respect there- cultural Trade Development and As- to. sistance Act of 1954. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will 13. Parliamentarian’s Note: In this case state his parliamentary inquiry. the language of the bill was in viola- MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, may I tion of the provisions of Rule XXI reserve my parliamentary inquiry and clause 4, and the Member in charge make it after the reading of the of the bill moved that the Committee amendments? rise so application could be made to THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, the gen- the Committee on Rules for a resolu- tleman may do that. tion waiving points of order against the bill. See H. Res. 274, 85th Cong. 14. 123 CONG. REC. 17713, 17714, 95th 1st Sess. (1957). Cong. 1st Sess.

12367 Ch. 31 § 10 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The Clerk will report the amend- agencies, including the Postal Service ments. and the District of Columbia govern- The Clerk read as follows: ment, who are presently under the Amendments offered by Mr. Kind- Hatch Act. ness: Page 28, line 12, strike out The amendment seeks to add a to- ‘‘but does not include a member of tally different class of individuals to the uniformed services’’ and insert the bill; namely, military personnel ‘‘including any member of the uni- who are not now covered by the Hatch formed services’’. Act. Accordingly the amendment is not Page 30, line 12, strike out ‘‘and’’. germane to the bill. Page 32, line 3, strike out the period and insert ‘‘; and’’. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point Page 32, after line 3, insert: of order. ‘‘(10) ‘Secretary concerned’ has the THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman same meaning as given such term in from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) wish to section 101(5) of title 37. speak to the point of order? Page 35, line 2, strike out ‘‘or a MR. KINDNESS: I do, Mr. Chairman. member of a uniformed service.’’. Page 38, line 14, immediately be- Mr. Chairman, I understood that I fore the period insert ‘‘or by reason was recognized prior to the reading of of being a member of the uniformed the amendment for the purpose of stat- services’’. ing a parliamentary inquiry. Page 45, before line 8, insert the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state following: that the gentleman chose to defer his ‘‘(j) The preceding provisions of inquiry. this section shall not apply in the case of a violation by a member of a MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, I sug- uniformed service. Procedures with gest that the gentleman’s point of respect to any such violation shall, order is out of order. under regulations prescribed by the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state Secretary concerned, be the same as that a point of order is now in order those applicable with respect to violations of section 892 of title 10.’’. . . and has preference. MR. [WILLIAM] CLAY [of Missouri]: § 11.5 Although a point of Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment. order is pending against a THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from substitute for an amendment, Missouri will state his point of order. the Chairman of the Com- MR. CLAY: Mr. Chairman, I raise the mittee of the Whole may en- point of order on the grounds that the matter contained in the amendment is tertain a unanimous-consent in violation of the germaneness rule request to withdraw or mod- stated in clause 7 of House rule XVI. ify the substitute. The instant amendment proposes to (15) make the bill applicable to an entirely On June 18, 1958, it was new class of individuals other than ruled in order in the Committee of what is covered under the bill. The reported bill applies only to ci- 15. 104 CONG. REC. 11641–43, 85th vilian employees in executive branch Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration

12368 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 12 the Whole to make a unanimous- the substitute and offer an amend- consent request although a point ment. of order was pending at the time.

MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis- souri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an § 12. Relationship of amendment. Quorum Requirements The Clerk read as follows: . . . to Points of Order MR. [ROBERT] HALE [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute amend- Since 1974, the House has al- ment. tered the rules regarding enforce- THE CHAIRMAN: (16) The Clerk will read the amendment. ment of the constitutional require- The Clerk read as follows: . . . ment that a quorum—a majority MR. [JOHN] TABER [of New York]: of the House-must be present to Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order do business.(17) The first, and against the amendment because it pro- most notable, change is that a vides for items that are not authorized quorum is not required for mere by law. . . . debate; and the Chair is not per- MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, can a unanimous-consent mitted to recognize for a point of request be propounded while a point of no quorum unless the pending order is pending before the committee? question has been put.(18) Both THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would en- the Speaker and the Chairman of tertain such a unanimous-consent re- a Committee of the Whole have a quest. Any Member can object if he so desires. Does the gentleman from limited discretion, under the new Maine care to make such a request? procedures, to entertain a proper MR. HALE: Mr. Chairman, I want to motion to obtain a quorum by rec- be heard on the point of order. ognizing for a motion for a call of THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman can the House or, in Committee, to be heard and he is recognized. The recognize for a point of no quorum Chair is interested in disposing of the and invoke a call of the Com- point he raised a moment ago. mittee.(19) Once a quorum of the MR. HALE: I will be happy to have any solution of the parliamentary situ- Committee has been established ation. on a day, the Chair is restricted in THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman can ask unanimous consent to withdraw 17. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 5, House Rules and Manual § 52; see also, was H.R. 12858, making appropria- Rule XV cl. 6, § 774c (1997). tions for civil functions administered 18. See Ch. 20, supra; see also § 12.16, by the Departments of the Army, In- infra. terior, etc. 19. See Rule XXIII cl. 2(a), House Rules 16. Hale Boggs (La.). and Manual § 863 (1997).

12369 Ch. 31 § 12 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS recognizing for another point of no rules were consistent with the quorum unless the Committee is House’s constitutional authority to operating under the five-minute make its own rules.(6) rule and the question has been put on a pending question or mo- Precedence of Point of No tion. When a question is put, and Quorum (20) is pending, the lack of a § 12.1 In Committee of the quorum, if the point is raised, Whole, where there is a de- takes precedence over a demand mand for a recorded vote (1) for a record vote. The concept of and a point of order that a when there is a ‘‘pending motion quorum is not present, the or proposition’’ (the condition point of order must be dis- specified in Rule XXIII clause posed of first, and once a 2(a)) has been the focus of several quorum is ascertained, the decisions.(2) pending business is then the When the lack of a quorum has demand for a recorded vote. been declared by the Speaker or (7) Chairman, no business can be On Mar. 14, 1975, where the conducted (other than a motion to Committee of the Whole had under consideration the Surface adjourn or to rise) until a quorum (3) Mining and Reclamation Act, the is reestablished. If a recorded Chair announced that the ayes vote is refused, the requisite sec- appeared to prevail on a voice ond not having risen to be count- vote on the pending amendment. ed, the demand for a recorded The proceedings and inquiries vote cannot then be renewed, al- which eventually led to a record though a division can still be re- vote on the amendment were as quested.(4) follows:

The current practice has been THE CHAIRMAN: (8) The question is on challenged on several occasions by the amendment offered by the gen- points of order.(5) An appeal has tleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling). been unsuccessfully taken from The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes ap- the Chair’s decision that the new peared to have it. MR. [SAM] STEIGER of Arizona: Mr. 20. See § 12.6, infra. Chairman, on that I demand a re- 1. See §§ 12.1, 12.8, 12.11, 12.13, infra. 2. See §§ 12.7, 12.8, 12.10, infra. 6. See § 12.3, infra. 3. See §§ 12.4, 12.5, 12.17, infra. 7. 121 CONG. REC. 6707, 6708, 94th 4. See § 12.9, infra. Cong. 1st Sess. 5. See § 12.2, infra. 8. Neal Smith (Iowa).

12370 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 12 corded vote and make the point of MR. [MORRIS K.] UDALL [of Arizona]: order that a quorum is not present. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will yield, I ask him to withdraw it and I count. will support his request for a vote and MR. STEIGER of Arizona: I am told, we will thereby save time. Mr. Chairman, that you are not hon- MR. STEIGER of Arizona: All right. I oring my point of order that a quorum think it is going to work out. is not present. THE CHAIRMAN: Sixty-eight Members THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has are present, evidently not a quorum. counted 21 Members to this point. The Chair announces that he will vacate proceedings under the call when MR. STEIGER of Arizona: Mr. Chairman—— a quorum of the committee appears. Members will record their presence THE CHAIRMAN: The Members will by electronic device. be seated. The Chair is counting for a quorum. The call was taken by electronic device. MR. STEIGER of Arizona: Mr. Chair- man, another point of order. I do not want to confuse anyone here. I would Points of No Quorum Under ask the Chair this: Is it true that if 21 New Rule Members are standing, that is a sufficient number on which to base a roll- § 12.2 Pending consideration call vote and we would then avoid the of motions to suspend the necessity of demanding a quorum? It rules, the Speaker ruled: (1) obviously is not here anyway. that clause 6(e) prohibits a THE CHAIRMAN: Is the gentleman Member from making or the from Arizona withdrawing his point of no quorum? Chair from entertaining a MR. STEIGER of Arizona: No. I am point of no quorum in the just asking, if there are 21 Members House when a pending ques- who responded to my demand for a tion has not been put to a rollcall, which I coupled very cleverly vote; (2) that a point of order with a point of order that a quorum of no quorum during debate was not present, that is sufficient if 20 were standing, but the Chair an- in the House would not lie nounced that 21 were standing. independently under the THE CHAIRMAN: The point of no Constitution (article I, sec- quorum must be disposed of first. tion 5) since clause 6(e), Rule MR. STEIGER OF ARIZONA: Even XV, is a proper exercise of though the demand preceded the point the House’s rulemaking au- of order? thority and can be construed THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. STEIGER of Arizona: This is very consistently with the con- interesting. I want all the Members to stitutional requirement that remember that. a quorum be present to con- 12371 Ch. 31 § 12 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

duct business; (3) and that There is no question or business under the same clause, the being put to a vote at the moment, so Speaker is authorized, at his under clause 6 of rule XV the gentleman’s point is not well taken. . . . discretion, to recognize a MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- Member for a call of the land]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary House. inquiry. On Sept. 12, 1977,(9) Speaker THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr., of Massa- state it. chusetts, faced a somewhat simi- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) has lar situation, on a day when sus- just pointed out the fact that there are pension motions were in order. possibly less than 50 Members present The Speaker had announced his on the floor at this point. He made the intention to postpone suspension further point that the Constitution, ar- votes, and in response to a point ticle I, section 5, requires that the of order and a parliamentary in- House have a quorum at all times to quiry, he clarified the application do business. We are in the full House. of clause 6(e). We are not in the Committee of the Whole. I raise again the question THE SPEAKER: The Chair desires to whether or not the House can conduct make an announcement. its business for 4 or 5 hours today on Pursuant to the provisions of clause 13 separate bills under suspension 3(b) of rule XXVII, the Chair an- without having a majority of the mem- nounces that he will postpone further bership here and recorded present. proceedings today on each motion to I think any legislation we act upon suspend the rules on which a recorded could be challenged in court as not vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, having been considered by a quorum, or on which the vote is objected to and a quorum is not here. under clause 4 of rule XV. Also I am under the impression that MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: rule XV requires or permits at least Mr. Speaker, a point of order. one quorum call to establish a quorum Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the at the opening of each day’s session. House, since there is not a quorum present and not even close to a quorum THE SPEAKER: With regard to the present. gentleman’s statement, the Constitu- tion does require what the gentleman THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is aware of the rule of the House that the says—a quorum to do business. The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman rules of the House reflect this require- for a point of no quorum unless there ment. But under the circumstances, is a pending question being put to a the Chair will recognize a Member to vote. . . . move a call of the House. MR. [MORRIS K.] UDALL [of Arizona]: 9. 123 CONG. REC. 28800, 28801, 95th Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the Cong. 1st Sess. House.

12372 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 12

A call of the House was ordered. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The The call was taken by electronic de- Chair will inform the gentleman that vice . . . . is not an appealable ruling. The rule contains an absolute prohibition § 12.3 The Speaker’s refusal to against a Member making or the Chair entertain a point of order of entertaining such a point of order at no quorum when there is no this time, leaving no interpretive authority in the Chair and no authority pending question being put to recognize for such a point of order. to a vote is not subject to an The rule itself, and not the ruling of appeal, since Rule XV clause the Chair, governs in this situation. To 6(e) states an absolute prohi- permit an appeal would be tantamount bition against the Chair’s en- to permitting a direct change in the rule itself. tertaining such a point of order and to allow an appeal Withdrawal of Point of Order would permit a direct change After Absence of Quorum Is in that rule. Announced The Speaker Pro Tempore, Ms. Barbara Jordan, of Texas, refused § 12.4 A point of order that a to entertain an appeal in this case quorum is not present may since the rule involved leaves no not be withdrawn, even by discretionary interpretation to the unanimous consent, after the Chair. The proceedings of Sept. Chair has announced the ab- 16, 1977,(10) are shown below. sence of a quorum.

MR. [J. WILLIAM] STANTON [of Ohio]: Once the absence of a quorum Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to has been ascertained and an- the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie), nounced, no business, even by a very distinguished and important member of our committee. unanimous consent, can be con- MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: ducted. Only two options remain: Madam Speaker, I make the point of to adjourn or to secure a quorum. order that a quorum is not present. An instance where the latter op- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The tion was exercised is excerpted Chair will inform the gentleman from from the Sept. 21, 1977,(11) pro- Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) that the point of ceedings as shown below. order is not in order at this time under rule XV, clause 6(e). THE CHAIRMAN: (12) The question is MR. ASHBROOK: Madam Speaker, I on the amendment offered by the gen- appeal the ruling of the Chair. 11. 123 CONG. REC. 30083, 95th Cong. 10. 123 CONG. REC. 29594, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 1st Sess. 12. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).

12373 Ch. 31 § 12 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cough- from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) for a lin). recorded vote. The question was taken; and on a di- A recorded vote was ordered. vision (demanded by Mr. Coughlin) there were—ayes 13, noes 19. Motion To Rise in Absence of MR. [R. LAWRENCE] COUGHLIN [of Pennsylvania]: Madam Chairman, I Quorum demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a § 12.5 The motion that the quorum is not present. Committee of the Whole rise THE CHAIRMAN: Evidently a quorum is in order pending a point of is not present. no quorum and a request for MR. COUGHLIN: Madam Chairman, if a recorded vote, since the I can get a recorded vote, I will withdraw my point of order. motion to rise does not re- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair had an- quire the presence of a nounced that a quorum is not present quorum. and the gentleman may not withdraw his request at this time. Where the Committee of the MR. COUGHLIN: Madam Chairman, I Whole rose after a point of no ask unanimous consent to withdraw quorum had been made on Jan. my request. 28, 1980,(13) the Chair announced THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- that the pending request for a revise the gentleman that he cannot withdraw his request even by unani- corded vote would be before the mous consent. Committee when it resumed its The Chair announces that pursuant sitting. to clause 2, rule XXIII, she will vacate THE CHAIRMAN: (14) The question is proceedings under the call when a quorum of the Committee appears. on the amendment offered by the gen- Members will record their presence by tleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel). electronic device. The question was taken; and the The call was taken by electronic de- Chairman announced that the noes ap- vice. peared to have it. THE CHAIRMAN: One hundred Mem- MR. [ROBERT W.] EDGAR [of Pennsyl- bers have appeared. A quorum of the vania]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a re- Committee of the Whole is present. corded vote, and pending that, I make Pursuant to rule XXIII, clause 2, fur- the point of order that a quorum is not ther proceedings under the call shall present. be considered as vacated. MR. [RAY] ROBERTS [of Texas]: Mr. The Committee will resume its busi- Chairman, I move that the Committee ness. do now rise.

RECORDED VOTE 13. 126 CONG. REC. 898, 96th Cong. 2d THE CHAIRMAN: The pending busi- Sess. ness is the demand of the gentleman 14. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).

12374 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 12

The motion was agreed to. the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. MR. EDGAR: Mr. Chairman, a point Nichols) that the House suspend the of order. rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5168. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will The question was taken. state his point of order. MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: MR. EDGAR: Mr. Chairman, does that Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the make in order at the opening of tomor- yeas and nays. row morning’s session the vote, lacking The yeas and nays were refused. a quorum at this time? MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, I object THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will put to the vote on the ground that a the question for a recorded vote when quorum is not present and make the the Committee of the Whole recon- point of order that a quorum is not venes. present. MR. EDGAR: I thank the Chair. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursu- ant to clause 3 of rule XXVII and the Right of Member To Make a Chair’s prior announcement, further Point of No Quorum proceedings on this motion will be postponed. § 12.6 A point of no quorum MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, I insist can be made only when a on my point of order. question is pending; and THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The where the vote on a suspen- point of order is considered withdrawn. sion motion is objected to on The question is no longer pending. MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, I move the ground that a quorum is a call of the House. not present and is then post- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The poned, there is no longer a Chair did not recognize the gentleman question before the House for that purpose. and the point of no quorum ‘‘is considered as with- What Is a ‘‘Pending Question’’ drawn.’’ Which Permits Point of No Quorum On Sept. 24, 1979,(15) the Speaker Pro Tempore stated the § 12.7 The Chair may not en- pending business as shown and tertain a point of no quorum the proceedings that follow indi- pending a request that a cate one more skirmish in the bat- committee be permitted to tle over Rule XV clause 6(e). sit during the five-minute THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (16) The rule, since the requirement question is on the motion offered by of Rule XV clause 6(e) that a

15. 125 CONG. REC. 25876, 96th Cong. question be pending before a 1st Sess. point of no quorum can be 16. John J. Cavanaugh (Nebr.). made has not been met. 12375 Ch. 31 § 12 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

On June 18, 1980,(17) the Speak- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I make a er Pro Tempore did not entertain point of order that under the Constitu- a point of no quorum in cir- tion the requirement is that a quorum cumstances where no question be present to do any business of the House. A quorum is not present at this was being put to a vote. The cir- time, and the request for permission to cumstances are set forth herein. sit for a committee is business being MR. [THOMAS N.] KINDNESS [of conducted in the absence of a quorum. Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Ju- CALL OF THE HOUSE diciary be permitted to sit today and MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move a tomorrow during the 5-minute rule for call of the House. consideration of the criminal code. A call of the House was ordered. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (18) Is there objection to the request of the The call was taken by electronic de- gentleman from Ohio? vice, and the following Members responded to their names: . . . MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to ob- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: On this ject, the gentleman from Wisconsin rollcall, 362 Members have recorded (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has requested their presence by electronic device, a that I object. I am bound to object, and quorum. I indeed will object. Under the rule, further proceedings THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Those under the call are dispensed with. Members objecting please rise.(19) Messrs. Ashbrook, Bauman, Devine, REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FOR COM- Myers of Indiana, Rousselot, and Han- MITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO SIT sen rose. TODAY AND THURSDAY, JUNE 19, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: An in- UNDER 5-MINUTE RULE sufficient number of Members have arisen. MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I renew my point of order. MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- land]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair’s ruling on the ground that a gentleman will state his point of order. quorum is not present. MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I renew THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The re- my point of order. quest is not a motion or proposition THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: There put by the Chair to a vote. is no point of order. The Chair will state that under the rules of the 17. 126 CONG. REC. 15316, 15317, 96th House, the request that was made was Cong. 2d Sess. not subject to a point of order of a 18. Marty Russo (Ill.). quorum not being present because 19. The prohibition against committees such a request in the House does not sitting during the five-minute rule if require the presence of a quorum, as ten or more Members rendered objec- nothing is being put to a vote. tions was dropped from Rule XI in The gentleman then moved a call of the 105th Congress. the House. The Chair was not given an

12376 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 12 opportunity to count the House at that ders. The Chair will continue to exer- time, so we can presume a quorum cise that discretion. present. A quorum now being present, there is no point of order that lies at PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY this time. MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I make a parliamentary inquiry. point of order that the request was not THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The in order and could not be granted un- gentleman will state his parliamentary less a quorum was present at that inquiry. time. I made the point of order at the MR. BAUMAN: Is it the Chair’s posi- time the request was ruled upon by the tion that a quorum of the House is not Chair, that the ruling was not correct, required at any time when a request that a quorum had to be here because for a committee to sit is made? the Constitution requires a quorum at THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The all times to do business, and a request rules do not permit a point of no for the committee to sit is business. quorum at that particular point. The If I may be heard further, if it is the Chair has so stated. Chair’s position that a quorum is not MR. BAUMAN: I renew my parliamen- required, requests for committees to sit tary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. can be made at any time, after special THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The orders, at any time of the day, to the gentleman will state it. disadvantage of Members, and, there- MR. BAUMAN: The question is not fore, preclude the right of Members to whether the rules of the House permit exercise their power to prevent a com- a point of no quorum. I am inquiring of mittee from sitting. the Chair whether or not a quorum is THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: In re- required to be present when a request sponse to the gentleman, under the for a committee to sit is made. rules of the House, the Chair is not THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The permitted to entertain a point of order, Chair will state again that the Chair because such a request is not a motion does not interpret the Constitution or proposition being put to a vote and when there is an explicit House rule on the rule does not provide that the point. The Chair has already twice Chair can entertain such a request. given the gentleman his interpretation The request was made. The Chair of the rules of the House. asked whether or not any Member objected. Ten Members did not stand, When Question Is ‘‘Pending’’ permission was granted. The gen- To Permit Point of No tleman then made a point of order. The Quorum Chair, under the rules, cannot entertain such a point of order at the par- § 12.8 As long as the Chair has ticular time. The Chair in the past has used its discretion in not accepting re- put the question on the quests for committees to sit when such pending proposition but has requests are made during special or- not announced the final re- 12377 Ch. 31 § 12 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

sult there on, any Member Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the re- can make a point of order quest. MR. [HENRY B.] GONZALEZ [of that a quorum is not present, Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a re- and a Member is not recorded vote, and I make the point of quired to have been on his order that a quorum is not present. feet when another Member MR. [RICHARD L.] OTTINGER [of New made the point of order and York]: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman, if he then withdrew it. wishes to demand a vote, may do so. Mr. Richardson Preyer, of North MR. GONZALEZ: A point of order, Mr. Carolina, was presiding as Chair- Chairman. man of the Committee of the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has Whole on Aug. 20, 1980,(20) when the right to ask for a recorded vote or make the point of order that a quorum he announced that on a division is not present. vote, an amendment was agreed MR. OTTINGER: Mr. Chairman, a to. The division showed that a point of order. quorum of the Committee did not THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from vote and the proceedings were as New York (Mr. Ottinger) will state his indicated herein. point of order. MR. OTTINGER: The point of order, THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on Mr. Chairman, is that the gentleman the amendment offered by the gen- was not on his feet to make such a re- tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. quest at the appropriate time. McDade). THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state The question was taken; and on a di- that the gentleman was relying on an- vision (demanded by Mr. McDade) other gentleman being on his feet and there were—ayes 36, noes 22. making the point of order, and he MR. [ALLEN E.] ERTEL [of Pennsyl- would have the right under these cir- vania]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a re- cumstances to renew the point of corded vote, and pending that I make order, since the Chair has not finally the point of order that a quorum is not announced the result of the vote. present. MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Chairman, I de- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman asks mand a recorded vote, and pending for a recorded vote. that, I make the point of order that a MR. ERTEL: Mr. Chairman, I with- quorum is not present. draw my request for a recorded vote. THE CHAIRMAN: Evidently a quorum MR. [ROBERT] GARCIA [of New York]: is not present. Mr. Chairman, just a parliamentary inquiry. Am I in a position to make mention Once Refused, Request for Re- that a quorum is not present? corded Vote Not Renewable

20. 126 CONG. REC. 22149, 96th Cong. § 12.9 A recorded vote having 2d Sess. been refused in Committee of

12378 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 12

the Whole, a point of no present, and pending that, I demand a quorum may still lie under recorded vote. Rule XXIII clause 2, if the THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The pending question has not Chair has already announced an insufficient number. been disposed of by a divi- The gentleman can make a point of sion vote, but a demand for a order but he cannot ask for a recorded recorded vote cannot be re- vote. newed. MR. REGULA: Mr. Chairman, I de- During consideration of the first mand a division. concurrent resolution on the budg- On a division (demanded by Mr. et for fiscal 1983, Chairman Pro Regula) there were—ayes 42, noes 43. Tempore Leo C. Zeferetti, of New MR. [JAMES J.] HOWARD [of New Jer- York, had to vote to break a tie sey]: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. where a recorded vote was denied Tellers were ordered and the Chair- when requested on the adoption of man pro tempore appointed as tellers an amendment. The proceedings Mr. Whitten and Mr. Jones of Okla- of May 27, 1982,(1) are carried homa. herein. The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that there were— THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The ayes 72, noes 72. question is on the amendment offered THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) to the amendment in the Chair votes ‘‘aye.’’ nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Aspin). ‘‘Permission To Sit’’ Not Such The question was taken; and the Business as Requires Quorum Chairman pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. § 12.10 The pendency of a re- MR. [RALPH] REGULA [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. quest under the then appli- THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: A re- cable rule (Rule XI clause corded vote is demanded. 2(i)) for a committee to sit All those in favor of taking this vote during the five-minute rule, by a recorded vote will rise and be which would be granted un- counted. less 10 Members objected to Twenty-four Members, an insufficient number. the request, was not consid- So a recorded vote was refused. ered equivalent to the MR. REGULA: Mr. Chairman, I make Chair’s putting the question the point of order that a quorum is not and did not set the stage for a point of no quorum under 1. 128 CONG. REC. 12470, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. Rule XV clause 6(e).

12379 Ch. 31 § 12 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Monday, Aug. 16, 1982,(2) was a today and for the rest of the week for ‘‘suspension day’’ and the leader- the purposes of the consideration of ship had announced that votes on legislation while the House is sitting under the 5-minute rule. such motions would be postponed THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there until a following day. When objection to the request of the gen- Chairman John D. Dingell, of tleman from Michigan? Michigan, then came to the floor MR. [WILLIAM E.] DANNEMEYER [of to ask for permission for the Com- California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the mittee on Energy and Commerce right to object, I wonder if the gen- to sit during the five-minute rule tleman from Michigan can enumerate what legislation this request relates to. for the balance of the week, there MR. DINGELL: It is my expectation to were not sufficient Members on consider the Clean Air Act amend- the floor or in their offices to ob- ments. ject, ten objections being required MR. DANNEMEYER: Reserving the by the rule then in effect to pre- right to object, the request relates only vent a committee from sitting.(3) to the legislation dealing with the Clean Air Act? The following colloquy shows the MR. DINGELL: That is correct. difficulty of allowing such re- MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Speaker, I quests to be made on a day when withdraw my reservation of objection. no votes are scheduled. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the gen- REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FOR COM- tleman from Michigan? MITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE MR. [HENRY A.] WAXMAN [of Cali- TO SIT TODAY AND THE REST OF THE fornia]: Mr. Speaker, I move a call of WEEK DURING 5-MINUTE RULE the House. ( ) THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: 4 For THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The what purpose does the gentleman from Chair is not recognizing the gentleman Michigan (Mr. Dingell) rise? for that purpose at this time. MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, I ask MR. WAXMAN: Reserving the right to unanimous consent that the Com- object, and pending that, Mr. Speaker, mittee on Energy and Commerce have I make the point of order that a the permission of the House to sit quorum is not present. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is 2. 128 CONG. REC. 21219, 21315, not in order at this point. I wonder if 21316, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. we could ask the gentleman from 3. The prohibition against committees Michigan to temporarily withhold his sitting during the five-minute rule if request. ten or more Members rendered objec- MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, I believe tions was dropped from Rule XI in that this is proper business of the the 105th Congress. House. The Chair has just considered a 4. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.). request of this kind. If it is the wish of

12380 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 12 the gentleman from California to ob- point of order that is not a proper par- fuscate and delay the business of the liamentary inquiry. Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Speaker, I demand the regular the business of the House, then it is order. his right to do so, and I think it is my THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The right to have him take that step. gentleman insists on the regular order. The gentleman from California insists on his right to make an objection, PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY pending which he makes the point of order a quorum is not present. MR. WAXMAN: Mr. Speaker, a point MR. [JOHN F.] SEIBERLING [of Ohio]: of parliamentary procedure. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman with- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The hold for a minute his point of order? gentleman will state it. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does MR. WAXMAN: I would like to know the gentleman yield to the gentleman how the rules would protect Members from Ohio? who have been informed that a con- MR. WAXMAN: I will be pleased to troversial unanimous-consent request yield. would not be brought up on a day MR. SEIBERLING: Mr. Speaker, I ask when there are no votes, except to unanimous consent that the Com- allow a Member to ask for a quorum mittee on the Judiciary be permitted to call so the Members can participate in sit while the House is reading for a decision that is made. amendment under the 5-minute rule MR. DINGELL: I call for the regular on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thurs- order. day, August 17, 18, and 19, 1982. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. DINGELL: I have a similar re- Chair has indicated that a motion at quest pending, and I object. this time or objection at this time that THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The a quorum is not present is not in gentleman is within his rights to object order. The gentleman from Michigan to yield for that purpose. The gen- insists on his unanimous-consent re- tleman did not recognize the gentleman for that purpose at this time. quest. The Chair at this time will withhold MR. DINGELL: That is correct. recognition for any further purpose for MR. WAXMAN: A point of parliamen- a period. The Chair will protect the tary procedure. gentleman from Michigan’s rights in THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The this matter. gentleman will state it. MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, I am en- MR. WAXMAN: I renew my inquiry to titled to have a ruling on my unani- the Speaker on how the rules are per- mous-consent request. mitted to protect Members when there THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The are no indications of any controversy Chair will reserve a ruling. The Chair being brought up on a day when the will protect the gentleman’s rights. House is not required to have votes. MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, I believe MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, I de- I am entitled to be protected at this mand the regular order. I make the time.

12381 Ch. 31 § 12 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It is a The Chair will take 1 minute speech- matter of recognition, and the Chair is es at this time. . . . going to exercise his rights of recognition at this time. The Chair assures REQUEST FOR PERMISSION FOR COM- the gentleman that his rights will be MITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE protected. TO SIT DURING 5-MINUTE RULE ON TODAY AND BALANCE OF THE WEEK MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, I would observe that if I am denied recognition MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, I ask at this time, I may very well be denied unanimous consent that the Com- my rights. I have a unanimous-consent mittee on Energy and Commerce be request for which I was properly recog- permitted to sit for the purposes of nized. I would point out another re- considering legislation during the time quest was recognized for a similar that the House is sitting under the 5- unanimous consent just previous to minute rule today and for the balance me. That request was granted. of the week. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It was objection to the request of the gen- not granted. tleman from Michigan? MR. DINGELL: Perhaps the Speaker MR. WAXMAN: Mr. Speaker, I reserve can explain to me why I am being de- the right to object. nied my rights. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The CALL OF THE HOUSE gentleman from Ohio withdrew his re- MR. WAXMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move a quest. call of the House. MR. DINGELL: The gentleman pre- A call of the House was ordered. vious to that. The call was taken by electronic de- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The vice, and the following Members re- gentleman from Ohio withdrew his responded to their names: . . . quest. MR. PHILLIP BURTON [of California]: MR. DINGELL: Are you forgetting Mr. Speaker, regular order. that another Member had just made a Mr. Speaker, regular order. request on behalf of the Armed Serv- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ices Committee? Chair is observing the regular order. MR. PHILLIP BURTON: Mr. Speaker, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The regular order as to the time to note the gentleman from the Armed Services presence of Members has expired. Committee, Mr. White of Texas, asked THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Are to file a report, and that unanimous- there any Members who have not yet consent request was granted. recorded their presence? MR. DINGELL: Unanimous-consent The Chair will advise the gentleman request that the Armed Services Com- from California that 15 minutes is a mittee be permitted to sit. minimum, not a maximum. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: I am sorry to disagree with the gentleman. ADJOURNMENT The Chair did not grant permission to MR. [E (KIKA)] DE LA GARZA [of sit or entertain that motion from the Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the gentleman from Texas. House do now adjourn.

12382 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 12

The motion was agreed to: accord- the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. ingly (at 1 o’clock and 17 minutes Long). p.m.), under its previous order, the The question was taken; and the House adjourned until Tuesday, Au- Speaker pro tempore announced that gust 17, 1982, at 10 a.m. the ayes appeared to have it. MR. CONTE: Mr. Speaker, I make the Relative Precedence, Point of point of order that a quorum is not present. No Quorum and Objection to MR. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Speaker, I Vote Because of No Quorum object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present. § 12.11 When a question is THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the pending, any Member can gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. make a point of order that a Conte) objecting to the vote? MR. CONTE: No, Mr. Speaker, I am quorum is not present and just making the point of order that a get a quorum call before the quorum is not present. vote is taken; but another THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Member can preempt the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sen- quorum call by objecting to senbrenner) has a right to object to the vote. the vote on the ground that a MR. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Speaker, I quorum is not present, there- object to the vote on the ground that a by producing an automatic quorum is not present and make the call under Rule XV clause 4. point of order that a quorum is not present. (5) On Aug. 18, 1982, Mr. Silvio THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evi- O. Conte, of Massachusetts, in- dently a quorum is not present. tended to provoke a call of the The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- House before the question was put sent Members. on disposing of a Senate amend- Point of No Quorum During ment in disagreement. His inten- General Debate tion was thwarted by the more privileged point of order and ob- § 12.12 The Chairman of the jection to the vote raised by Mr. F. Committee of the Whole may, James Sensenbrenner, Jr., of Wis- in his discretion, entertain a consin. point of no quorum during

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (6) The general debate. question is on the motion offered by On Dec. 1, 1982,(7) the Chair- man of the Committee of the 5. 128 CONG. REC. 22037, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 7. 128 CONG. REC. 28205, 97th Cong. 6. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.). 2d Sess.

12383 Ch. 31 § 12 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Whole entertained a point of order and no business has inter- that a quorum was not present vened since his count. while general debate was under- On Dec. 17, 1982,(9) the House way. Members who were expected was considering amendments in to participate in the debate were disagreement to the District of Co- not on the floor and the quorum lumbia appropriation bill, fiscal call allowed them to be notified 1983. A motion that the House re- about the proceedings. cede and concur in Senate amend- MR. [JAMES T.] BROYHILL [of North ment number 40 had been di- Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make the vided, and the Speaker Pro Tem- point of order that a quorum is not pore proceeded to put the question present. on receding from disagreement. THE CHAIRMAN: (8) Under clause 2, The exchanges between Mr. Rob- rule XXIII, as adopted by the House of ert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, Representatives on January 5, 1981, the Chair, in his discretion, may enter- and the Speaker Pro Tempore, tain a point of order that a quorum is Mr. John P. Murtha, of Pennsyl- not present. vania, follow:

The Chair will entertain the point of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The no quorum and announces that pursu- question is whether the House shall re- ant to the provisions of clause 2, rule cede from disagreement to Senate XXIII, he will vacate proceedings amendment 40. under the call when a quorum of the The question was taken, and the Committee appears. Speaker pro tempore announced that Members will record their presence the ayes appeared to have it. by electronic device. MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I object The call was taken by electronic de- to the vote on the ground that a vice. quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not Where Quorum Present, Objec- present. tion to Vote Does Not Lie THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair will count. Two hundred nine- § 12.13 It is not in order to ob- teen Members are present, a quorum. ject to a vote on the ground MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, that was that a quorum is not present an interesting count. I thank the Speaker. under Rule XV clause 4, if Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and the Chair has counted the nays. House and announced that a The yeas and nays were refused. quorum is in fact present 9. 128 CONG. REC. 31951, 97th Cong. 8. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.). 2d Sess.

12384 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 12

So the motion was agreed to. the pending question to a MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I might vote. say we are going to have more votes, then, this evening. During debate in the House on THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The H.R. 3706, a bill making the question is now on concurring in the birthday of Martin Luther King, Senate amendment with an amend- Jr., a national holiday, the Speak- ment. er Pro Tempore (10) declined on The question was taken and the two occasions to recognize Ms. Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Mary Rose Oakar, of Ohio, for a MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I object point of no quorum. Proceedings to the vote on the ground that a were as follows: (11) quorum is not present and make the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point of order that a quorum is not gentleman from California (Mr. Danne- present. meyer) has 1 minute remaining. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. [WILLIAM E.] DANNEMEYER [of Chair will count for a quorum. Two California]: I reserve the balance of my hundred nineteen Members are time. present, a quorum. MS. OAKAR: Mr. Speaker, I make a MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I object point of order that a quorum is not to the vote on the ground that a present. quorum is not present and make the MR. DANNEMEYER: I yield to the gen- point of order that a quorum is not tleman from Kansas such time as he present. may consume. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MS. OAKAR: Regular order. Chair will advise the gentleman that THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The he just counted a quorum. Chair will not entertain the point of order at this time. Point of No Quorum During The gentleman from California yield- General Debate in House ed to whom? . . . The gentlewoman from Indiana. § 12.14 Pursuant to Rule XV MRS. [KATIE] HALL of Indiana: Mr. clause 6(e)(1), a point of Speaker, I ask that the gentleman order of no quorum cannot from California yield back the balance be made during general de- of his time. bate in the House; and while MR. DANNEMEYER: The gentleman the Speaker has discretion to from California reserves the balance of entertain a motion for a call his time. of the House he does not rec- 10. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.). ognize for a point of no 11. 129 CONG. REC. 22233, 22234, 98th quorum unless he has put Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 2, 1983. 12385 Ch. 31 § 12 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The five-minute debate on an amend- gentlewoman from Indiana. ment in Committee of the Whole, MS. OAKAR: Will the gentlewoman yield to me? stated that since a quorum had MRS. HALL of Indiana: I yield to the been established on an earlier re- gentlewoman. corded vote, another quorum call MS. OAKAR: Mr. Speaker, I make a would not be in order until the point of order that a quorum is not question was put on the pending present. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The amendment. Since Members on Chair does not have to entertain a mo- both sides of the aisle wanted to tion for a call of the House at this time have a quorum present to hear and chooses not to. the final speeches, a call of the MS. OAKAR: I am sorry, I did not hear the Speaker. committee was conducted by THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The unanimous consent. point of order cannot be made when Rule XXIII clause 2(a) (13) pro- the Chair has not put the pending vides that ‘‘[a]fter the roll has question, and the Chair has discretion whether to entertain a motion for a been once called to establish a call of the House at this time and now quorum during such day, the recognizes the gentlewoman from Indi- Chairman may not entertain a ana. point of order that a quorum is MRS. HALL of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished not present unless the . . . Chair- majority leader of the U.S. House of man has put the pending motion Representatives, the gentleman from or proposition to a vote’’. Texas (Mr. Wright). The proceedings were as follows: Points of No Quorum During Five-minute Rule THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on the amendment offered by the gen- § 12.15 Once a quorum has tleman from Massachusetts (Mr. been established by a re- Studds). The question was taken; and the corded vote during the five- Chairman announced that the noes ap- minute debate in Committee peared to have it. of the Whole, a subsequent MR. [WILLIAM S.] BROOMFIELD [of quorum call during debate Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a may be accomplished only by recorded vote. unanimous consent. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic de- ( ) On May 10, 1984, 12 Chairman vice, and there were—ayes 128, noes Les AuCoin, of Oregon, during 287, not voting 18. . . .

12. 130 CONG. REC. 11836, 11837, 13. House Rules and Manual § 863 11869, 11870, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. (1997).

12386 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 12

So the amendment was rejected. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman The result of the vote was an- from Michigan ask unanimous consent nounced as above recorded. . . . for a quorum to be called. MR. BROOMFIELD: Mr. Chairman, I MR. BROOMFIELD: I do, Mr. Chair- would like to make a point of order man. that a quorum is not present for the THE CHAIRMAN: Is there objection to final few speakers. the request of the gentleman from THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state Michigan? that the Chair cannot entertain that There was no objection. point of order unless the question has THE CHAIRMAN: A quorum call is or- been put on a pending proposition. dered. MR. BROOMFIELD: Mr. Chairman, I Members will record their presence make a point of order—— by electronic device. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state again that he cannot entertain a point Improper Parliamentary In- of order at this point unless the ques- quiry tion has been put on a pending matter, a quorum having been established on a § 12.16 During debate in the prior recorded vote today in this Com- House, when a point of no mittee of the Whole. quorum cannot be enter- Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) reserve the balance of his tained by the Speaker, he time? has declined to respond to a parliamentary inquiry ask- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY ing ‘‘how many Members are MR. [DANTE B.] FASCELL [of Florida]: in the Chamber?’’ since it Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary would be improper under the inquiry. guise of such an inquiry to THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. attempt to show the absence MR. FASCELL: Mr. Chairman, I am of a quorum. sorry, but I did not hear the Chair. I The brief parliamentary inquiry have no objection to a rollcall if that is described above occurred on Oct. what the gentleman from Michigan (14) asks for. But I did not hear what the 28, 1987, and was as follows: Chair said. MR. [F. JAMES] SENSENBRENNER [Jr., THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have a to the gentleman from Florida and to parliamentary inquiry. the gentleman from Michigan that by THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (15) The unanimous consent, if a quorum is gentleman will state it. sought, a quorum can be sought by unanimous consent. 14. 133 CONG. REC. 29682, 100th Cong. MR. FASCELL: Mr. Chairman, I am 1st Sess. saying I have no objection. 15. W. J. (Billy) Tauzin (La.).

12387 Ch. 31 § 12 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Speaker, from Illinois was on his feet first, how many Members are present now? clearly. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE CHAIRMAN: A point of no Chair cannot respond to that as a par- quorum takes precedence over other liamentary inquiry. motions and other requests for recognition. The gentlewoman has made a point When Chair Must Entertain of order of no quorum. Point of No Quorum The Chair will need to count for a quorum. § 12.17 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole must PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY entertain a point of order MR. DORNAN: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. that a quorum is not present THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will during the five-minute rule state it. over other requests for rec- MR. DORNAN: Could I please have a parliamentary reading on whether the ognition, since Rule XXIII Chairman sitting in the chair clearly clause 2 gives the point of no ignored the gentleman from Illinois for quorum the highest pri-ority minutes before he recognized the gen- where a quorum has not tlewoman? THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair may not been established in the Com- ignore a point of no quorum, under mittee on that day. rule XXIII where a quorum has not been previously established during the The proceedings of June 30, amendment stage. ( ) 1993, 16 in Committee of the Previously, the Chair recognized the Whole, demonstrate the manda- distinguished gentleman from Illinois tory nature of a point of order of [Mr. Hyde], and the Chair will be pleased to do so again at the appro- no quorum under certain condi- priate moment. tions. A Member has made the point that a quorum is not present. Therefore, the MRS. [NITA M.] LOWEY [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I point out the Chair must count for a quorum of 100 Members in the Committee of the absence of a quorum. Whole House. (17) THE CHAIRMAN: The gentlewoman Evidently a quorum is not present. from New York [Mrs. Lowey] makes Members will record their presence this point of order that a quorum is not by electronic device. present. The call was taken by electronic de- MR. [HENRY J.] HYDE [of Illinois]: vice. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. MR. [ROBERT K.] DORNAN [of Cali- fornia]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman § 13. Appeals 16. 139 CONG. REC. 14882, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. The right of appeal from deci- 17. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.). sions of the Speaker on questions

12388 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 13 of order is provided for by the Decisions of the Chair on points House rules. In Rule I clause 4, it of order raised in the Committee is provided: of the Whole may be appealed, al- He [the Speaker] shall . . . decide all though such are also rare. In such questions of order, subject to an appeal cases the decision of the Chair- by any Member, on which appeal no man is appealed to the Com- Member shall speak more than once, (4) unless by permission of the House. mittee. In the House an appeal is not voted on directly if the Although amended in 1811, the House agrees to a motion to table portion of the rule pertaining to (5) appeals of points of order dates the appeal, but the motion to from 1789.(18) table is not available in the Com- Although appeals from rulings mittee of the Whole. of the Chair on points of order are permissible, such appeals have been infrequent. The only issue In General presented by an appeal is the propriety of the Chair’s ruling under § 13.1 The Chair suggested, in the rules and precedents, and not response to a parliamentary the merits of the proposition to inquiry, that the question of which the ruling applies.(19) Cer- the constitutionality of a pro- tain determinations by the Chair vision in a pending bill was a are not subject to appeal, such as matter for the House to de- his discretion in exercising the termine by its vote on the ( ) power of recognition, 20 his count merits of that language, rath- to determine whether a quorum is er than by voting on a pos- present,(1) or his count on whether sible appeal from the Chair’s a sufficient number of Members decision declining to rule have risen to order the yeas and nays.(2) Members are not recog- upon that constitutional nized to appeal from the Chair’s issue. response to a parliamentary in- May 10, 1973,(6) in the Com- quiry.(3) mittee of the Whole, Chairman Jack Brooks, of Texas, declined to 18. Rule I clause 4, House Rules and Manual § 624 (1997). 4. See §§ 13.3, 13.6–13.9, infra. 19. See §§ 13.1, 13.2, infra. 5. See §§ 13.15, 13.16, infra. 20. See § 13.11, infra. 6. 119 CONG. REC. 15290, 15291, 93d 1. See § 3.12, infra. Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 2. See §§ 13.13, 13.14, infra. was H.R. 7447, supplemental appro- 3. See § 14.4, infra. priations for fiscal 1973.

12389 Ch. 31 § 13 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS rule upon the constitutionality of in a war. Both authorizations are es- certain language that Mr. Sidney sential for that kind of appropriation. R. Yates, of Illinois, found objec- ... I am asking the Chair for its ruling tionable. on two points. One, I ask the Chair to MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, I have a rule with respect to military appropria- point of order against the language be- tions which provide funds for American ginning at page 6, line 10 through line Armed Forces to engage in war under 12. rule XXI, section 2, of the Rules of Pro- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will cedure of the House of Representa- state his point of order. tives, which states there must be, as MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, I make a well as any other legislation author- point of order against the language set izing such action, compliance with arti- forth in lines 10, 11, and 12, on page cle I, section 8, of the U.S. Constitu- 6. tion, which requires the approval of Article I, section 8, of the Constitu- the Congress for American Armed tion of the United States says: Forces to engage in that war; and, sec- ondly, I am asking the Chair to rule The Congress shall have the power that the requirements in article XI, to declare war. . . . section 8, cannot be waived by any rule Congress has not declared war of the Committee on Rules. . . . against Cambodia or Laos or against THE CHAIRMAN: . . . The Chair is not any other country in Southeast Asia in a position, nor is it proper for the for that matter. Congress has not Chair to rule on the constitutionality of given the President any authority to the language, or on the constitu- use the American Armed Forces in tionality or other effect of the action of Cambodia and Laos. Nevertheless, on the House in adopting the resolution of order of President Nixon, American the Committee on Rules. In the head- military planes are bombing in both notes in the precedents of the House it those countries. The appropriation con- very clearly states that it is not the tained in the transfer authority in- duty of a chairman to construe the cludes funds to continue the bombing Constitution as it may affect proposed of Cambodia and Laos. . . . legislation, or to interpret the legality Mr. Chairman, under that rule it is or effect of language; and the Chair not enough that there be ordinary leg- therefore overrules the point of order islative authority which is required for raised by the gentleman from Illinois other appropriations. It is not enough (Mr. Yates). that there be ordinary legislative au- MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, I want to thority upon which to base an appro- make some comments on the ruling of priation for American Armed Forces to the Chair with the thought that I may engage in war. appeal from the ruling of the Chair. There must be constitutional author- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has ruled. ity for that appropriation as well, The gentleman is perfectly within his namely, there must be congressional right to move to strike the last word, approval for American forces to engage and he may proceed.

12390 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 13

MR. YATES: The point I make, Mr. during consideration of the Labor- Chairman, is that in the ruling that HHS appropriation bill, fiscal the Chair made on precedents, as I re- 1992, on June 26, 1991.(7) call that ruling, it also says that while the Chair does not interpret the con- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY stitutionality of the provision, it leaves that for the House to decide. Is my MR. [WILLIAM E.] DANNEMEYER [of memory correct on that? California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair believes THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: (8) The that is correct in that the committee gentleman will state his parliamentary may later vote on the provision. inquiry. MR. YATES: Mr. Chairman, while I MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Chairman, if believe the ruling to be not on the a point of order is raised against the points I made I accept the ruling of the Weber language on parental notifica- Chair. Let the House vote on the tion in this bill, and if the Chairman amendment which will be offered. would sustain the point of order, would I be in order at that time to ask for a Purpose of Appeal; Validity of rollcall vote on that sustaining of that Chair’s Ruling point of order, making parental notification not in order of this bill? § 13.2 An appeal from a ruling THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: Any of the Chair goes only to the such ruling of the Chair is subject to propriety of the Chair’s rul- an appeal, as the gentleman is aware. MR. DANNEMEYER: The only way to ing—whether he has cor- get the rollcall vote is to appeal the rectly applied the precedents ruling of the Chair? and rules in making the deci- THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: That sion—and the vote thereon might depend on the effect of the should not be interpreted as Chair’s ruling. MR. DANNEMEYER: A further par- reflecting the sentiments of liamentary inquiry: Is the appeal of a the Members as to the merits ruling of a Chair interpreted by some of the underlying issue. in this body as a procedural matter, as distinguished from a substantive mat- A decision of the Chair in re- ter? sponse to a point of order may im- THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: An pact on an emotional or politically appeal of the Chair’s ruling goes only volatile issue, and may determine to the propriety of the Chair’s ruling whether the issue can be debated under the rules. or voted upon. Some Members MR. DANNEMEYER: Mr. Chairman, I interpret the Chair’s remarks to mean have suggested, even attempted, to generate an appeal as a way of 7. 137 CONG. REC. 16436, 102d Cong. putting Members on record. One 1st Sess. such occurrence almost surfaced 8. Alan Wheat (Mo.). 12391 Ch. 31 § 13 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

it is procedural in nature rather than (4) in subsection (i) by striking out substantive. ‘‘(c)’’ and inserting in lieu thereof THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: It ‘‘(b)(ii)’’; should not be interpreted as a vote on (5) in subsection (j) by striking out the merits of the issue at hand. ‘‘(a), (b), or (c)’’ and by inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘(a) or (b)’’; and (6) by redesignating subsection (d) § 13.3 In response to a par- through (j) as subsections (c) through liamentary inquiry, the (i), respectively. . . .

Chair stated that an appeal MR. [GEORGE E.] DANIELSON [of was a proper mechanism to California]: I make a point of order, contest the Chair’s decision Mr. Chairman. on a point of order. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from California makes a point of order? (9) On May 16, 1979, an appeal Mr. DANIELSON: Yes, I do. was taken in the Committee of THE CHAIRMAN: Will the gentleman the Whole from a decision on the state his point of order. . . . germaneness of an amendment THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will hear made by Chairman E de la Garza, the gentleman from California on his of Texas. point of order. MR. DANIELSON: Mr. Chairman, the AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. KINDNESS gentleman’s amendment would repeal MR. [THOMAS N.] KINDNESS [of subsection (c) of title 207 of the United Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an States Code. I respectfully submit that amendment and ask unanimous con- it is not germane inasmuch as the bill sent for its immediate consideration. pending before the committee at this The Clerk read as follows: time refers only to subsection (b) of On page 2, following line 2, add section 207 of the United States Code. the following new sections to the bill: It has nothing to do with subsection ‘‘SEC. 2. Subsection (c) of section (c). Therefore, it is beyond the scope of 207 of title 18, United States Code, the bill and is not germane. is hereby repealed. MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman. EC ‘‘S . 3. Section 207 of title 18, THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from United States Code is further amended— Ohio. (1) in subsection (d) by striking out MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, I ‘‘(c)’’ and inserting in lieu thereof wish to be heard on the point of order. ‘‘(b)(ii)’’; THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is (2) in subsection (e) by striking out recognized for that purpose. ‘‘(c)’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘(b)(ii)’’; MR. KINDNESS: This railroad is run- (3) in subsection (f) by striking out ning pretty fast. The chairman of the ‘‘(a), (b), and (c)’’ and inserting in subcommittee has just shown a lack of lieu thereof ‘‘(a) and (b)’’; confidence in this bill. So much so that all we can consider under a very nar- 9. 125 CONG. REC. 11470–72, 96th rowly drawn committee amendment is Cong. 1st Sess. just a little bit of the section that is in-

12392 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 13 volved. The real controversy lies out- that was addressed by the original bill. side of subsection (b). . . . This amendment is both germane to The previous ruling of the Chair re- the original bill and germane to the lated to the establishment of some committee amendment.... other section of law; but this is right in THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman the same section and it is inappro- from Missouri (Mr. Volkmer) wish to priate to limit the application of this be heard on the point of order? bill to just a portion of the section MR. [HAROLD L.] VOLKMER [of Mis- which is, indeed, a sentence. To limit it souri]: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, in sup- to only subsection (b) would not be to port of the point of order. even consider the complete sentence. I would just like to note that even MR. [CARLOS J.] MOORHEAD of Cali- though the title itself refers to the full fornia: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to section, the body of the bill relates only speak to that point of order. The title to subsection (b) and subsection (d) as of this bill is an act to amend section originally passed by the Senate and 207 of title 18, United States Code. sent over to this body. It does not re- That is exactly what this amendment late in any way to subsection (c), which does. It amends section 207 of title 18 is the subject of the amendment and, of the United States Code. It should be therefore, I believe the germaneness relevant. rule, which I will acknowledge is a MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, on narrow interpretation, should be fol- that point, in connection with the point lowed here, and that only amendments raised by the gentleman from Cali- to those two parts of section 207 would fornia (Mr. Moorhead), we must relate be in order. the ruling of the Chair on the point of MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, will order that has been raised to section the gentleman yield on the point of 501 of title 18 of the United States order? Code. There can be no way to relate THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rec- the ruling to section 501 of title 18 ognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. without it being in order and germane Kindness). to consider everything within that sec- MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, will tion 501. the gentleman tell me where the sen- THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other tence ends? Member who wishes to be heard on the In fact, subsections (a), (b), and (c) point of order? are not subsections; they are part of The gentleman from Texas (Mr. one sentence. Eckhardt) is recognized. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready MR. [ROBERT C.] ECKHARDT [of to rule. Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I speak in oppo- The Chair can only rule with respect sition to the point of order. As has to the legislation which appears before been said before, both the matter be- the Committee of the Whole in its fore the House and the amendment represent form, and that is S. 869. late to section 207. Both address the By a previous amendment adopted same question, the precise question, in the committee, the reference to sub-

12393 Ch. 31 § 13 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

section (d)(3) has been stricken from proceedings under the call when a the bill. The only other subsection that quorum of the Committee appears. remains in the bill is subsection (b) of Members will record their presence section 207 of title 18 addressing one by electronic device.... category of employees. Any mention THE CHAIRMAN: Three hundred and made of the title to the bill is not con- forty-nine Members have answered to sidered as a substantive part of the their name, a quorum is present, and legislation and does not determine the the Committee will resume its busi- germaneness of an amendment to the ness. test. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Therefore, under the precedents as Kindness) insist upon his request for a studied by the Chair, the Chair will recorded vote? sustain the point of order. MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the re- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY quest for a recorded vote on appealing MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, I the ruling of the Chair. have a parliamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman can THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from withdraw his request without unani- Ohio (Mr. Kindness) will state his par- mous consent. liamentary inquiry. MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, in The Chair Does Not Rule on order to appeal the ruling of the Chair Questions of Constitutionality to the Committee of the Whole, is it in order at this point to move that the § 13.4 The Chair does not rule question be presented by way of a direct appeal of the ruling of the Chair? on the constitutionality of THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has the rules adopted by the the right to appeal. House of Representatives. MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, I ap- Rule XV clause 6(e), which pro- peal the ruling of the Chair. hibits the Speaker from enter- THE CHAIRMAN: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair be sustaining a point of no quorum un- tained? less the pending motion or propo- The question was taken; and the sition has been put to a vote, was Chairman being in doubt, the Com- included as part of H. Res. 5, mittee divided, and there were, ayes which was considered and adopted 15, noes 6. on Jan. 4, 1977.(10) On several oc- MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending casions during the first session of that, I make the point of order that the 95th Congress, Members quorum is not present. sought to challenge that new rule THE CHAIRMAN: Evidently a quorum by various parliamentary means. is not present. The Chair announces that pursuant 10. 123 CONG. REC. 53–70, 95th Cong. to clause 2, rule XXIII, he will vacate 1st Sess.

12394 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 13

Two such challenges are shown in THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The this and the following section. The gentleman will state it. first example is from the pro- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Con- stitution of the United States requires ceedings of Sept. 8, 1977.(11) that a quorum be present at all times THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (12) The to conduct business in the House of gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) is Representatives. We are sitting in the recognized for 30 minutes, and the House and at this time there is a pend- gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Ed- ing motion on an appropriations con- wards) is recognized for 30 min- ference report being debated, and I can utes. . . . count. Obviously there are not 218 The Clerk will report the next Members present. We have no quorum. amendment in disagreement. I make a point of order that under the The Clerk read as follows: Constitution, article I, section 5, the Senate amendment No. 41: Page House cannot continue to conduct its 25, line 12, strike out ‘‘$7,417,705,– business in this way without a quorum 000’’ and insert ‘‘$6,111,600,000’’. and I move a call of the House. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion. Chair has discretion to entertain a motion for a call of the House but he can- The Clerk read as follows: not entertain a point of order at this Mr. Mahon moves that the House time. recede from its disagreement to the MR. BAUMAN: A parliamentary in- amendment of the Senate numbered 41 and concur therein with an quiry. Under what authority does the amendment, as follows: In lieu of the Chair not entertain a point of no sum proposed by said amendment quorum when a quorum is not present? insert: ‘‘$7,693,400,000’’.... MR. [JOHN] BRADEMAS [of Indiana]: MR. [JACK] EDWARDS of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I move a call of the Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time House. as I may consume. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. [JOHN J.] FLYNT [Jr., of Geor- gentleman from Indiana moves a call gia]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of of the House. order a quorum is not present. Under rule XV clause 6(e) the Chair THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That cannot entertain a point of no quorum point of order is not in order in the at this time. House at this time. MR. BAUMAN: A parliamentary in- The gentleman from Alabama is rec- quiry. Does rule XV allow discretion in ognized. the Chair whether or not a point of no Mr. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- quorum will be permitted? There is not land]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. a quorum present. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The 11. 123 CONG. REC. 28114, 28122–24, only discretion the Chair would have 95th Cong. 1st Sess. under clause 6(e)(2) of rule XV is 12. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.). whether to entertain a motion for a

12395 Ch. 31 § 13 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

call of the House. The Chair has enter- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a tained such a motion. parliamentary inquiry. Without objection, a call of the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The House is ordered. gentleman will state his parliamentary There was no objection. inquiry. The call was taken by electronic de- MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, not that vice, and the following Members failed I wish to belabor the point, but the to respond:... Constitution of the United States, arti- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: On this cle I, section 5, requires that at all rollcall 353 Members have recorded times a majority of the House be their presence by electronic device, a present for the conduct of business. quorum. The point that I made prior to the By unanimous consent, further pro- quorum call was that there was not a ceedings under the call were dispensed majority of the House present, and in with. the absence of a majority, any business The Chair wishes to clarify the point that would be conducted would not be which was raised by the gentleman legally or constitutionally conducted, from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) prior to the rules of the House notwith- the quorum call, and since the gen- standing. tleman is perhaps much more familiar THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The with the rules than is the Chair, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Chair wishes to quote clause 6 of rule Bauman) is perhaps more familiar XV which deals with quorum calls in with the Constitution than is the the House. The provision of the rules Chair, who is not in a position to rule which the Chair wishes to cite is spe- upon the constitutionality of the rule, cifically clause 6(e)(1), which reads as but the new rule does not anticipate, follows: according to the understanding of the Chair, that the mere conduct of debate Except as provided by subparagraph (2), it shall not be in order to would constitute business in the sense make or entertain a point of order as contemplated by the Constitution, that a quorum is not present unless and the rule does provide that a point the Speaker has put the pending mo- of order is in order if a question has tion or proposition to a vote. been put to a vote. In this instance the Speaker pro tempore had not put the pending mo- Appeal Does Not Lie tion or proposition to a vote to make it possible for a quorum call to qualify § 13.5 The Speaker’s refusal to under the rules. It is, of course, imper- entertain a point of order of ative that the Chair follow the rules in no quorum when there is no a matter of this sort. pending question being put This point has been further stressed by Speaker O’Neill when the matter to a vote is not subject to an has been brought up on previous occa- appeal, since Rule XV clause sions. 6(e) states an absolute prohi- 12396 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 13

bition against the Chair’s en- to permitting a direct change in the tertaining such a point of rule itself. order and to allow an appeal Appeal in Committee of the would permit a direct change Whole—Chair Sustained in that rule. The Speaker Pro Tempore, Ms. § 13.6 The Chair’s ruling on a Barbara Jordan, of Texas, refused point of order in the Com- to entertain an appeal in this case mittee of the Whole was sus- since the rule involved leaves no tained on appeal by division discretionary interpretation to the vote of the Committee. Chair. The proceedings of Sept. On Mar. 31, 1937,(14) arguing ( ) 16, 1977, 13 are shown below. that a point of order against his MR. [J. WILLIAM] Stanton [of Ohio]: amendment had been raised too Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to late, Mr. Ross A. Collins, of Mis- the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie), sissippi, appealed a ruling of a very distinguished and important Chairman Scott W. Lucas, of Illi- member of our committee. nois. To Mr. Collins’ proposed MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: Madam Speaker, I make the point of amendment, Mr. Lindsay C. War- order that a quorum is not present. ren, of North Carolina, had raised THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The a point of order that it was legis- Chair will inform the gentleman from lation in an appropriation bill Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) that the point of and, hence, out of order. To this order is not in order at this time under Mr. Collins responded that it was rule XV, clause 6(e). too late because he had already MR. ASHBROOK: Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. been recognized in debate, al- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The though it was disputed as wheth- Chair will inform the gentleman that er he had actually said anything is not an appealable ruling. The rule or not. Chairman Lucas ruled that contains an absolute prohibition Mr. Warren could raise his point against a Member making or the Chair of order because he had shown entertaining such a point of order at this time, leaving no interpretive au- due diligence in seeking recogni- thority in the Chair and no authority tion. Further, the Chairman to recognize for such a point of order. upheld the point of order against The rule itself, and not the ruling of the Chair, governs in this situation. To 14. 81 CONG. REC. 2980, 2981, 75th permit an appeal would be tantamount Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 5966, an appropriation bill 13. 123 CONG. REC. 29594, 95th Cong. for the legislative branch for fiscal 1st Sess. 1938.

12397 Ch. 31 § 13 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS the amendment. Thereupon, Mr. MR. [HAROLD L.] VOLKMER [of Mis- Collins made the following unsuc- souri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an cessful appeal of the Chairman’s amendment. ruling: The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Volk- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is ready mer: Page 164, lines 24 and 25, to rule on the point of order made by amend the bill by adding the fol- the gentleman from North Carolina. In lowing after the word ‘‘project,’’ ‘‘in- the opinion of the Chair, there is no cluding photographic equipment, and authorization under the law for the ad- fingerprint equipment, for law en- ditional clerks as is proposed by the forcement purposes.’’. amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Collins]. Obvi- MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Chairman, I ously, it is an attempt to pass legisla- offer an amendment to the amend- tion upon an appropriation bill. The ment. Chair sustains the point of order made The Clerk read as follows: by the gentleman from North Carolina Amendment offered by Mr. [Mr. Warren]. Ashbrook to the amendment offered MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I ap- by Mr. Volkmer: Insert after the peal from the ruling of the Chair. word ‘‘including’’ ‘‘bulletproof vests.’’. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is, (16) Shall the decision of the Chair stand THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gen- as the judgment of the Committee? tleman from New York insist on his The question was taken; and on a di- point of order? vision (demanded by Mr. Snell) there MR. [PETER A.] PEYSER [of New were ayes 72 and noes 23. York]: Mr. Chairman, I do. So the decision of the Chair stood as Mr. Chairman, I do this to my friend the judgment of the Committee. from Ohio because my concern is exactly the same as his, which is to guar- § 13.7 On appeal, the Chair’s antee that we do include in this bill ruling on a question of ger- the availability of bulletproof vests, be- maneness was upheld on a cause it is a whole different subject. I raise the point that it is not germane voice vote. to this particular equipment that is During consideration of the Jus- being discussed at this time. When we tice System Improvement Act, previously discussed this with the Par- 1979, an appeal was taken by Mr. liamentarian the point was made that John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio, from a it could not be amended on the other decision by the Chair that Mr. side by having the bulletproof vest amendment amended by adding cam- Ashbrook’s second degree amend- eras and other equipment. It is not a ment was not germane. The pro- germane fact to this issue and the type ( ) ceedings of Oct. 12, 1979, 15 were of equipment we are dealing with and as follows: discussing, and for that reason it should be ruled out of order. 15. 125 CONG. REC. 28123, 28124, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. 16. Mike McCormack (Wash.).

12398 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 13

I will say that it is my intention, to poses, it is germane. This is not re- the gentleman from Ohio, to offer this stricted just to a certain type of equip- amendment as I did the other day, ment. We have photographic equip- offer the exact same amendment. I in- ment and fingerprint equipment. They tend to offer it today as soon as this are not related at all. Bulletproof vests discussion is finished. are for law enforcement purposes. Does the gentleman from Ohio wish THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- to be heard on the point of order? pared to rule. MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Chairman, I The question really comes down to would merely say in response that I do how to define and segregate categories not believe my colleague from New of law enforcement equipment. The York has stated adequate grounds on Chair is persuaded that the term, the point of order. I think the propo- ‘‘photographic equipment and finger- sition he propounded, the question print equipment’’ is a generic category placed to the Parliamentarian was on that deals with information rather the Volkmer amendment when we than protection of law enforcement offi- were in an entirely different position cers. the other day and we have already Bulletproof vests are within the dif- opened up two categories. It seems to ferent category of equipment for the me this comes within the general de- protection of law enforcement officers. scription of the type of police gear, type The Chair recognizes that this is a fine of police paraphernalia, electronic de- line, but rules that under the prece- vices that could be used, and I would dents the amendment is not germane think the point of order should be over- to the pending amendment and the ruled. point of order is sustained. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Chairman, is from Missouri wish to speak on the the point of order upheld? point of order? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. VOLKMER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Chairman, I ap- would like to speak on the point of peal the ruling of the Chair. order. As to the question of germane- THE CHAIRMAN: The question is, ness, as I understand it my amend- Shall the Chair’s ruling stand as the ment says, ‘‘including photographic judgment of the Committee? equipment, fingerprint equipment,’’ The question was taken; and the and then the words ‘‘for law enforce- Chairman announced that the ayes ap- ment purposes.’’ peared to have it. Therefore, in my opinion anything MR. ASHBROOK: MR. CHAIRMAN, I de- that would be in there for law enforce- mand a recorded vote, and pending ment purposes would be germane. In that, I make the point of order that a other words, if somebody would offer quorum is not present. an amendment for pistols, or offer an THE CHAIRMAN: Evidently a quorum amendment for bullets, or offer an is not present. amendment for police caps or cars or Pursuant to the provisions of clause anything else for law enforcement pur- 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair announces

12399 Ch. 31 § 13 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 overrule the decision of the Chair- minutes the period of time within man, William J. Driver, of Arkan- which a vote by electronic device, if or- sas. The situation occurred fol- dered, will be taken on the pending question following the quorum call. lowing the offering of an amend- Members will record their presence by ment by Mr. Ross A. Collins, of electronic device. Mississippi, to which Mr. Jack The call was taken by electronic de- Nichols, of Oklahoma, raised a vice. point of order after Mr. Collins THE CHAIRMAN: Three hundred and had spoken only a few words on twelve Members have answered to the amendment. Mr. Collins then their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its busi- made the point of order, which the ness. Chair sustained, that the point of The pending business is the demand order raised by Mr. Nichols came of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. too late, as Mr. Collins had al- Ashbrook) for a recorded vote appeal- ready begun his remarks. ing the decision of the Chair. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, the Ashbrook) insist upon his demand for a language that is incorporated in the recorded vote? amendment— MR. NICHOLS: MR. CHAIRMAN, I MR. ASHBROOK: I do not, Mr. Chair- man. MAKE A POINT OF ORDER AGAINST THE AMENDMENT. Appeal in Committee of the MR. COLLINS: Eliminates the language against which the gentleman Whole—Chair Overruled made the point of order. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of § 13.8 Where a ruling on a order that the gentleman’s point of point of order by the Chair- order comes too late. man of the Committee of the It was disputed whether Mr. Whole was appealed and Collins had been recognized at the voted upon, the Chair’s rul- time he commenced his remarks, ing was overturned. although the Chair maintained In a rare instance in which a that he had been recognized. In ruling by the Chairman was ap- any event, those supporting Mr. pealed, on Feb. 1, 1938,(17) the Nichols’ position argued that he Committee of the Whole voted to had had no opportunity to make his point of order. The following 17. 83 CONG. REC. 1372, 1373, 75th then took place: Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 9181, a District of Colum- MR. NICHOLS: If the Chair has made bia appropriation bill for 1939. a final ruling, I would, in the most re-

12400 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 13

spectful manner I know, request an ap- the consequences of such an appeal from the decision of the Chair. peal. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Oklahoma appeals from the decision of AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RIDGE the Chair on the ruling of the Chair on MR. [THOMAS J.] RIDGE [of Penn-syl- the point of order, as stated. vania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an The question before the Committee amendment. is, Shall the ruling of the Chair stand The Clerk read as follows: as the judgment of the Committee? Amendment offered by Mr. Ridge: The question was taken, and the Page 20, after line 3, insert the fol- Chair announced that the noes had it. lowing: SEC. 604. No part of any appro- So the decision of the Chair does not priation contained in title I shall stand as the judgment of the Com- knowingly be used to enumerate any mittee. undocumented alien in the 1990 decennial census.

Form of Question When Deci- MR. [NEAL] SMITH of Iowa: Mr. sion Is Appealed Chairman, I make a point of order on the amendment. . . . § 13.9 Where a decision of the THE CHAIRMAN: . . . The gentleman Chair ruling an amendment from Iowa (Mr. Smith) makes a point of order that the amendment violates out of order is appealed, the clause 2 of rule XXI by legislating on a question is put: ‘‘Shall the de- general appropriations bill. The cision of the Chair stand as amendment offered by the gentleman the judgment of the Com- from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ridge) is in mittee’’ and if the Chair’s rul- the form of a limitation on funds in the ing is not sustained, the bill and, by its use of the modifier, ‘‘knowingly,’’ refrains from requiring amendment would be de- any affirmative investigation or deter- bated under the five-minute mination on the part of government of- rule. ficials. However, the amendment requires On Aug. 1, 1989,(18) when an the exclusion from the census of popu- appeal was taken from a ruling of lation persons having a certain known the Chairman of the Committee of status who under current law are not the Whole, Mr. George E. Brown, required to be excluded. Article I, sec- Jr., of California, the Majority tion 2 of the Constitution and the 14th amendment require a decennial census Leader directed several inquiries of the whole number of persons in each to the Chair to inform Members of State, excluding Indians not taxed. To fulfill the constitutional mandate, 18. 135 CONG. REC. 17154–56, 101st section 141(a) of title 13 of the United Cong. 1st Sess. States Code directs the Secretary of

12401 Ch. 31 § 13 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Commerce to make a census of the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will population. The statute authorizes the state it. Secretary to determine the form and MR. GEPHARDT: Would the Chair content of the census. Although subject state for us the effect of the appealing to judicial review, the Secretary’s sole and ruling of the Chair? discretion under the statute has been THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair was described by the court as broad. about to state the question. The amendment would impinge upon The question is: Shall the decision of the discretion of the Secretary of Com- the Chair stand as the judgment of the merce by requiring him to exclude Committee? An aye vote would support from the census of population persons the Chair’s ruling. A no vote would having a certain status should he know not. that status. Under the statute, how- MR. [WILLIAM H.] GRAY [III, of Penn- ever, the Secretary’s discretion is not sylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have a par- so bounded. He is not required to ex- liamentary inquiry. clude persons having that status. An THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will amendment to a general appropriation state it. bill that subjects the discretion of a MR. GRAY: The question that I have, government official to a limit not con- Mr. Chairman, is, if the Chair’s ruling tained in existing law is legislation in is not sustained, what would be the violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. parliamentary situation at that time? In volume 8 of Deschler’s precedents, THE CHAIRMAN: At that point, if the at section 64, the following test is set decision of the Chair is not sustained, forth as one of the fundamental tests the amendment would be debatable on of the propriety of a proposed limita- the merits under the 5-minute rule in tion; and I quote: the normal course of procedure. Does the limitation curtail or ex- The Chair then put the question tend, modify or alter, existing powers or duties, or terminate old or confirm and, on a recorded vote, the deci- new ones? If it does, then it must be sion of the Chair was sustained. conceded that legislation is involved, for without legislation these results could not be accomplished. Withdrawal of an Appeal It is the opinion of the Chair that § 13.10 An appeal was taken the amendment in this case must in- from a decision of the Speak- volve legislation, and, accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order. er and then withdrawn, be- MR. RIDGE: Mr. Chairman, I respect- fore the question was put on fully appeal the ruling of the Chair a motion to lay the appeal on and ask for a recorded vote. the table.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY In recent years appeals from

MR. [RICHARD A.] GEPHARDT [of Mis- rulings of the Chair on points of souri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a par- order have been tabled in the liamentary inquiry. House more often than they have 12402 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 13 been voted upon. Thus, Nov. 28, rule of equity. I am making the point 1967,(19) Mr. Paul C. Jones, of of order on the basis of what the distinguished Speaker of the House of Missouri, opposed a Senate Representatives has said on many oc- amendment to a House bill, stat- casions, that these two bodies are ing: equal. I am making the point of order to restore comity and equality. As ev- As the other body has done so many eryone in the House knows, if I were a times in the past, they have taken a lawyer, I would not be up here trying bill of no great merit and of interest to make this point today. probably to only one Member of Con- gress, and have attached to that bill an After Speaker John W. McCor- amendment which would affect prac- mack, of Massachusetts, overruled tically every Member of Congress and the point of order, Mr. Jones ap- each one of the 200 million inhabitants pealed the ruling, but when Mr. of the United States. They have tried Price moved to table the appeal, by subterfuge to obtain the passage of Mr. Jones withdrew it: a bill in the form of an amendment which they cannot pass directly.(20) THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has given serious Mr. Jones raised a point of consideration to the point of order order against the amendment ‘‘to raised by the gentleman from Missouri. restore comity and equality’’ be- The Committee on Rules has reported out a special rule. It is within the au- tween the Houses: thority of the rules, and a reporting THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (1) The out by the Rules Committee is con- Chair will recognize the gentleman to sistent with the rules of the House. Therefore, the Chair overrules the make his point of order. point of order. MR. JONES of Missouri: I will make MR. JONES of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, the point of order now. I know this has never been done, but THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The I am going to appeal from the rule of gentleman will state his point of or- the Chair and ask for a rollcall. der. . . . MR. PRICE of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I MR. JONES of Missouri: I am making move to lay on the table the appeal of the point of order on the basis of the the gentleman. MR. JONES of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, 19. 113 CONG. REC. 34032, 90th Cong. I withdraw my request, but it is still 1st Sess. Under consideration was H. within my heart. Res. 985, providing for concurring in THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Senate amendments to H.R. 2275, an Missouri withdraws his request. act to provide for the relief of Dr. R. V. Samala, with Senate amendments Where Appeal Is Not Enter- relating to congressional redis- tained tricting. 20. Id. at p. 34033. § 13.11 Under clause 2 of Rule 1. Charles M. Price (Ill.). XIV, recognition is wholly 12403 Ch. 31 § 13 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

within the discretion of the MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Speaker, will Chair, who may decline to the chairman yield to me? recognize a Member to pro- MR. MOAKLEY: I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Ohio. pound a unanimous-consent MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Speaker, I want request relating to an order to rise in support of what was just of business, and such a deci- stated on the floor. I think that every sion of the Chair on recogni- Member of this body should have at tion is not subject to appeal. least 7 days to read thoroughly and to understand the budget of our country. (2) On Feb. 27, 1992, Speaker Pro I think this. I do not know if it is in Tempore Michael R. McNulty, of order, but I would like to ask unani- New York, had recognized the mous consent that there be at least 1 chairman of the Committee on week’s availability for all Members of Rules to discuss the agenda of this House to read the budget before action for amendments or pending that committee and the floor rules be considered. schedule which might result from Mr. Speaker, I put that in the form actions taken by the committee. of a unanimous-consent request. Mr. James A. Traficant, Jr., of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Ohio, attempted to propound a gentleman’s request is not in unanimous-consent request to order.... alter the House schedule. The pro- REQUEST THAT MEMBERS BE GIVEN 1 ceedings which followed are car- WEEK TO READ BUDGET PROPOSAL ried here. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: For MR. [JOE] MOAKLEY [of Massachu- what reason does the gentleman from setts]: I rise to notify members about Ohio rise? the Rules Committee’s plans for two MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Speaker, I rise measures: The budget resolution for for the purpose of offering a unani- fiscal year 1993 and H.R. 3732, the mous-consent request to the Congress. Budget Process Reform Act of 1991. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con- ... sent that all Members be given 1 week I take this opportunity to advise to read next year’s budget proposal Members who wish to offer an amend- from the Budget Committee and that ment to either the budget resolution or no rule be recommended or considered to H.R. 3732, the Budget Process Re- until that 1-week reading opportunity form Act. . . . is granted to all Members of the I have just been informed that the House. budget will be available at the com- MR. [JAMES H.] BILBRAY [of Nevada]: mittee offices tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I object. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The 2. 138 CONG. REC. 3655, 3656, 102d Chair has the power of recognition and Cong. 2d Sess. the Chair declines to recognize the

12404 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 13

gentleman for that purpose and the with a parliamentary inquiry, il- gentleman cannot challenge that de- lustrate the point of the headnote. nial. MR. [WILLIAM A.] STEIGER [of Wis- POINT OF ORDER consin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion. MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Speaker, a point The Clerk read as follows: of order. Mr. Steiger moves, pursuant to THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The section 152(d)(3) of the Trade Act of gentleman will state his point of order. 1974, to postpone indefinitely the MR. TRAFICANT: Mr. Speaker, I motion that the House resolve itself would like to know under what rule of into the Committee of the Whole the House such action by the Chair is House on the State of the Union for the consideration of House Resolu- taken. tion 653. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Clause (4) 2, rule XIV. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the preferential motion § 13.12 An appeal does not lie offered by the gentleman from Wis- consin (Mr. Steiger). to the Chair’s count deter- The question was taken; and on a di- mining that a quorum is vision (demanded by Mr. Ashbrook) present. there were—ayes 149, noes 33. MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: Where a vote first taken by a Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the division is objected to on the ground that a quorum is not present ground that a quorum is not and make the point of order that a present, and the Chair counts the quorum is not present. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The House and announces that a Chair will count. quorum is in fact present, that Two hundred and twenty-four Mem- count is not subject to challenge bers are present, a quorum. by appeal. A demand for the yeas MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, on that and nays, if supported by one-fifth I demand the yeas and nays. of those present, would produce The yeas and nays were refused. So the preferential motion was an accurate vote and count of agreed to. those present. The events of Aug. A motion to reconsider was laid on 3, 1977,(3) preceding and during the table. . . . consideration in the House of a CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6689, conference report on the Foreign FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION Relations Authorization Act of ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1978

1978, where the Chair was faced MR. [DANTE B.] FASCELL [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 3. 123 CONG. REC. 26528, 26532, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 4. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).

12405 Ch. 31 § 13 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

report on the bill (H.R. 6689) to au- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is thorize fiscal year 1978 appropriations correct. for the Department of State, the U.S. MR. ASHBROOK: Further reserving Information Agency, and the Board for the right, then, to object, all that the International Broadcasting, to make Members can rely on for the count of certain changes in the Foreign Service the Chair is the integrity of the Chair personnel system, and for other pur- and the capacity of the Chair to make poses, and ask unanimous consent that a correct count. the statement of the managers be read THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The in lieu of the report. gentleman can ask for the yeas and The Clerk read the title of the bill. nays. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there MR. ASHBROOK: I would like to do objection to the request of the gen- that later if I could be assured we tleman from Florida? probably could get that count. MR. ASHBROOK: Reserving the right But having made that point, I with- to object, I believe the 224 Members draw my reservation of objection. who are present want to hear this. MR. BUCHANAN: I thank the gen- Mr. Speaker, I object. tleman. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Objec- tion is heard. § 13.13 The Speaker’s count of The Clerk will read the conference the House to determine report. whether one-fifth of those (The Clerk commenced reading the present have seconded a de- conference report). mand for the yeas and nays MR. [JOHN] BUCHANAN [of Alabama] (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I is not subject to appeal. ask unanimous consent that further On Sept. 12, 1978,(5) the Speak- reading of the conference report be dis- er Pro Tempore put the question pensed with. on a motion to suspend the rules THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there objection to the request of the gen- and pass the Miscellaneous Rev- tleman from Alabama? enue Act of 1978 (H.R. 12578). On MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, reserv- a voice vote, the Chair announced ing the right to object, I would like to that two-thirds had voted in favor propound a parliamentary inquiry of of the motion. The yeas and nays the Chair. It is my understanding were then requested. Proceedings under the rules there is no appealing a ruling of the Chair that can be made were as indicated. as to those present. Am I correct? THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (6) The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The question is on the motion offered by gentleman is asking about an appeal to the count of the Chair? 5. 124 CONG. REC. 28949, 28950, 95th MR. ASHBROOK: An appeal to the Cong. 2d Sess. count of the Chair cannot be taken? 6. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).

12406 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 13 the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ull- without objection, a motion to recon- man) that the House suspend the rules sider is laid on the table. and pass the bill H.R. 12578, as There was no objection. amended. MR. [JOHN F.] SEIBERLING [of Ohio]: The question was taken. Mr. Speaker, is it in order to appeal THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: In the the ruling of the Chair on the last opinion of the Chair, two-thirds have vote? voted in the affirmative. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. [HAROLD L.] VOLKMER [of Mis- Chair will state to the gentleman that souri]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand no appeal lies on the count of the the yeas and nays. Chair. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Volk- § 13.14 No appeal lies against mer) demands the yeas and nays. All those in favor of taking this vote by the count of the Chair of the the yeas and nays will rise and remain number of Members sup- standing until counted. porting or seconding a proce- Not a sufficient number have risen. dural request. MR. VOLKMER: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. During the 95th through the Is the requirement one-fifth of the 102d Congresses, standing com- Members present? mittees of the House were not per- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Yes. mitted to sit when the House was The Chair will state that the require- reading a bill under the five- ment is that one-fifth of the Members minute rule unless they were present be standing for the yeas and nays, and there is not one-fifth of the granted permission to do so by the Members standing. House. Such permission was con- MR. VOLKMER: Mr. Speaker, I count sidered granted when the permis- four Members standing. sion was sought on the floor un- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: In the less ten or more Members indi- opinion of the Chair, an insufficient number have arisen. cated objection. The Chair would The Chair will be glad to count, if state the permission sought and the gentleman desires. ask ‘‘Is there objection?’’. If ten or MR. VOLKMER: Would the Chair more Members then stood, per- count, please? I believe there are only mission of the House was denied. 25 Members here. The following proceedings of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The (7) Chair will count. Thirty Members are Sept. 12, 1978, demonstrate the present. practice. Two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and 7. 124 CONG. REC. 28983, 28984, 95th the bill, as amended, is passed, and Cong. 2d Sess.

12407 Ch. 31 § 13 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON THE On July 7, 1971,(8) Ms. Bella JUDICIARY TO MEET TOMORROW AND Abzug, of New York, moved to dis- THURSDAY DURING FIVE-MINUTE charge a resolution of inquiry RULE from the Committee on Armed MR. GEORGE E.] DANIELSON [of Cali- Services. A point of order was fornia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous raised against the motion on the consent that the Committee on the Ju- ground that the resolution of in- diciary may meet tomorrow and Thurs- day, September 13 and 14, 1978, not- quiry called for opinions, not fac- withstanding the 5-minute rule. tual information, relative to the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is there Vietnam war and was therefore objection to the request of the gen- not privileged under Rule XXII tleman from California? . . . clause 5. The Speaker’s ruling MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: that the motion was not in order Mr. Speaker, further reserving the was appealed by Ms. Abzug.(9) right to object, it is my understanding that the civil service reform bill will be MR. [F. EDWARD] HE´BERT [of Lou- up tomorrow morning. That was the isiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point order of the business as I understood it of order that the resolution is not privi- at about midnight last night when we leged under the rules. left here on Monday. I have the great- THE SPEAKER: (10) Does the gen- est admiration for my hardworking tleman insist on his point of order? friend and colleague, the gentleman MR. HE´ BERT: Mr. Speaker, I reserve from Illinois (Mr. McClory), but if that the point of order in order to give the bill is going to come up tomorrow, I am gentlewoman from New York an oppor- constrained to object and I do object. tunity to speak to the point of order. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Chair will state that it takes 10 Mem- Louisiana reserves the point of order. bers to object, and the objectors will Does the gentlewoman from New have to remain standing until counted. York desire to be heard? An insufficient number have arisen. MS. ABZUG: Yes, Mr. Speaker. . . . Therefore, the request is granted. After hearing arguments on the MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, I appoints of order in support of the peal the ruling of the Chair. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The 8. 117 CONG. REC. 23810, 23811, 92d Chair will state that no appeal is in Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration order in a matter of this kind. was H. Res. 491, directing the Secre- taries of State and Defense and the Appeal Tabled Director of the CIA to furnish a report on U.S. military involvement in § 13.15 An appeal was taken Southeast Asia. from the decision of the 9. For further discussion of resolutions Chair and that appeal, on of inquiry, see Ch. 13, supra. motion, was laid on the table. 10. Carl Albert (Okla.). 12408 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 13 respective positions, Speaker Al- ment in South Vietnam since the com- bert ruled. pletion of the study; two, the nature and ‘‘capacity’’ of the Government of THE SPEAKER: The Chair is prepared the Republic of Vietnam, including to rule. ‘‘analyses’’ of their military ‘‘capabili- The gentlewoman from New York ties’’; their capacity for self-sufficiency has moved to discharge the Committee which would include analyses of the on Armed Services from further consid- Government’s political base, the scope eration of the resolution, House Reso- of malfunction and corruption, the depth of popular support; and three, lution 491. The gentlewoman has fur- analyses of U.S. involvement in 1971 nished the Chair a copy of the resolu- elections in South Vietnam. tion, and the Chair appreciates that In at least these particulars, execu- fact, since it gives an opportunity to tive officials are called upon—not for the Chair to examine the resolution facts—but to furnish conclusions, prior to ruling on the point of order. which must be, essentially, statements The resolution under consideration of opinion. has not been reported by the com- The Chair therefore holds that mittee to which it has been referred. House Resolution 491 is not a privi- Clause 5 of Rule XXII provides that: leged resolution within the meaning of clause 5, rule XXII, and that the mo- All resolutions of inquiry addressed to the heads of executive de- tion to discharge the Committee on partments shall be reported to the Armed Services from its further con- House within one week after presen- sideration is not in order. tation. MS. ABZUG: Mr. Speaker, I appeal from the ruling of the Chair. The gentleman from Louisiana MR. [HALE] BOGGS [of Louisiana]: makes a point of order against the mo- Mr. Speaker, I move to lay that appeal tion to discharge on the ground that on the table. the resolution is not privileged under THE SPEAKER: The question is on the the rule because it calls for opinions in motion offered by the gentleman from addition to factual information. Louisiana. It has been consistently held that to The question was taken; and the retain the privilege under the rule, res- Speaker announced that the ayes had olutions of inquiry must call for facts it. rather than opinions—Cannon’s Prece- So the decision of the Chair stands. dents, volume VI page 413 and pages 418 to 432. Speaker Longworth, on Motion To Reconsider Tabling February 11, 1926, held that a resolu- of Appeal tion inquiring for such facts as would inevitably require the statement of an § 13.16 The House has tabled a opinion to answer such inquiry was not privileged—Record, page 3805. motion to reconsider the Among other requests, House Reso- vote whereby an appeal from lution 491 calls for the furnishing of a decision of the Chair was one, the ‘‘rationale’’ for U.S. involve- laid on the table. 12409 Ch. 31 § 13 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

On Oct. 8, 1968, (11) the reading THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from of the Journal was interrupted by California moves to reconsider the vote numerous points of order of no on the motion to lay the appeal from the decision of the Chair on the table, quorum. A motion was made by and the gentleman from Oklahoma Mr. Brock Adams, of Washington, moves that that motion be laid on the and adopted by the House, that table. absent Members be sent for and MR. HOSMER: Mr. Speaker, I make a thereafter detained until the dis- point of order against the motion of the position of the pending business of gentleman from Oklahoma to lay my the day. This motion provoked motion on the table because that mo- some Members to express concern tion does not lie. THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state about their personal liberty and that a motion to lay on the table, on a rights. In this context, Mr. Robert motion to reconsider, is a recognized Taft, Jr., of Ohio, attempted to in- motion. terrupt the reading of the Journal The question is on the motion to lay with what he contended was a on the table. question of privilege, but which MR. HOSMER: Mr. Speaker, on that I Speaker John W. McCormack, of demand the yeas and nays. Massachusetts, determined not to The yeas and nays were ordered. . . properly raise a question of privi- . lege of the House in the form and So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to. manner argued, and consequently not in order at that time. From this ruling, Mr. Taft appealed. Mr. § 14. In General Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, moved the appeal be laid on the table Parliamentary inquiries are in which motion was successful. Mr. the nature of procedural questions Craig Hosmer, of California, then of the Chair, relating to the pend- moved to reconsider the vote on ing order of business. Compared the motion to table. to points of order, the raising of a MR. HOSMER: Mr. Speaker, I move to parliamentary inquiry is a rel- reconsider the vote on the motion to atively informal procedure. In con- lay the appeal from the Chair on the table. trast to points of order, no appeal MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I move will lie from the Chair’s response that the motion be laid on the table. to a parliamentary inquiry.(1) It is

11. 114 CONG. REC. 30214–16, 90th 1. See § 14.4, infra. See also 5 Hinds’ Cong. 2d Sess. [Calendar Day of Oct. Precedents §§ 6955, 8 Cannon’s 9, 1968]. Precdents §§ 3457.

12410 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14 within the discretion of the Chair should be offered,(10) and the like. whether to recognize Members for Subjects that may not be raised the purpose of propounding par- by way of a parliamentary inquiry liamentary inquiries.(2) Like include hypothetical questions,(11) points of order, however, par- a request for an advisory opin- liamentary inquiries are properly ion,(12) the effect of a vote about to submitted only to the Chair.(3) be taken,(13) the future exercise of And where an inquiry is directed the Chair’s power of recogni- to House procedure, the Chairman tion,(14) and the construction or of the Committee of the Whole meaning of language in a bill (15) may suggest that the inquiry be or in an amendment.(16) The Chair addressed to the Speaker when he may defer his response to a par- is presiding.(4) Similarly, the liamentary inquiry until he has Speaker may defer an inquiry time to research the applicable properly within the cognizance of precedents.(17) It is an improper the Member presiding over the use of a parliamentary inquiry to Committee of the Whole.(5) Where secure recognition for the limited both an inquiry and a point of purpose of making an inquiry, and order are directed to the Chair, then attempting to offer an the point of order, if timely, takes amendment,(18) or to debate the precedence.(6) merits of a pending proposition. Examples of subjects deemed suitable for parliamentary inquiries include the anticipated order Discretion of Chair of business,(7) the status of the Clerk’s progress in reading a doc- § 14.1 Recognition of Members ument which is before the for the purpose of pro- House,(8) the proper or accepted pounding parliamentary in- interpretation of a rule,(9) the order in which amendments 10. See § 14.10, infra. 11. See §§ 14.16, 14.17, infra. See also 2. See §§ 14.1, 14.2, 14.5, infra. See also Ch. 5, supra. 6 Cannon’s Precedents §§ 541. 12. See §§ 14.19, 14.33, infra. 3. See § 14.14, infra. 13. See § 14.20, infra. 4. See §§ 14.39, 14.43, infra. 14. See § 14.42, infra. 5. See §§ 14.40, 14.41, infra. 15. See § 14.18, infra. 6. See § 14.3, infra. 16. See §§ 14.18, 14.22, 14.35, infra, and 7. See § 14.7, infra. 6 Cannon’s Precedents § 254. 8. See § 14.12, infra. 17. See §§ 14.24–14.28, infra. 9. See §§ 14.6, 14.8, 14.44, infra. 18. See § 14.38, infra.

12411 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

quiries is within the discre- Is there any parliamentary proce- tion of the Chair. dure whereby these parliamentary inquiries may be brought to a parliamen- On Sept. 11, 1968,(19) numerous tary conclusion? parliamentary inquiries were THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state posed to Speaker John W. McCor- that a parliamentary inquiry is a matter of discretion with the Chair. The mack, of Massachusetts, who re- Chair knows that the gentleman from sponded as follows: Mississippi would want to preserve the right of any occupant of the Chair in MR. [L. MENDEL] RIVERS [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamen- that respect. tary inquiry. § 14.2 Recognition for par- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it. liamentary inquiries is with- MR. RIVERS: Mr. Speaker, as long as in the discretion of the these delaying tactics are observed, is Chair, who may decline to this preventing the military appropria- entertain an inquiry not rel- tion bill from being considered—to take evant to the immediately care of our fighting men? pending question. MR. [DURWARD G.] HALL [of Mis- ( ) souri]: Mr. Speaker, a further par- On June 8, 1972, 20 Speaker liamentary inquiry. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, refused THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from to entertain a parliamentary in- Missouri will state the parliamentary quiry which did not relate to a inquiry. pending motion for the previous MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, is the con- question on a conference report. ference report agreed to on the Speak- er’s desk, as agreed to by the other MR. [CARL D.] PERKINS [of Ken- body? tucky]: Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that we have most important pro- THE SPEAKER: The Chair, in reply, visions affecting the Vocational Edu- will say that it has been returned from cational Act of 1963. Certain of those the Senate and is available. . . . programs will expire unless the con- MR. [THOMAS G.] ABERNETHY [of ference report is adopted. Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a par- Mr. Speaker, I move the previous liamentary inquiry. question. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will MR. [JOE D.] WAGGONNER [Jr., of state it. Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamen- MR. ABERNETHY: I thank the Speak- tary inquiry. er. 20. 118 CONG. REC. 20339, 92d Cong. 2d 19. 114 CONG. REC. 26453–56, 90th Sess. Under consideration was the Cong. 2d Sess. See also 114 CONG. conference report on S. 659, the REC. 30214–16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., higher education amendments of Oct. 9, 1968. 1972.

12412 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman’s MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, may I parliamentary inquiry relate to the reserve my parliamentary inquiry and previous question? make it after the reading of the MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Speaker, it amendments? does not relate to the vote on the pre- THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly, the gen- vious question. tleman may do that. THE SPEAKER: The question is on or- The Clerk will report the amend- dering the previous question. ments. The previous question was ordered. The Clerk read as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. Kind- Relative Precedence of Point of ness: Page 28, line 12, strike out Order and Parliamentary In- ‘‘but does not include a member of the uniformed services’’ and insert quiry ‘‘including any member of the uniformed services’’. § 14.3 A timely point of order Page 30, line 12, strike out ‘‘and’’. takes precedence over a par- Page 32, line 3, strike out the period and insert ‘‘; and’’. liamentary inquiry, and the Page 32, after line 3, insert: ‘‘(10) reservation of a parliamen- ‘Secretary concerned’ has the same meaning as given such term in sec- tary inquiry gives no priority tion 101(5) of title 37. to that purpose, since rec- Page 35, line 2, strike out ‘‘or a ognition is within the discre- member of a uniformed service,’’. Page 38, line 14, immediately be- tion of the Chair. fore the period insert ‘‘or by reason While the Federal Employees’ of being a member of the uniformed services’’. Political Activities Act of 1977 Page 45, before line 8, insert the was being read for amendment following: under the five-minute rule in ‘‘(j) The preceding provisions of Committee of the Whole, on June this section shall not apply in the ( ) case of a violation by a member of a 7, 1977, 1 an amendment was uniformed service. Procedures with challenged as being not germane. respect to any such violation shall, under regulations prescribed by the The proceedings were as follows: Secretary concerned, be the same as MR. [THOMAS N.] KINDNESS [of those applicable with respect to violations of section 892 of title 10. Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer amend- Page 46, after line 12, insert the ments, and I wish to make a par- following: liamentary inquiry with respect there- ‘‘(c) The preceding provisions of to. this section shall not apply in the THE CHAIRMAN: (2) The gentleman case of a violation by a member of will state his parliamentary inquiry. the uniformed services. Any such violation shall, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary con- 1. 123 CONG. REC. 17713, 17714, 95th cerned, be subject to the same pen- Cong. 1st Sess. alties as apply in the case of a viola- 2. James R. Mann (S.C.). tion of section 892 of title 10.’’.

12413 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Page 47, after line 21, insert the THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman following: from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) wish to ‘‘(d) In the case of members of the speak to the point of order? uniformed services, the Secretary concerned shall carry out the respon- MR. KINDNESS: I do, Mr. Chairman. sibilities imposed on the Commission Mr. Chairman, I understood that I under the preceding provisions of was recognized prior to the reading of this section.’’. the amendment for the purpose of stat- Page 48, line 17, strike out the ing a parliamentary inquiry. close quotation mark and the period. Page 48, after line 17, insert: THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state ‘‘(c) In the case of members of the that the gentleman chose to defer his uniformed services, the Secretary inquiry. concerned shall prescribe the regula- MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, I sug- tions the Commission is required to gest that the gentleman’s point of prescribe under this section, section order is out of order. 7322(9), and section 7324(c)(2) and (3) of this title.’’. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state that a point of order is now in order MR. [WILLIAM] CLAY [of Missouri]: and has preference. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order MR. KINDNESS: Responding, then, to against the amendment. the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from bill, as before us at this time, has been Missouri will state his point of order. expanded in considerable degree by the MR. CLAY: Mr. Chairman, I raise the Clay amendment and by other amend- point of order on the grounds that the ments that have been adopted during matter contained in the amendment is the course of the consideration of the in violation of the germaneness rule bill in the Committee of the Whole. stated in clause 7 of House rule XVI. However, I would point out that the The instant amendment proposes to amendment is germane, and I particu- make the bill applicable to an entirely larly direct the attention of the Chair- new class of individuals other than man and the Members to line 12 of what is covered under the bill. page 28 where, in the definition of the The reported bill applies only to ci- word ‘‘employee’’ the words appear, on vilian employees in executive branch line 12, ‘‘but does not include a mem- agencies, including the Postal Service ber of the uniformed services.’’ and the District of Columbia govern- Mr. Chairman, that is the very crux ment, who are presently under the of this whole point. The committee has Hatch Act. given consideration, apparently, to the The amendment seeks to add a to- inclusion or exclusion of members of tally different class of individuals to uniformed services under the provi- the bill; namely, military personnel sions of this bill. A conscious decision who are not now covered by the Hatch was apparently made; and as reported Act. Accordingly the amendment is not to the House, this bill has that con- germane to the bill. scious decision reflected in it not to in- Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point clude members of the uniformed serv- of order. ices.

12414 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

Mr. Chairman, the issue is directly employees of the Government, and before the House in that form, so that those specifically so stated and de- the amendment offered by the gen- scribed as being civilian employees of tleman from Ohio is in order, is perti- the executive agencies, of the Postal nent, and is germane. It could not be Service and of the District of Columbia nongermane. government, and a reference to the THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- Hatch Act as currently in force indi- pared to rule on the point of order. cates that military personnel are not The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. included in that act. Clay) makes a point of order that the It is obvious that the purpose and striking of the language, ‘‘but does not the scope of the act before us as re- include a member of the uniformed services,’’ and the remainder of the ferred to in its entirety as amended by amendment broadens the scope of the this bill, is, ‘‘to restore to Federal civil- bill in violation of rule XVI, clause 7. ian and Postal Service employees their The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kind- rights to participate voluntarily, as pri- ness) argues that because the exclusion vate citizens, in the political processes from coverage for the military is in the of the Nation, to protect such employ- bill and has received consideration, ees from improper political solicita- that the germaneness rule should be tions, and for other purposes.’’ more liberally interpreted. The Chair finds that the striking of An annotation to clause 7, rule XVI, the language excluding military em- says that, in general, an amendment ployees and inserting language cov- simply striking out words already in a ering the military broadens the class of bill may not be attacked as not ger- the persons covered by this bill to an mane unless such action would change extent that it substantially changes the scope and meaning of the text. the text and substantially changes the Cannons VIII, section 2921; Deschler’s chapter 28, sec. 15.3. purpose of the bill. The fact that the exclusion of military personnel was On October 28, 1975, Chairman Jor- dan of Texas ruled, during the consid- stated in the bill does not necessarily eration of a bill H.R. 2667, giving the bring into question the converse of that right of representation to Federal em- proposition. The Chair therefore finds ployees during questioning as follows: that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of order. In a bill amending a section of title 5, United States Code, granting cer- MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, I tain rights to employees of executive have a parliamentary inquiry. agencies of the Federal Government, THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from an amendment extending those Ohio will state his parliamentary in- rights to, in that case, legislative branch employees, as defined in a quiry. different section of that title, was MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, has held to go beyond the scope of the the Chairman ruled on that part of the bill and was ruled out as not ger- position stated by the gentleman from mane. Ohio that the bill has already been ex- The class of employees included in panded in scope by reason of the inclu- this legislation is confined to civilian sion of provisions with respect to gov-

12415 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

ernment employees very similar in cat- On Sept. 4, 1940,(3) there was egory to those who are in the uni- particularly acrimonious debate formed services and indeed include on the floor of the House between some in the uniformed services, I believe? supporters of peacetime conscrip- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state tion and those opposed to it. Ap- that the Chair finds that the general parently, there was even a scuffle language of the uniformed services is between two Members. Not satis- capable of clear interpretation as fied that the words of Mr. Beverly meaning the military forces of this M. Vincent, of Kentucky, had been country. taken down properly, Mr. Clare E. MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, I have another parliamentary inquiry. Hoffman, of Michigan, disputed THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will the handling of the matter by state his parliamentary inquiry. Speaker Pro Tempore Jere Coo- MR. KINDNESS: Mr. Chairman, my per, of Tennessee, and attempted parliamentary inquiry is this: Is there to appeal the response to a par- a way to appeal the ruling of the Chair liamentary inquiry. within the rules of the House? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, there is. MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Speaker, a point MR. KINDNESS: So that I may re- of order and a parliamentary inquiry. spectfully appeal the ruling of the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair at this point? gentleman will state it. THE CHAIRMAN: If the gentleman MR. HOFFMAN: Mr. Speaker, a mo- from Ohio desires to do so. ment ago certain words were uttered Does the gentleman desire to appeal by the gentleman on the floor of the the ruling of the Chair? House which I demanded be taken MR. KINDNESS: No, Mr. Chairman, I down. No report was made of those do not so desire at this point. words. I demand the regular order-the taking down of the words, the report of Appeals the words, and the reading by the Clerk. § 14.4 Appeals from responses THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Sub- sequently, unanimous consent was by the Chair to parliamen- granted for the words to be withdrawn. tary inquiries are not recog- MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker; nized and collateral chal- three Members were on their feet. I lenges to proceedings not im- was one of them, and objecting to that. mediately subjected to points of order cannot be made by 3. 86 CONG. REC. 11516, 11517, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration appeals from responses to was H.R. 10132, providing for com- parliamentary inquiries per- pulsory military training and serv- taining thereto. ice. 12416 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That bers may not carry on a dialogue was the ruling of the Chair. with each other under the guise of MR. HOFFMAN: I appeal from the rul- a parliamentary inquiry. A por- ing of the Chair then. tion of these hectic proceedings is THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: This is not a ruling, it is just an answer to a carried herein. parliamentary inquiry. LET US HAVE ANOTHER VOTE ON CONTRA AID Chair Controls Recognition for (Mr. Dornan of California asked and Parliamentary Inquiry was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and § 14.5 Recognition for a par- extend his remarks.) liamentary inquiry is within MR. [ROBERT K.] DORNAN of Cali- the discretion and control of fornia: Mr. Speaker, and I address a the Chair, and a Member so different Member of this Chamber recognized may not yield to from New York, because you have left your chair, and Mr. Majority Whip other Members. from California, you have also fled the On Mar. 16, 1988,(4) a Member floor. In 10 years Jim and Tony—I am who had been recognized for a not using any traditional titles like one- minute speech refused to end ‘‘distinguished gentleman’’—Jim and Tony, in 10 years I have never heard his remarks at the end of that on this floor so obnoxious a statement time, despite repeated admoni- as I heard. . . . tions from the Chair. Eventually, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (5) The the Speaker Pro Tempore ordered time of the gentleman from California the Sergeant at Arms to turn off (Mr. Dornan) has expired. the microphone on the floor so MR. DORNAN of California: Wait a minute. On Honduran soil and on Nic- that the Member would desist. In- araguan soil. advertently, the persons regu- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The lating the House coverage by tele- time of the gentleman has expired. vision turned off the sound on the MR. DORNAN of California: And it broadcast of the House pro- was set up in this House as you set up ceedings. Several Members then the betrayal of the Bay of Pigs. came to the floor to protest this THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The time of the gentleman has expired. action. Various parliamentary in- MR. DORNAN of California: I ask— quiries were entertained by the wait a minute—I ask unanimous con- Chair and eventually he felt it sent for 30 seconds. People are dying. necessary to reiterate that Mem- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The time of the gentleman has expired. 4. 134 CONG. REC. 4081, 4084–87, 100th Cong. 2d Sess. 5. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).

12417 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. DORNAN of California: People the debate and pursue a policy of shut- are dying. ting up the opposition by not allowing MR. [HAROLD L.] VOLKMER [of Mis- us access to the public and to the souri]: Mr. Speaker, regular order, reg- media and to our own microphones, ular order. the microphones of this House? Under THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The what rule of this House or of our coun- time of the gentleman has expired. try or our Constitution is freedom of Will the Sergeant at Arms please turn the speech so grossly violated in this off the microphone? institution? MR. DORNAN of California: You get THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The your regular order, people are dying. gentleman asked to proceed for 1 You get your regular order now. People minute—— are dying because of this Chamber. I MR. GREGG: No, I am asking that of demand a Contra vote on aid to the the Chair. Democratic Resistance and the free- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The dom fighters in Central America. In Chair is referring to Mr. Dornan. He the name of God and liberty and de- requested permission of the Chair to cency I demand another vote in this proceed for 1 minute, and that permis- Chamber next week. sion was granted by the House. Mr. Don’t get a hernia and break your Dornan grossly exceeded the limits and gavel. Don’t get a hernia. abused the privilege far in excess of 1 minute, and the Chair proceeded to re- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES store order and decorum to the House. MR. [JUD] GREGG [of New Hamp- ... shire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- MR. GREGG: I have a further parliamentary inquiry. liamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The the Chair’s intention to turn off my gentleman will state his parliamentary microphone? inquiry. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: What is MR. GREGG: Mr. Speaker, I was just the gentleman’s parliamentary in- in my office viewing the proceedings quiry? here, and during one of the pro- MR. GREGG: My parliamentary in- ceedings, when the gentleman from quiry is that I want to know how the California (Mr. Dornan) was address- Chair can specifically turn off the ing the House, it was drawn to my at- microphone and what rule the Chair tention that the Speaker requested does it under, because the Chair has that Mr. Dornan’s microphone be not answered that question. turned off, upon which Mr. Dornan’s THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The microphone was turned off. Chair has responded to the parliamen- Mr. Speaker, my inquiry of the tary inquiry of the gentleman from Chair is: Under what rule does the New Hampshire. Speaker decide to gag opposite Mem- MR. GREGG: Mr. Speaker, I reserve bers of the House? Under what rule my time, and yield to the gentlewoman does the Speaker decide to close down from Illinois (Mrs. Martin).

12418 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

MR. [DANIEL E.] LUNGREN [of Cali- MR. HENRY: Mr. Speaker, I have a fornia]: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary in- point of parliamentary inquiry and to quiry. respond. I had been recognized on this issue and I would like to be very clear MRS. [LYNN] MARTIN of Illinois: Par- for the Record because of the serious liamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. importance of this issue: As I under- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The stand the Chair’s response we are told Chair advises that a Member may not that your instructions were in fact to yield time to another Member under a turn off the House floor microphones— parliamentary inquiry. whether that is appropriate or not is Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, another question—but that was mis- I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . . takenly acted upon by the internal broadcast mechanism so in fact the MR. [PAUL B.] HENRY [of Michigan]: House floor’s inadvertently remained Mr. Speaker, I rise for a point of par- on and the electronic microphones for liamentary inquiry. internal broadcast system which the Mr. Speaker, I was among those who other electronic relays rely on was cut were on the floor during the exchange off. Am I correct in that, Mr. Speaker? which we have been debating and I want to clarify very clearly that the would like to indicate it was the con- Chair does not have the power to turn sensus of many of us that when the off—— gentleman from California (Mr. Dor- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The nan) was addressing the House the gentleman is correct for coverage of floor microphones were not turned off proceedings of the House. It was the intent of the Chair to turn off the but the difficulty arose in part that the House microphones. television broadcast, the C-SPAN MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, microphones were cut off. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. the rules of the House clearly stipulate that electronic broadcast of the pro- Parliamentary Inquiries at ceedings of the House shall be a fair and accurate proceedings, recording Chair’s Discretion and rendering of proceedings of the House. § 14.6 Parliamentary inquiries I am wondering if the Speaker would are entertained at the discre- respond as to the appropriateness in tion of the Chair, and on oc- this instance when apparently the C- casion, the Chair will re- SPAN electronic broadcast of the pro- spond to inquiries, following ceedings of the House were cut off a ruling on a point of order, while the House microphones were not. as to the basis for or con- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Let the Chair assure the gentleman that the sequence of that ruling. Chair was directing his remarks to the On Feb. 5, 1992,(6) a resolution in-house microphones and certainly not creating a task force of members to the coverage of the proceedings of the House by electronic media or the 6. 138 CONG. REC. 1621–23, 102d Cong. press. . . . 2d Sess.

12419 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS of the Foreign Affairs Committee Affairs Committee to investigate cer- to investigate certain allegations tain allegations concerning the holding concerning the holding of Ameri- of Americans as hostages by Iran in 1980, and ask for its immediate consid- cans as hostages by Iran in 1980 eration. was called up for consideration. The Clerk read the title of the reso- The resolution had been reported lution. from both the Committee on For- eign Affairs and the Committee on POINT OF ORDER House Administration, since it MR. [BOB] MCEWEN [of Ohio]: Mr. both created the task force and Speaker, I make a point of order funded its operations. A point of against House Resolution 258 on grounds that it is in violation of clause order was lodged against the con- 5(a) of House rule XI, and I ask to be sideration of the resolution based heard on my point of order. on the contention that a primary THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (7) The expense resolution had not been gentleman will state his point of order. reported to fund the task force, as MR. MCEWEN: I thank the Chair. required by Rule XI clause 5, or, if Mr. Speaker, House rule XI, clause the resolution was itself a primary 5(a) provides that whenever a com- expense resolution, it failed to mittee, commission or other entity is to meet the standards set for such a be granted authorization for the payment from the contingent fund of the resolution by the rule. After argu- House of its expenses in any year, ment, the Chair overruled the ‘‘such authorization initially shall be point of order and his decision procured by one primary expense reso- was sustained on appeal. After lution for the committee, commission the ruling, Mr. Robert S. Walker, or other entity.’’ of Pennsylvania, directed a series The rule goes on to require that ‘‘any of inquiries to the Chair. The such primary expense resolution reported to the House shall not be con- point of order, the Chair’s ruling, sidered in the House unless a printed and the subsequent ‘‘interrog- report on that resolution’’ shall ‘‘state atories’’ are set forth here. the total amount of the funds to be provided to the committee, commission CREATING A TASK FORCE TO INVES- or other entity under the primary ex- TIGATE CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS CON- pense resolution for all anticipated ac- CERNING THE HOLDING OF AMERI- tivities and programs * * *.’’ CANS AS HOSTAGES BY IRAN IN 1980 Mr. Speaker, it is my assumption MR. [BUTLER C.] DERRICK [Jr., of that this resolution, which was re- South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, pursu- ported by the House Administration ant to House Resolution 303, I call up and authorizes the payment of ex- the resolution (H. Res. 258) creating a task force of members of the Foreign 7. David R. Obey (Wis.).

12420 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14 penses from the contingent fund, is the money is coming from the Committee primary expense resolution for the on Foreign Affairs funds; is that what task force. And yet the committee re- he is saying? port on this resolution, House Report MR. DERRICK: Mr. Speaker, the 102–296, part II, does not ‘‘state the House Administration Committee, in total amount of funds to be provided’’ its forthcoming resolution, will provide as required by rule XI, clause 5(a). funds to the Committee on Foreign Af- If, on the other hand, it is argued fairs and they will provide it to the that House Resolution 258 is not a pri- committee that is being established. mary expense resolution, then it is not And this authority is provided under in order since House rule XI, clause 5(c). 5(a) requires that whenever any entity THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does such as this task force is to be granted the gentleman desire to be heard fur- authorization for the payment of ex- ther on the point of order? penses from the contingent fund, and I quote, ‘‘such authorization initially MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to shall be procured by one primary ex- be heard. pense resolution for the committee, Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me as commission or other entity.’’ In other though the gentleman from South words, this resolution is not in order Carolina is contending that the money until after a primary expense resolu- is previously authorized under the tion has been adopted by this House. House Administration’s budget and so I urge that my point of order be sus- therefore the money is allocated there. tained. When the House Administration Com- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does mittee’s budget was put into place, the gentleman from South Carolina de- there was absolutely nothing in the sire to be heard on the point of order? House Administration budget which in- MR. DERRICK: Mr. Speaker, under dicated that this task force was going clause 5(c), the funds will be provided to be formed. The new entity being cre- to the Committee on Foreign Affairs ated under the rules is the entity of and they will, in turn, provide the the task force. It is that entity to funds to the subcommittee, I mean to which the gentleman from Ohio has re- the committee that we are estab- ferred, it is that entity to which the lishing. House rules speak. Either the House MR. MCEWEN: Mr. Speaker, does rules are going to apply to this or we Chairman Whitten share that view? are going to completely abandon any THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Does pretense that the House rules have the gentleman wish to be heard fur- meaning with regard to spending. This ther on the point of order? is very much of a spending issue be- MR. DERRICK: Mr. Speaker, I would cause if in fact we do not obey House be glad to read clause 5(c) on page 482 rules there, we have open ended the of the House Rules Manual. I would be fund for this task force for as far out glad to read that for you. into the future as we can see. MR. MCEWEN: Mr. Speaker, do I un- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The derstand the gentleman to say that the Chair is prepared to rule unless the

12421 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

gentleman from Ohio wishes to be The point of order is, therefore, over- heard further on his point of order. ruled. MR. MCEWEN: Mr. Speaker, I would MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I respect- only say as a member of the Com- fully appeal the ruling of the Chair. mittee on Rules, reading the rules, it THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The says that if we are going to spend gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. money, it has to be authorized under a Walker] appeals the ruling of the resolution. It is not before us. There is Chair. no rule that permits us to proceed at The question is, Shall the decision of this time. the Chair stand as the judgment of the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The House? gentleman from Ohio, in a point of order, suggests to the House that MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. under rule XI, clause 5(a), there needs DERRICK to be a total amount stated in the report of the Committee on House Ad- MR. DERRICK: Mr. Speaker, I offer a ministration for funding of the task motion. force, and the Chair would simply THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The point out that the primary expense res- Clerk will report the motion. olution for the Committee on Foreign The Clerk read as follows: Affairs and all other committees will be reported to the House later this Mr. Derrick moves to lay on the table the appeal by the gentleman year. from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] on As the gentleman from South Caro- the ruling of the Chair. lina has attempted to point out to the House, clause 5(c) of rule XI reads as THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The follows: question is on the motion to table offered by the gentleman from South The preceding provisions of this clause do not apply to— Carolina [Mr. Derrick]. (1) any resolution providing for the The question was taken; and on a di- payment from the contingent fund of vision (demanded by Mr. Walker) there the House of sums necessary to pay were—ayes 19, noes 29. . . . compensation for staff services per- So the motion to table the appeal of formed for, or to pay other expenses of, any committee, commission or the ruling of the Chair was agreed to. other entity at any time from and The result of the vote was an- after the beginning of any year and nounced as above recorded. before the date of adoption by the A motion to reconsider was laid on House of the primary expense resolution providing funds to pay the ex- the table. penses of that committee, commission or other entity for that year. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES It is the ruling of the Chair at this MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a time that the task force comes under parliamentary inquiry. that exception. The task force is a THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The subunit of the Committee on Foreign gentleman will state his parliamentary Affairs and not a separate entity. inquiry.

12422 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, the par- pression of the Chair at the time, is liamentary inquiry is that the Chair in that what the Chair ruled? its ruling on the previous point of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The order indicated, and I think the video Chair ruled as the Chair stated. record of the House will confirm this, MR. WALKER: The Chair ruled on that the reason for the ruling was that section (c). the entity being created is a subunit of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: On any the Foreign Affairs Committee. Is that entity being excepted under (c). not what the Chair ruled? MR. WALKER: I have a further par- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The liamentary inquiry. The Chair ruled on Chair has ruled on the basis that section 5(c) based upon his contention clause 5(c) of rule XI simply provides that it was a subunit of the Foreign Af- an applicable exception, and the Chair fairs Committee. What I am seeking to has ruled on that basis. find out is whether or not the Chair is MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a now withdrawing that contention. further parliamentary inquiry. My un- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The derstanding of the Chair was that 5(c) Chair’s ruling was based on the literal applied because this was a subunit of ruling of 5(c). the Foreign Affairs Committee. The MR. WALKER: I thank the Chair for Chair specifically mentioned the For- pointing out it was based upon a literal eign Affairs Committee in his ruling. It ruling of 5(c). However, the specific is now my understanding, after further ruling of the Chair, and again, I point consultation, that that is not the case, out the video record of the House will and so, therefore, the Chair’s ruling certainly confirm this, that he ruled on was based upon an understanding 5(c) based upon—— which does not exist under section 5(c). THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Would the Chair clarify for the Chair has already commented on that House the entity we are about to cre- and does not care to repeat himself. ate? ... THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under MR. MCEWEN: Mr. Speaker, I have a the resolution, the task force consists parliamentary inquiry. of members of and reports to the Com- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The mittee on Foreign Affairs. But in any gentleman will state his parliamentary event, the Chair has ruled that the inquiry. clause (c) exception applies to the task MR. MCEWEN: Mr. Speaker, under force. This is the first example, since my point of order under clause 5(a) of the rule cited the creation of an entity House rule XI, I stated that the new and its funding at the same time. That entity being created by the resolution is why the resolution was sequentially currently before us had to meet the re- referred to the House Administration quirements of that. You have stated Committee. In any event, the clause now that this new entity is a subunit. 5(c) exception applies to any entity, not Can the Chair rule for me the cir- to any preexisting entity. . . . cumstances under which my rule cited MR. WALKER: I have a further par- here, clause 5(a) of rule XI, would liamentary inquiry. If that was the im- apply ever?

12423 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The up the $72 billion Defense appropria- Chair read the exception as it applies tion bill? in this instance and has ruled accord- THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state ingly. that the Senate has approved the con- MR. MCEWEN: So can the Chair state ference report. The Department of De- for me of an instance or example in fense appropriation bill is programmed which the rule that I cited under the for today. All Members recognize the belief that it applied to the House importance, I am sure, of having this would be applicable to anything stat- bill acted upon as quickly as possible, ed? and, after the Journal is read and ap- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The proved, the Defense appropriation bill Chair cannot speculate about other sit- will be the next order of business to be uations, and the Chair has provided brought up. the ruling, and the House has spoken. Use of a Parliamentary In- Scope of Permissible Inquiries quiry—the Proper Interpreta- tion of a New Rule § 14.7 Parliamentary inquiries concerning the anticipated § 14.8 A parliamentary inquiry order of business may be en- may address the proper in- tertained by the Chair. terpretation of a new rule. On Sept. 11, 1968,(8) Speaker John In response to a parliamentary W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, an- inquiry, the Chairman of the swered a question concerning what Committee of the Whole indicated item would next be taken up by the that a new rule (Rule XXIII clause House. 5), requiring distribution of of- MR. [GEORGE H.] MAHON [of Texas]: fered amendments by the Clerk, Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. was not a mandatory requirement THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Texas will state his parliamentary in- and that the Clerk’s distribution quiry. was a matter of courtesy and not MR. MAHON: Mr. Speaker, will the a mandatory prerequisite for con- Chair advise whether or not the consideration of an amendment. The ference report has been sent over by inquiry and the Chair’s response message from the Senate, indicating made on Mar. 14, 1975,(9) were as that the authorization bill has now cleared both Houses—that is, for the follows: Defense Department bill—and, if that MR. [SAM] STEIGER of Arizona: Mr. is correct, would it be in order for the Chairman, I have a parliamentary in- Committee on Appropriations to call quiry.

8. 114 CONG. REC. 26455, 90th Cong. 9. 121 CONG. REC. 6708, 94th Cong. 1st 2d Sess. Sess.

12424 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

THE CHAIRMAN: (10) The gentleman ment thereto and the names will state his parliamentary inquiry. of those voting for and MR. STEIGER of Arizona: Mr. Chair- against) would be subject to man, without a copy of the amendment, we cannot understand the pur- a point of order against its pose of the amendment. consideration; however, a I thought that under the new rules point of order would not lie we are under some obligation to pro- if the error was introduced vide some sort of amendment in writ- by the Government Printing ten form so that those Members who Office. wish to go to the extra effort might ( ) read and understand what is going on. On Jan. 15, 1995, 11 an inquiry Am I correct or incorrect, Mr. Chair- was directed to the Presiding Offi- man? cer regarding a rule adopted at THE CHAIRMAN: It does not stop the the commencement of the 104th consideration of an amendment, al- Congress. though that is supposed to be the custom. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES R TEIGER M . S of Arizona: Mr. Chair- MR. [PAUL E.] KANJORSKI [of Penn- man, the rule is simply a matter of sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- courtesy rather than one of mandate? liamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman is THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (12) The correct. gentleman will state it. MR. STEIGER of Arizona: I thank the MR. KANJORSKI: Mr. Speaker, as I Chair. understand the new rule in clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI, adopted on Janu- Proper Uses of Parliamentary ary 4 of this year as the new rules of Inquiries the House, each committee report must accurately reflect all rollcall votes on § 14.9 In response to a par- amendments in committee; is that cor- liamentary inquiry, the rect? THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair stated that committee gentleman is correct. reports that erroneously re- MR. KANJORSKI: Mr. Speaker, as a flect the information re- further parliamentary inquiry, the required under clause 2(l)(2)(B) port accompanying H.R. 5, as reported of Rule XI (that committee from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House Report reports reflect the total num- 104–1, part 2, lists many rollcall votes ber of votes cast for and on amendments. On amendment 6, the against any public measure or matter and any amend- 11. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th Cong. 1st Sess. 10. Neal Smith (Iowa). 12. Steve Gunderson (Wis.).

12425 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

report states that the committee de- the one then open for amendment. feated the amendment by a rollcall Following a reservation of a ger- vote of 14 yes and 22 no. However, the maneness point of order against tally sheet shows 35 members voting the amendment, a parliamentary ‘‘aye’’ and 1 member voting ‘‘nay’’. inquiry was made by another Mr. Speaker, would a point of order under clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI Member who wished to offer a apply? perfecting amendment to the sec- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: In the tion which had been read by the opinion of the Chair, the gentleman is Clerk. The proceedings were as correct. shown in the Record of Mar. 20, (13) MR. KANJORSKI: Mr. Speaker, if that 1975. were the case, it is clear that this bill MR. [PETER A.] PEYSER [of New could not proceed under its present York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an rule; is that correct? amendment. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The The Clerk read as follows: gentleman is correct, if it is an error Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser: on behalf of the committee. If it is a Page 3, immediately after line 16, in- printing error. That would be a tech- sert the following new section: nical problem which would not be sus- ‘‘Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other tained in the point of order. provision of law, there shall be no MR. KANJORSKI: . . . I would urge acreage allotment, marketing quota or price support for rice effective that the majority, in consideration of with the 1975 crop of such com- the fact that we are not going to use modity.’’ this tactic to delay this debate, take into consideration that their rules MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Wash- must be applied on a day-to-day basis, ington] reserved a point of order on the because the majority is responsible for amendment. having passed this rule. MR. [STEVEN D.] SYMMS [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary § 14.10 In response to a par- inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: (14) The gentleman liamentary inquiry, the will state his parliamentary inquiry. Chair indicated that the MR. SYMMS: Mr. Chairman, I have adoption of an amendment another amendment to section 2 of the adding a new section would bill. Will this amendment preclude the offering of the next amendment? preclude further amendment THE CHAIRMAN: It will if the amend- to the pending section. ment is agreed to. During consideration of a bill Does the gentleman from Wash- setting emergency price support ington insist on his point of order? levels for the 1975 crop year, an 13. 121 CONG. REC. 7666, 94th Cong. 1st amendment was offered which Sess. would add a new section following 14. John Brademas (Ind.). 12426 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

MR. FOLEY: I do, Mr. Chairman. I in- offered by the gentleman from Massa- sist on the point of order against this chusetts that the earlier amendment amendment. was a price support amendment. The The amendment is not germane to purpose of the bill under consideration, the bill, and violates rule XVI, clause as the gentleman from Washington has 7. already pointed out, runs to price sup- H.R. 4296 deals with price supports, ports. Acreage and allotments and established prices, and loan rates for marketing quotas are not within the wheat, feed grains, cotton, and milk scope of the bill, and the Chair rules, under sections 103, 105, 107, and 201 therefore, that the amendment is not of the Agricultural Act of 1949. germane, and sustains the point of The bill does not relate to acreage al- order. lotments, or marketing quotas on any commodity. The amendment offered § 14.11 A parliamentary in- would affect the provisions of the Agri- quiry is an appropriate vehi- cultural Adjustment Act of 1938. cle to ascertain the proper Accordingly, the amendment is not time for making a point of germane to the bill, and I therefore press my point of order against the order against the content of amendment. an unprivileged committee THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman report. from New York desire to be heard on On May 16, 1989,(15) a bill the point of order? which had been ordered reported MR. PEYSER: I do, Mr. Chairman. The reason I offered the amendment by the Committee on Banking, Fi- was because of the ruling of the Chair nance and Urban Affairs was filed dealing with the Conte amendment in the House. Not having a privi- some hour or so ago, where we were leged status, the report was filed discussing it, and the Chair ruled in through the hopper. Mr. Robert S. favor of nuts and fruits, and some Walker, of Pennsylvania, was other items, and I therefore felt that introducing the question of rice would under the impression that certain be substantially within the germane- changes had been made in the re- ness of this bill as the other items that port after the committee action. have been offered, and that the Chair His inquiries were directed to- had ruled in favor of. ward the appropriate time to THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is pre- make a point of order if his allega- pared to rule. tions were well founded. The Chair has heard the point of order made by the gentleman from MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, it is bad Washington (Mr. Foley), and has lis- enough that this House is up to its tened to the response made by the gen- eyeballs in creating the problem that tleman from New York (Mr. Peyser). The Chair would observe in respect 15. 135 CONG. REC. 9329, 9355, 9356, of its earlier ruling on the amendment 101st Cong. 1st Sess.

12427 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

led to the savings and loans crisis. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The re- Now as we are about to consider legis- port has just been filed. lation to deal with the S&L crisis that MR. WALKER: The report has been this House helped create, we hear a filed. rumor that the process and the proce- Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding dures of the House are about to be that the language in that report differs abandoned as we bring that legislation markedly from the language as re- to the floor. ported from the Committee on Bank- Evidently the chairman of the Com- ing, Finance and Urban Affairs, that in mittee on Banking, Finance and Urban fact substantive sections of the bill Affairs has unilaterally changed the have been changed unilaterally by the legislation and intends to file a report chairman, and that is reflected in the later today which is his personal report before the House in the new version of the bill rather than that re- language as defined by the chairman ported from his committee. rather than the language as reported Mr. Speaker, when is someone going from the committee. to stop this kind of abuse? We cannot Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me have chairmen of committees over- whether or not a point of order rests ruling the work of their committees. against the filing of that report under those kinds of circumstances? There is a lot of controversy about THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under this particular legislation for FSLIC. It these circumstances, the normal time should be resolved unilaterally by one to question the validity of a committee chairman. The Chair should refuse to report is when the bill comes up for let the report be filed until the House consideration in the House or at a is assured that it is the committee’s re- hearing before the Committee on port and not the chairman’s personal Rules. report. MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, if I un- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES derstand correctly then, this question could be raised about the change of the MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a language before the Committee on parliamentary inquiry. Rules, or should a rule be adopted with THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (16) The regard to consideration of the bill, a gentleman will state it. point of order would rest against con- MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, it is my sideration of the bill on the House floor understanding that in the course of the given the fact that language was day today, or perhaps later on today, changed subsequent to committee ac- there will be a report filed from the tion; is that correct? Committee on Banking, Finance and THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If the Urban Affairs with regard to the bill was improperly reported, the gen- FSLIC bill. Can the Chair, first of all, tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walk- tell me whether that report has been er) is correct. filed? § 14.12 The status of the 16. Thomas A. Luken (Ohio). Clerk’s progress in reading a

12428 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

document which is before On Oct. 8, 1986,(19) when the the House is a proper subject Chairman of the Committee on for a parliamentary inquiry. Rules filed a hastily assembled re- On Oct. 8, 1968,(17) before the port from that committee, a series transaction of legislative business, of inquiries sought assurances the roll was taken numerous that the report was complete. The times to ascertain the presence of Chair’s response is carried herein. a quorum. After unanimous con- MR. [CLAUDE] PEPPER [of Florida]: sent was sought to dispense with Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? the reading of the Journal, the fol- MR. [LOUIS] STOKES [of Ohio]: I am lowing exchange occurred: delighted to yield to the gentleman from Florida. MR. [GEORGE W.] ANDREWS of Ala- bama: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR inquiry. CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3810, IMMI- THE SPEAKER: (18) The gentleman will GRATION CONTROL AND LEGALIZATION state it. AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1985 MR. ANDREWS of Alabama: I would Mr. Pepper, from the Committee on like to know how many pages have Rules, submitted a privileged report been read and how many remain. (Rept. No. 99–980) on the resolution THE SPEAKER: That is a very proper (H. Res. 580) providing for the consid- inquiry. eration of the bill (H.R. 3810) to amend MR. ANDREWS of Alabama: I am the Immigration and Nationality Act to most interested in the reading. revise and reform the immigration THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state laws, and for other purposes, which that there are 68 pages and the Clerk was referred to the House Calendar has already read 38. and ordered to be printed.

Chair’s Comments on Matters PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Pending at Desk MR. [F. JAMES] SENSENBRENNER [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have a § 14.13 In response to a par- parliamentary inquiry. liamentary inquiry, the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (20) The Speaker may examine a re- gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. port at the desk and render MR. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Speaker, an advisory opinion about its the rule just filed by the distinguished validity. chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Pep- 17. 114 CONG. REC. 30100, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. At the time the Clerk was 19. 132 CONG. REC. 29803, 29804, 99th reading the Journal. Cong. 2d Sess. 18. John W. McCormack (Mass.). 20. Tim Valentine (N.C.).

12429 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

per) references 14 amendments which THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The are made in order that are not con- gentleman will state his point of order. tained in the rule but are contained in MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Speaker, is it not the report of the Committee on Rules. necessary that at the time the motion May I ask if the texts of those amend- is made to file a report that that report ments are contained in the report of be in hand, completed as approved by the Committee on Rules that has just the committee submitting the report? been filed by the chairman of the committee as a privileged report? THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: That is the rule as the Chair understands it, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair would say to the gentleman that and that is the case. the Chair presumes that that is the MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Speaker, my un- case. derstanding is that the rule as ap- MR. SENSENBRENNER: A further par- proved by the Rules Committee less liamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. The than an hour ago is not complete and, gentleman from Wisconsin wishes to therefore, cannot be presented in a know if the text of the one substitute complete form at this time, and I chal- and the 14 amendments to the sub- lenge the validity of that procedure. stitute that are referenced are in the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The report and thus available to the Mem- Chair would say to the gentleman that bers as of this legislative day? the Chair believes that it is complete, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The and of course it has been filed. Chair would state to the gentleman that there are 14 numbered amend- MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Speaker, will the ments in the report. Chair point to the report as filed? MR. SENSENBRENNER: A further par- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The liamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. The Chair would state to the gentleman resolution that was just filed by the from Texas that the report is here at chairman of the Committee on Rules the desk and available for examination also makes reference to an amendment by the gentleman from Texas. in the nature of a substitute. Is the MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Speaker, I thank text of that amendment in the nature the Chair and I withdraw my point of of a substitute contained in the report order. that has just been filed? THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) still Chair would state to the gentleman that it is not, but it has been intro- has the time and may proceed. duced separately and it will be printed and available to the Members in the Inquiries Properly Submitted morning. to Speaker MR. SENSENBRENNER: I thank the Chair. § 14.14 Inquiries concerning

POINT OF ORDER the parliamentary situation on the floor are properly di- MR. [HENRY B.] GONZALEZ [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of rected to the Chair, and it is order. not customary for a Member 12430 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

to request that the notes of asked unanimous consent that the further reading of the statement of the the official reporters be read managers on the part of [the] House be to ascertain what motions dispensed with and that it be placed in have been put by the Chair. the Record. ( ) The gentleman from Texas was On May 22, 1968, 1 in a con- standing and the Chair rose and said— fusing parliamentary situation in- ‘The question is on agreeing to the con- volving the consideration of a conference report.’’ The Chair did it deliberately—and the report was agreed to. ference report, Minority Leader The Chair acted most deliberately. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, re- ... quested that the reporter’s notes The gentleman from Virginia reserves the right to object. be read back to clarify the legisla- MR. [RICHARD H.] POFF [of Virginia]: tive situation. Speaker John W. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to ob- McCormack, of Massachusetts, reject in order to propound a question to the distinguished majority leader. In jected the request, and, a few mo- the event the House agrees to the re- ments later, the Speaker went on quest of the gentleman, would the mi- to remind the Members of their nority maintain the right under the duty to address questions of order rules of the House to offer motions to recommit if it were so disposed? to the Chair, not to other Mem- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman ought bers. to address his question to the Chair. That question should be addressed to MR. GERALD R. FORD: Mr. Speaker, the Chair, and, assuming that the gen- so that the record is crystal clear, I re- tleman did address the Chair, the quest that the notes of the reporter be Chair will state that point has gone by, reread to the Members. and a motion to recommit under those THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state circumstances would not be in order. that this has never been done before so far as the knowledge of the Chair is Not Cognizable by Parliamen- concerned.... tary Inquiry The Chair will suggest that the Members can carry on their colloquy § 14.15 The Chair responds to but the position of the Chair is clear— parliamentary inquiries re- the gentleman from Texas called up lating to the pending pro- the conference report and had asked ceedings but is not required that the statement of the managers on the part of the House be read and after to verify allegations placing the Clerk had proceeded to read the current events in historical statement, the gentleman from Texas context. On June 25, 1992,(2) during discus- 1. 114 CONG. REC. 14403–05, 90th sion regarding the adoption of a re- Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H. Rept. No. 1397 on S. 5, the 2. 138 CONG. REC. 16174, 16175, 102d Consumer Credit Protection Act. Cong. 2d Sess.

12431 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

strictive rule on a general appropria- not respond to hypothetical tion bill, Mr. Robert S. Walker, of questions raised under the Pennsylvania, posed an inquiry to the Speaker Pro Tempore, Mr. Michael R. guise of a parliamentary in- McNulty, of New York. quiry. On Mar. 26, 1965,(3) in the PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Committee of the Whole, Chair- MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a man Richard Bolling, of Missouri, parliamentary inquiry. declined to answer a hypothetical THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary question raised in the guise of a inquiry. parliamentary inquiry. MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, in this MR. [ALBERT H.] QUIE [of Min- morning’s newspaper, the Speaker of nesota]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamen- the House is quoted as saying the proc- tary inquiry. ess under which we are operating on THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will this rule, or on this bill, is a common state it. practice; namely, the practice of having MR. QUIE: Mr. Chairman, if I had closed rules on appropriation bills of a risen to move to strike out the last general character. My research tells word, rather than offering an amend- me that we have only had such rules ment which would be voted on, then five times in the history of the Con- would the extra 5 minutes have been gress. My research indicates that only divided equally? five times in the history of the Con- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not in gress have we had a situation where position to answer that kind of ques- general appropriation bills have been tion. considered under a closed rule. Three MR. QUIE: It may happen in the fu- of those have been during this speaker- ture as we go along with the debate. ship. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will meet I am asking the Chair whether or the situation as it arises. not the Chair can confirm that that is, indeed, the situation that this is only § 14.17 The Speaker does not the sixth time in history that we will be considering this bill under such a entertain hypothetical ques- process. tions. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The On Sept. 14, 1944,(4) at a time gentleman must state a parliamentary when there was no bill or resolu- inquiry.

3. 111 CONG. REC. 6114, 89th Cong. 1st Inquiries Which Chair Does Sess. Under consideration was H.R. Not Entertain 2362, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. § 14.16 The Chairman of the 4. 90 CONG. REC. 7772, 78th Cong. 2d Committee of the Whole does Sess.

12432 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14 tion before the House, a Member question, and does not think that the asked about the status of certain parliamentary inquiry is pertinent at this stage of the proceedings and at funds. this particular time in the absence of MR. [CLARE E.] HOFFMAN [of Michi- the Speaker. gan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. What Is Not a Proper Par- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (5) The liamentary Inquiry gentleman will state it. MR. HOFFMAN: I gathered from § 14.18 It is not a proper par- statements which were made on the liamentary inquiry to inquire floor today that a statement going back of the Chair whether his rul- as far as 1920 and containing information as to the amounts of money re- ing striking a portion of a quested by the military establishments paragraph in a general ap- of the Government, as to the amounts propriation bill leaves a cer- that had been recommended by the ex- tain program without suffi- ecutive department, and as to the cient funds. amounts finally appropriated by Con- (6) gress, had been sent to the Committee On Oct. 26, 1983, during the on Appropriations, but for some 2 reading of the Defense appropria- years it had been in the safe over tions bill of 1984, certain language there, inaccessible to Members of the was conceded to be a reappropri- House. By what authority or what rule ation of funds, in violation of Rule of Congress or what rule governing XXI clause 6, and was stricken committees was that suppressed? from the bill. The proceedings and THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The present occupant of the chair has no the resulting inquiry are carried knowledge of any such facts, and herein. therefore is not in a position to answer The Clerk read as follows: the gentleman’s inquiry. MR. HOFFMAN: Does the Chair mean MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY he does not have any knowledge that (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) that is true? For construction, procurement, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The production, modification, and mod- Chair has no knowledge of that, except ernization of missiles, equipment, in- that somebody has said it is true, ac- cluding ordnance, ground handling cording to the gentleman’s statement. equipment, spare parts, and acces- sories therefor; specialized equip- MR. HOFFMAN: Submitting that then ment and training devices; expan- as a hypothetical question. sion of public and private plants, in- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The cluding the land necessary therefor, Chair does not entertain a hypothetical 6. 129 CONG. REC. 29416, 29417, 98th 5. Orville Zimmerman (Mo.). Cong. 1st Sess.

12433 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

without regard to section 4774, title Such an extension of these funds 10, United States Code, for the fore- through appropriation is prohibited by going purposes, and such lands and the rules. interests therein, may be acquired, ( ) and construction prosecuted thereon THE CHAIRMAN: 7 Does the gen- prior to approval of title as required tleman from New York wish to be by section 355, Revised Statutes, as heard on the point of order? amended; and procurement and in- MR. [JOSEPH P.] ADDABBO [of New stallation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and pri- York]: Mr. Chairman, I concede the vate plants; reserve plant and Gov- point of order. ernment and contractor-owned THE CHAIRMAN: The point of order is equipment layaway; and other ex- sustained. penses necessary for the foregoing MR. [DAVID] DREIER of California: purposes, as follows: For Other Mis- sile Support, $9,200,000; for the Pa- Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary triot program, $885,000,000; for the inquiry. Stinger program, $100,500,000, and THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will in addition, $37,300,000 to be de- state it. rived by transfer from ‘‘Missile Pro- curement, Army, 1983/1985’’; for the MR. DREIER of California: Does the Laser Hellfire program, ruling of the Chair on the gentleman’s $218,800,000; for the TOW program, point of order mean that title IV is un- $189,200,000; for the Pershing II derfunded by $37.3 million for Stinger program, $407,700,000; for the missile procurement in fiscal year MLRS program, $532,100,000; for modification of missiles, 1984? $123,300,000; for spares and repair THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state parts, $261,702,000; for support that the gentleman is not making a equipment and facilities, parliamentary inquiry. $108,200,000; in all: $2,807,702,000, and in addition $37,300,000 to be derived by transfer, to remain avail- Chair Does Not Signal His able until September 30, 1986: Pro- Ruling on Future Amendment vided That within the total amount appropriated, the subdivisions within this account shall be reduced by § 14.19 The Chair can respond $28,000,000 for revised economic as- to a parliamentary inquiry sumptions. about the effect of voting MR. [RICHARD] RAY [of Georgia]: Mr. down the previous question Chairman, I make a point of order that on a special order—‘‘a ger- the language on page 19, line 5, after ‘‘$100,500,000’’ through ‘‘1983/85’’ on mane amendment would be line 6 constitutes a reappropriation of in order’’—but will not unexpended balances of appropriations render an advisory opinion and thus is not in order under rule as to whether a particular XXI, clause 6. The $37,300,000 that would be described amendment would transferred from the Army missile be in order. funds, 1983–1985, would be extended in availability to September 30, 1986. 7. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).

12434 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

On June 16, 1994,(8) where the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The previous question had been moved Chair has responded. on a special order reported from The question is on ordering the pre- the Committee on Rules, the vious question. The question was taken; and the Speaker Pro Tempore responded Speaker pro tempore announced that to parliamentary inquiries as fol- the noes appeared to have it. lows:

MR. [BART] GORDON [of Tennessee]: Chair Does Not Interpret Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques- Whether Votes Are Consistent tion on the resolution. § 14.20 A request that the PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Chair announce the effect on MR. [PORTER J.] GOSS [of Florida]: an earlier House political po- Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary sition of a vote about to be inquiry. taken is not a parliamentary THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (9) The gentleman will state it. inquiry. MR. GOSS: Mr. Speaker, if the pre- On June 26, 1942,(10) Speaker vious question is rejected, would it be Pro Tempore Jere Cooper, of Ten- in order for me to offer an amendment to the rule to strike the exception that nessee, sustained a point of order leaves the Wolf provision subject to a against Mr. Clarence Cannon, of point of order? Missouri, when he made an in- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: While quiry as to the effect of a vote on the Chair cannot give a specific antici- a pending motion. patory ruling, in the opinion of the Chair, should the previous question be MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speak- rejected, any germane amendment to er, a parliamentary inquiry. the rule may be offered. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. GOSS: Mr. Speaker, the Chair’s gentleman will state it. answer is ‘‘yes’’ and that would be my MR. CANNON of Missouri: A vote intention. against the motion is a vote to sustain THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The the position of the House? Chair stands by his statement. Any THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: A vote germane amendment can be offered. against the pending motion is a vote MR. GOSS: I was not asking a par- for the defeat of the pending motion. liamentary inquiry about germaneness. MR. CANNON of Missouri: Mr. Speak- I wish to know whether or not that er, in view of the fact that the chair- would be in order. 10. 88 CONG. REC. 5646, 77th Cong. 2d 8. 140 CONG. REC. 13155, 13156, 103d Sess. Under consideration was H.R. Cong. 2d Sess. 6709, an agriculture appropriation 9. Robert E. Wise, Jr. (W. Va.). for 1943.

12435 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

man of the subcommittee has made MR. RUSSO: Mr. Chairman, as I un- this motion without authorization by a derstand the parliamentary situation, majority of the managers on the part we are now voting on the Upton of the House, it is only fair that the amendment which, if you voted for House understand the effect of this Berman, you would vote no to Upton. vote. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I de- THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The sire to know if a vote against the pend- gentleman from Illinois is not stating a ing motion is not a vote to sustain the parliamentary inquiry. position which the House took when it The question is on the amendment sent the bill to conference. offered by the gentleman from Michi- MR. [HERMAN P.] EBERHARTER [of gan (Mr. Upton) as a substitute for the Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a point of amendment en bloc offered by the gen- order. tlewoman from Maine (Ms. Snowe) as THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The amended. gentleman will state it. MR. EBERHARTER: The question § 14.22 The Chairman of the raised by the gentleman from Missouri is not a parliamentary inquiry. Committee of the Whole re- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The sponds to parliamentary in- point of order is sustained. quiries as to whether an amendment changing a § 14.21 The Chair will not com- lump-sum figure in a general ment on the consistency of appropriation bill is in order; amendments under the guise but he does not interpret the of responding to a par- effect of the adoption of such liamentary inquiry. an amendment on a par- On May 15, 1991,(11) the House ticular project which might was considering amendments to a be funded by the lump-sum measure under consideration in figure. the Committee of the Whole. One On Oct. 21, 1990,(13) during con- amendment had been agreed to sideration of the legislative when an inquiry was directed to branch appropriation bill for fiscal the Chair. 1991 in Committee of the Whole, MR. [MARTY] RUSSO [of Illinois]: Mr. there was pending an amendment Chairman, I have a parliamentary in- reducing a lump-sum figure in the quiry. bill. The announced goal of the THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: (12) The gentleman will state his par- proponent of the amendment was liamentary inquiry. to eliminate funding for certain garage attendants. Another Mem- 11. 137 CONG. REC. 11116, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.1 13. 136 CONG. REC. 31673, 31674, 12. Jim McDermott (Wash.). 31689–91, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.

12436 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14 ber wished to eliminate yet an- AMENDMENTS EN BLOC OFFERED BY MR. other service, and attempted to SYNAR get a ruling from the Chair MR. [MIKE] SYNAR [of Oklahoma]: whether by an amendment to the Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from California Mr. [McCand- pending amendment he could ac- less] and myself, I offer amendments complish that goal. The discussion en bloc under the rule. was as follows: THE CHAIRMAN: (14) The Clerk will report the amendments en bloc. The Clerk read as follows: The Clerk read as follows: H.R. 5399 Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Synar: Be it enacted by the Senate and Page 2, line 8, strike ‘‘$677,010,– House of Representatives of the 000’’ and insert ‘‘$663,510,000’’. United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums Page 14, line 4, strike ‘‘$27,238,– are appropriated, out of any money 000’’ and insert ‘‘$22,721,000’’.... in the Treasury not otherwise appro- Page 14, line 18, strike ‘‘$32,285,– priated, for the Legislative Branch 000’’ and insert ‘‘$30,950,000’’.... for the fiscal year ending September THE CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to House 30, 1991, and for other purposes, Resolution 510, the amendments en namely: bloc are not subject to amendment or TITLE I—CONGRESSIONAL to a demand for a division of the ques- OPERATIONS tion, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment and if HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES adopted, shall become original text for the purpose of further amend- MILEAGE OF MEMBERS ment.... For mileage of Members, as au- So the amendments en bloc were thorized by law, $210,000. agreed to....

SALARIES AND EXPENSES AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CONTE

For salaries and expenses of the MR. [SILVIO O.] CONTE [of Massachu- House of Representatives, $667,– setts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 010,000, to remain available until expended, as follows: amendment. The Clerk read as follows: MR. [VIC] FAZIO [of California]: Mr. Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Chairman, as provided in the rule, at Page 14, line 18, strike this time I yield to the gentleman from ‘‘$30,950,000’’ and insert Oklahoma Mr. [Synar] and the gen- ‘‘$30,800,000’’.... tleman from California Mr. [McCand- MR. CONTE: Mr. Chairman, I spoke less], who are cosponsoring this before on this situation. It has simply amendment, for the purpose of offering gotten out of hand: I’m talking about the en bloc amendments numbered one the garage attendant problem.... and printed in the report of the Com- mittee on Rules. 14. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).

12437 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. [HARRIS W.] Fawell [of Illinois]: The Clerk read as follows: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary Amendment offered by Mr. Fawell inquiry. to the amendment offered by Mr. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will Conte: Page 14, line 18, strike state his inquiry. ‘‘$30,950,000’’ and insert ‘‘$30,550,– 000’’. MR. FAWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the Conte amend- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES ment, and I am desirous, of course, of presenting that. I do not want to be MR. CONTE: Mr. Chairman, may I foreclosed from so doing. make a parliamentary inquiry? HE HAIRMAN THE CHAIRMAN: Does the gentleman T C : The gentleman may wish to offer his amendment? state his inquiry.... The Fawell amendment strikes MR. CONTE: Mr. Chairman, I have a $30,950,000 and inserts $30,550,000. parliamentary inquiry. I have agreed with the chairman of the committee MR. CONTE: Mr. Chairman, if the Fawell amendment is adopted, there- that I would go along with this com- fore, my amendment is wiped out, be- promise. Can we not put that to a vote cause the gentleman does not make and get rid of that? the savings. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has to THE CHAIRMAN: The figure inserted recognize that the gentleman from Illi- by the Conte amendment would be re- nois [Mr. Fawell] rose, saying that he duced by an additional $250,000. has an amendment to the amendment. MR. CONTE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the The Chair has to protect the right of gentleman’s amendment is for the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fa- $400,000 for the beauty shop and gym well]. study. MR. FAWELL: Mr. Chairman, in fur- MR. FAZIO: Mr. Chairman, may I therance of my parliamentary inquiry, state further in this parliamentary inas long as I am not foreclosed from quiry, we cannot do the Fawell and the presenting my amendment to the Conte amendments in their entirety si- amendment, I simply wanted to make multaneously. One or the other is out sure that the section does not close, of order. and that I do have the right to present MR. CONTE: That is right. my amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair can only THE CHAIRMAN: Once the figure in read the figures in each amendment. the bill is agreed to by the adoption of MR. CONTE: Well, Mr. Chairman, let the Conte amendment, the gentleman us go over this again. cannot then at that time make another THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot in- amendment to that figure.... terpret those figures which are to be a lump sum amount for the House Office AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FAWELL Building. The Chair can only read TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. them in response to the gentleman’s CONTE inquiry. MR. FAWELL: Mr. Chairman, I offer MR. CONTE: Mr. Chairman, may I an amendment to the amendment. further inquire, the gentleman from Il-

12438 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

linois is trying to cut $400,000, is that Sept. 22, 1988,(15) is carried here- right? in. THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment of- MR. [JULIAN C.] DIXON [of Cali- fered by the gentleman from Illinois fornia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous [Mr. Fawell] would cut an additional consent to take from the Speaker’s $250,000 from the amendment offered table the bill (H.R. 4776) making ap- by the gentleman from Massachusetts propriations for the government of the [Mr. Conte]. District of Columbia and other activi- MR. CONTE: Which would leave no ties chargeable in whole or in part cut for the garage attendants. against the revenues of said District THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair cannot infor the fiscal year ending September terpret the effect of that. The Chair 30, 1989, and for other purposes, with can give the gentleman the arithmetic Senate amendments thereto, disagree only. to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. (16) Chair’s Power of Recognition THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? § 14.23 The Chair will not There was no objection. render an anticipatory decision on whom he will recog- MOTION OFFERED BY MR. GREEN nize to offer a motion if the MR. [BILL] GREEN [of New York]: previous question on a pend- Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion. ing question is defeated but The Clerk read as follows: reserves the option of mak- Mr. Green moves that the managers on the part of the House at the ing that determination after conference on the disagreeing votes hearing debate and of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. ascertaining to his satisfac- 4776, be instructed to agree to the amendment of the Senate numbered tion who has ‘‘led the opposi- 25. tion’’ to ordering the pre- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from vious question. New York (Mr. Green) is recognized for Where there was an effort to de- 1 hour.... feat the previous question on a PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY pending motion to instruct con- MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I have a ferees, the proponent of the pend- parliamentary inquiry. ing motion asked who would have THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will the right to offer an amendment if state it. the previous question were de- 15. 134 CONG. REC. 24868, 24869, 100th feated. The Chair’s response, ex- Cong. 2d Sess. cerpted from the proceedings of 16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).

12439 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, if the mo- The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- tion on the previous question loses, lows: may I inquire whether it is the motion of this gentleman from California (Mr. H. RES. 1416 Dannemeyer) or the more recent gen- Resolved, That Representative Ed- tleman from California (Mr. Dornan) ward R. Roybal be censured and that that gets offered? the House of Representatives adopt the Report of the Committee on THE SPEAKER: The Chair will deter- Standards of Official Conduct dated mine recognition priorities at the ap- October 6, 1978, In the matter of propriate time, ascertaining at such Representative Edward R. Roybal. time who is entitled to recognition. Does the gentleman have further MR. [JOHN M.] ASHBROOK [of Ohio]: comments on his motion? Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. ( ) Taking Parliamentary Inquiry THE SPEAKER: 18 The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Under Advisement MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, my § 14.24 The Chair may delay parliamentary inquiry is directed toward the rules and the precedents of his response to a parliamen- the House. I would propound a ques- tary inquiry pending an ex- tion to the Chair in my parliamentary amination of the precedents. inquiry as to whether the resolution is divisible when it comes to a vote. A privileged disciplinary resolu- THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state tion, reported from the Committee that the gentleman will have to indi- on Standards of Official Conduct, cate how he wanted to divide the vote. was called up in the House on MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, the Oct. 13, 1978.(17) Immediately resolution says, ‘‘That Representative after the reading of the resolution, Edward R. Roybal be censured,’’ which a Member asked, as a parliamen- would seem to be divisible under the tary inquiry, whether the one precedents of the House. The resolution calls upon the House of Represent- paragraph resolution was divis- atives to adopt the report and to cen- ible. The proceedings were as fol- sure Mr. Roybal. I wonder whether or lows: not the resolution can, therefore, be divided into two questions, one being IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE censure and the second being the adop- EDWARD R. ROYBAL tion of the report, which could be by Mr. [JOHN J.] FLYNT [Jr., of Geor- separate votes. gia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged THE SPEAKER: The gentleman’s resolution (H. Res. 1416) and ask for rights will be protected. The Chair will its immediate consideration. examine the precedents with regard to the gentleman’s point. 17. 124 CONG. REC. 37009, 37016, 37017, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 18. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

12440 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, I THE SPEAKER: Is the gentleman op- thank the Chair for that consideration. posed to the resolution? THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from MR. BOB WILSON: I am. Georgia (Mr. Flynt) is recognized for THE SPEAKER: The Clerk will report 60 minutes.... the motion to recommit. MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, I have The Clerk read as follows: a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Bob Wilson moves to recommit THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will the resolution, House Resolution state his parliamentary inquiry. 1416, to the Committee on Stand- ards of Official Conduct with instruc- MR. ASHBROOK: Mr. Speaker, earlier tions to report the same back forth- I propounded a parliamentary inquiry with with the following amendment. to the Speaker as to whether or not, Strike all after the resolving clause under the rules and precedents of the and insert: House, House Resolution 1416, as it That Edward R. Roybal be and he is stands, would be divisible. hereby reprimanded. THE SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to respond to the gentleman. THE SPEAKER: Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the MR. ASHBROOK: I appreciate that, motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker. There was no objection. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from MR. [BRUCE F.] CAPUTO [of New Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) has requested an York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- opinion as to whether the question on liamentary inquiry. House Resolution 1416 may be divided. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will To be the subject of a division of the state it. question under the precedents of the CAPUTO: Is time allowed for debate? House, a proposition must constitute THE SPEAKER: The motion is not de- two or more separate substantive prop- batable. ositions so that if one of the propo- The question is on the motion to re- sitions is removed, the remaining prop- commit with instructions. osition constitutes a separate and dis- The question was taken; and the tinct question, and that test must work Speaker announced that the ayes ap- both ways. peared to have it. In the opinion of the Chair, the ques- MR. FLYNT: Mr. Speaker, on that I tions are substantially equivalent demand the yeas and nays. questions. For that reason, the Chair The yeas and nays were refused. holds that House Resolution 1416 is MRS. [MILLICENT] FENWICK [of New not subject to a demand for a division Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the of the question. vote on the ground that a quorum is MR. ASHBROOK: I thank the Chair. not present and make the point of MR. FLYNT: Mr. Speaker, I move the order that a quorum is not present. previous question on the resolution. THE SPEAKER: Evidently a quorum is The previous question was ordered. not present. MR. BOB WILSON: [of California]: Mr. The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit. sent Members.

12441 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The vote was taken by electronic de- House ‘‘shall keep the secrets of vice, and there were—yeas 219, nays the House.’’ The Speaker took the 170, answered ‘‘present’’ 1, not voting matter under advisement. 40, as follows:... So the motion to recommit was THOUGHTS ON THE SCANDAL-RIDDEN agreed to. HOUSE The result of the vote was an- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (20) nounced as above recorded. Under a previous order of the House, MR. FLYNT: Mr. Speaker, pursuant the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] to the instructions of the House, I re- is recognized for 60 minutes. port the resolution back to the House MR. [TOM] DELAY [of Texas]: Mr. with an amendment. Speaker, I take this time in the well The Clerk read as follows: and before the House to express my opinions about what has been going on Amendment offered by Mr. Flynt: in this House or the lack of what has Strike all after the resolving clause been going on in this House over the and insert: That Edward R. Roybal last few years, particularly during the be and he is hereby reprimanded. scandal-ridden period of the last year The amendment was agreed to. or so.... The resolution, as amended, was Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gen- agreed to. tleman giving us that little bit of history. I think it is very beneficial to the A motion to reconsider was laid on overall theme of this special order. the table. That is that this has been going on, this lack of leadership, the mismanage- § 14.25 Where a parliamentary ment of the House, has been going on inquiry does not relate to the for many years. It just points up that immediate proceedings of when someone is in power for an inor- the House, the Chair may dinate amount of time, then this kind of oversight, this kind of corruption, if take the matter under ad- you will, continues and builds upon visement, particularly where itself and sort of feeds on itself.... research is required into the MR. [RICHARD K.] ARMEY [of Texas]: origins of a rule. . . . There is another question I would have about the secrets of the House. On Apr. 7, 1992,(19) during a special order concerning the so- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY called ‘‘banking scandal’’ that pre- MR. DELAY: Would the gentleman occupied many Members of the hold right there? Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary House, a discussion involved the inquiry. meaning of the admonition in THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Rule II that the officers of the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. 19. 138 CONG REC. 8271–74, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. 20. Richard Ray (Ga.).

12442 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

MR. DELAY: Mr. Speaker, I make an discussed only in relationship to inquiry of what does it mean when it secret sessions of the House, ‘‘but says in the rules of the House that the inasmuch as no secret session has House must keep the secrets of the House, the officers must keep the se- been held for about seventy years, crets of the House? the observance of this portion of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The the rule is naturally neglected.’’ Chair is not prepared to respond to Thus, according to Asher Hinds, that, and will be consulting with the the oath of secrecy requirement gentleman.... had become obsolete at that time. The gentleman will state his par- As indicated in section 914 of liamentary inquiry. the House Rules and Manual, the MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- sylvania]: Do I understand the Chair House conducted its first secret correctly that the Chair is not pre- session since 1830 on June 20, pared to rule at this time on what the 1979, and then conducted three phrase ‘‘secrets of the House’’ means? subsequent secret sessions on July THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: In ref- 17, 1979, Feb. 25, 1980, and July erence to that question, the Chair says 19, 1983. On all of those occa- to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, sions, the Manual and Record in- the word ‘‘secrets’’ has appeared in the rule for a great number of years. The dicate that ‘‘those officers and em- Chair will endeavor to try to find out ployees specified by the Speaker for the gentleman what the word ‘‘se- whose attendance was essential to crets’’ means. the functioning of the secret ses- Parliamentarian’s Note: Rule II sion. . . would be required to provides for the election of officers sign an oath of secrecy.’’ of the House (other than the § 14.26 The Chair may in his Speaker) by viva voce vote, ‘‘each discretion defer a response of whom shall take an oath to to a parliamentary inquiry support the Constitution of the pending his examination of United States . . . and to keep the rule and the amendments the secrets of the House.’’ in question. In section 635 of the House On Oct. 4, 1990,(1) the Com- Rules and Manual it is recited prehensive Crime Control Act of that the ‘‘requirement that the of- 1990 was being considered under ficers be sworn to keep the secrets the provisions of a complex special of the House is obsolete’’ (citing 1 order which permitted consider- Hinds’ Precedents § 187). In that precedent the origin of the oath of 1. 136 CONG REC. 27511, 27512, 101st secrecy requirement in the rule is Cong. 2d Sess. 12443 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS ation only of those amendments The Hughes amendments offered en spelled out in the report of the bloc, if adopted, would insert several Committee on Rules. The order of new sections, sections 212 through 218, into title II, and would make a minor amendments was specified in the change in title XXII. The Gekas rule. When asked about the jux- amendment would rewrite all of title II taposition of two amendments to as amended by Hughes and insert a the same portion of the bill, the new title. Chair needed to evaluate both the In effect, the Gekas amendment, if rule and the text of the amend- adopted, would replace most of the ments in order to respond to the Hughes amendment en bloc. MR. GEKAS: I thank the Chair. That parliamentary inquiry made by was our suspicion, and we wanted to Mr. George W. Gekas, of Pennsyl- have it confirmed from the summit vania. itself.

MR. GEKAS: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. § 14.27 The Chair may take a THE CHAIRMAN: (2) The gentleman certain parliamentary in- will state his parliamentary inquiry. quiry under advisement, es- MR. GEKAS: There is a bit of confu- pecially where the inquiry sion reigning in my mind, if nowhere does not relate to the imme- else, as to whether or not under pre- diate procedures of the vious instructions and rules of this House. type as to whether or not the Hughes- Gekas amendment is in the posture of On May 26, 1993,(3) a new Member- king of the hill. Specifically, I would elect arrived at the Capitol. A sitting ask the Chair to let me know, at this Member inquired of the Chair whether juncture, is it so that if both pass, that the new Member-elect would be per- the latter one, the Gekas amendment, mitted to take the oath, although his would prevail? credentials were not before the body. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- The Speaker Pro Tempore, Mr. Jim vise the gentleman momentarily, as McDermott, of Washington, suggested the Chair must now be advised on this that the question should be presented and review both amendments. to the Speaker for his consideration. The Chair would advise the gen- MR. [F. JAMES] SENSENBRENNER: tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have as soon as the Chair has examined the a parliamentary inquiry. two amendments. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. GEKAS: I thank the Chair.... gentleman will state it. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will re- MR. SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Speaker, spond to the parliamentary inquiry would it be in order for me to ask just posed. 3. 139 CONG REC. 11251, 103d Cong. 2. Douglas H. Bosco (Calif.). 1st Sess.

12444 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

unanimous consent that the gentleman like to use my 5 minutes to begin with from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca] who has to propound a parliamentary inquiry been elected to fill the vacant First relating to the matter of extensions of District seat, be allowed to take the remarks in the Congressional Record. oath of office, notwithstanding the fact that a certificate of election for him In yesterday’s Congressional Record, has not arrived? The Republican can- that would be February 10, on pages H didate has conceded and, to my knowl- 460 to H 476, material was submitted edge, there is no objection to Mr. Barca to the Congressional Record costing the taking the oath of office from this side taxpayers $6,132, where there was not of the aisle. an announcement of that cost prior to THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The the material being submitted. Chair would have to take that under My parliamentary inquiry is this, advisement with the Speaker of the does the Chair have a responsibility to House. ascertain the amount of taxpayer ex- § 14.28 The Chair may take a pense in Extensions of Remarks. parliamentary inquiry under THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: In response to the inquiry of the gentleman advisement, particularly in a from Pennsylvania, the Chair under- situation where a delay in re- stands the situation to be as follows: sponding to the inquiry does the gentlewoman from Colorado re- not interfere with the pend- quested permission to address the ing business of the House. House for 1 minute, to revise and extend her remarks and to include extra- An inquiry of the Chair about neous material. Due to the length of the composition of the Congres- the matter submitted, the material sional Record, and extensions of was moved by the official reporters remarks therein, was taken under from the beginning of the day to ap- advisement, where the Chair did pear following legislative business. not have time to consult with the This normally is a signal to the Gov- Official Reporters of Debates and ernment Printing Office to return the the Government Printing Office material to the Member should a print- during the proceedings. The perti- ing estimate be required, submissions nent excerpts from the Record of in excess of two Congressional Record Feb. 11, 1994,(4) are set out below: pages. That apparently did not occur in this situation, so the submission was (5) THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: printed.... Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MR. WALKER: So the Member has Walker] is recognized for 5 minutes. the responsibility, if they have a large MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- amount of material, to present that to sylvania]: Madam Speaker, I would the House prior to asking the permission; is that correct? 4. 140 CONG. REC. 2244, 2245, 103d THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: To ask Cong. 2d Sess. permission with the estimate of the 5. Jolene Unsoeld (Wash.). cost in hand.

12445 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. WALKER: And in this particular consin, asked unanimous consent case, as I understand it, that procedure to change the order of amend- was not followed; is that correct? ments. Several parliamentary in- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The quiries were directed to the gentlewoman did not have an estimate and, for that reason, the matter was Speaker, in an attempt to deter- held over until the end of the Record. mine whether certain amend- MR. WALKER: Is there a procedure ments had been submitted in a for recovering the amount of money timely fashion, pursuant to the spent that was spent and not properly announced policy of the Com- agreed to. mittee on Rules. The proceedings THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The were as follows: Chair would have to take that under advisement. PERMISSION TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT NO. 20 PRINTED IN SECTION 3 OF Improper Parliamentary In- HOUSE REPORT 100–590 AS AMEND- quiry MENT NO. 6 OF SECTION 2 OF REPORT ON H.R. 4264, NATIONAL DEFENSE § 14.29 The Chair will not re- AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1989 spond to a parliamentary inquiry whether a floor re- MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 20, quest conforms to ‘‘com- printed in section 3 of House Report mittee policy’’ where that 100–590 be considered as if it were policy is not a rule of the amendment No. 6 of section 2 of the House. report. HE PEAKER RO EMPORE (7) ( ) T S P T : Is On Apr. 29, 1988, 6 the House there objection to the request of the was considering a Defense author- gentleman from Wisconsin?... ization bill (fiscal 1989) under a PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY series of complicated special orders. The rule under which the MR. [JOHN R.] KASICH [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary in- bill was being considered specified quiry. which amendments were to be in THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The order, the order of their consider- gentleman will state it. ation, and their debate time. In MR. KASICH: What I do not quite un- the House, before resolving into derstand, Mr. Speaker, is if we are op- the Committee of the Whole for erating under a certain rule, somebody has got to know what the rule is to further consideration of the meas- find out whether the amendment being ure, Chairman Les Aspin, of Wis- offered should be accepted under the rule. 6. 134 CONG. REC. 9551, 9552, 100th Cong. 2d Sess. 7. James H. Bilbray (Nev.).

12446 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

I have no objection to the amend- nor does the chairman of the Armed ment from how I understand it. I am Services Committee. just trying to understand if the rule is MR. [WILLIAM L.] DICKINSON [of Ala- being followed here, and if there is an bama]: Mr. Chairman, will the gen- ability to get unanimous consent to tleman yield? offer something that did not follow MR. KASICH: Then I will object, Mr. within that deadline, then I would like Speaker, until we get an answer as to to reserve the ability to be able to ask what the rule is, how it was filed. for that unanimous consent. MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Chairman, will THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The the gentleman withhold his objection amendment is in order. It is on page for a moment? 55 of House Report 100–590, an MR. KASICH: Yes; I will withhold, amendment offered by Representative and simply reserve the right to object. Pepper of Florida or Representative MR. ASPIN: Mr. Speaker, if the gen- Lowry of Washington or his designee, tleman will yield, we will deal with debatable for not to exceed 40 minutes, this amendment today, because we to be equally divided between the pro- have to get the unanimous consent in ponent and opponent. the House. MR. KASICH: Mr. Speaker, a further MR. KASICH: Then I will withdraw parliamentary inquiry. I am not inter- my objection so we can get those ques- ested—if it is printed in there, I want tions answered. to know if the amendment was filed by MR. ASPIN: The gentleman deserves the time that we were supposed to an answer to his question, but I do not have had these amendments filed. think we can answer it today. That is what I am inquiring. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: It is § 14.30 The Chairman of Com- presumed that that is correct. But mittee of the Whole does not again, it is something that has to be respond to inquiries about answered by the Rules Committee. future legislative programs MR. KASICH: A further parliamen- in the House. tary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I do not ( ) want us to presume anything. I want On Feb. 3, 1995, 8 Mr. John A. to know. I do not want to presume. Boehner, of Ohio, was presiding in I do not have any objection, Mr. Committee of the Whole. Speaker, to that amendment. It is just that if we are not going to abide by PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY those rules, there are additional MR. [NEIL] ABERCROMBIE [of Ha- amendments that we would like to waii]: Mr. Chairman, I have a par- offer. I do not object, necessarily to the liamentary inquiry. substance of the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The state it. gentleman from Ohio will have to accept that the Chair does not know the 8. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th Cong. answer to the gentleman’s question, 1st Sess.

12447 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. ABERCROMBIE: Mr. Chairman, is MR. [DUNCAN] HUNTER [of Cali- it the Chair’s understanding that a rul- fornia]: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ing was arrived at or an understanding Chair’s admonition, and my only re- was arrived at with respect to the marks with regard to the point of order votes on Monday and the 2 o’clock is I hope the Chairman would allow us versus 5 o’clock time? Because that is to cure the defect that he has pointed not clear to me. out in this particular package. (10) THE CHAIRMAN: The Chairman of THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: the Committee of the Whole is not in a Does the gentleman from Arkansas position to rule on that question. (Mr. Robinson) desire to be heard on the point of order? MR. ABERCROMBIE: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. How MR. [TOMMY F.] ROBINSON [of Ar- might I go about making that inquiry? kansas]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is that issue was THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The not settled. gentleman from Arkansas is recognized. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman MR. ROBINSON: Mr. Chairman, we should inquire of the leadership who had a date certain deadline for all makes those decisions. amendments to the DOD bill to be sub- § 14.31 Questions concerning mitted to the Rules Committee. Parliamentary inquiry, was the informal guidelines of the Aspin amendment submitted to meet Committee on Rules for sub- the deadline initially when we all had mission of amendments may to abide by the rules to bring any not be raised as parliamen- amendment to this floor? tary inquiries, since the THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The Chair cannot answer that inquiry. Chair is not being called That is not a parliamentary in- upon to interpret any rule of quiry.... the House. Does the gentleman from California While the Chair responds to (Mr. Badham) desire to be heard on the point of order? parliamentary inquiries concerning the application of House PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY rules and precedents relating to MR. [ROBERT E.] BADHAM [of Cali- pending business, he does not in- fornia]: No, Mr. Chairman, I have a terpret committee policies or fac- parliamentary inquiry. tual questions about matters not THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state it. within his cognizance. The pro- R ADHAM ( ) M . B : Mr. Chairman, my ceedings of May 5, 1988, 9 are il- parliamentary inquiry is that allusion lustrative: was made to the fact that we had a deadline for submitting amendments. 9. 134 CONG. REC. 9938, 100th Cong. 2d Sess. 10. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).

12448 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

Is it not true that there was no dead- on the continuing resolution and on line for submitting amendments? the reconciliation bill, the joint leadership is trying to accommodate Mem- THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: That bers as much as possible. We had would be a question the gentleman hoped that these bills might be ready would have to ask the Rules Com- mittee. today. . . . MR. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speak- MR. BADHAM: I tried, Mr. Chairman, Lord knows I tried. er, will the gentleman yield? MR. FOLEY: I yield to the gentleman THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is not prepared to rule on that from Indiana. question. MR. BURTON of Indiana: I thank the gentleman for yielding. § 14.32 A Member may not use Mr. Speaker, we are going to be the guise of a parliamentary asked this evening at 5 p.m. to vote on inquiry to register opposi- a 1-day CR so that the Government would not have to shut down. What I tion to a unanimous-consent would like to advise the leadership agreement already entered now is that this gentleman intends to into. object unless we have some idea at that time whether or not agreement On occasion, the Chair may feel has been reached between not only the an obligation to ‘‘indulge’’ a Mem- Republican and Democratic sides of ber in stretching the use of a par- both Houses, but also the White liamentary inquiry to clarify a House. misunderstanding that has arisen If there is no agreement on that, I in floor procedure. Such was the think we are—— situation on Dec. 20, 1987,(11) MR. FOLEY: We have been advised by when Mr. Dan Burton, of Indiana, the representatives of the President that if he receives before tomorrow felt his rights had been violated morning an action of the Congress ex- because of a scheduling agreement tending for 24 hours until midnight to- entered into by his leadership morrow night the temporary con- during special orders, a period tinuing resolution, the President will when unanimous-consent requests sign it. relating to the business of the MR. BURTON of Indiana: I am not House are normally not enter- talking about that, if the gentleman will yield further. tained. I am talking about the big CR and MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Wash- the budget reconciliation act. If agree- ington]: I hope all Members realize ment has not been reached between that in attempts to reach a conclusion both Houses and the White House and we have some pretty concrete evidence 11. 133 CONG. REC. 36699, 36700, 100th that the President is going to sign it, I Cong. 1st Sess. intend to object this evening.

12449 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. FOLEY: I do not think we intend mittee was granted permission by this to bring the matter by unanimous con- House, by unanimous consent, a resent. The gentleman may vote against quest offered by the majority leader the bill if he wishes to. and understood by the minority leader- MR. BURTON OF INDIANA: Unanimous ship, they being present, that the consent is not required? Rules Committee should have—until MR. FOLEY: No. noon today, to file privileged reports. THE SPEAKER: (12) The Chair will ad- And the Rules Committee has done so vise the gentleman that unanimous with respect to the short-term con- consent would not be required. tinuing resolution. The Chair wishes to express along MR. BURTON of Indiana: If I might with the majority leader and the mi- further inquire of the Chair, when did nority leader a regret for any inconven- this take place, when did the leader- ience that has been caused to Members ship of both the majority and minority, and their schedules, but as the major- or when were they informed about this ity leader has explained, and the mi- requested rule? nority leader as well, the leadership THE SPEAKER: If the gentleman will has been attempting to try to create a be patient, the Chair will examine the situation in which we can work the notes in the Journal and try to give will of the House and conclude the ses- the gentleman a response as to when. sion of the Congress at a minimum of It was sometime yesterday, approxi- inconvenience to the membership. mately 5 p.m. yesterday afternoon. In that regard, the Chair wants to MR. BURTON of Indiana: Five p.m. on thank the membership for their under- Saturday after everybody had gone standing. home? THE SPEAKER: Well, the Chair will PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES advise the gentleman that it is the re- MR. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speak- sponsibility of the majority and the mi- er, I have a parliamentary inquiry. nority leadership to try as best they THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will can to accommodate the schedule of state it. the membership. MR. BURTON OF INDIANA: Mr. Speak- MR. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speak- er, I would like to know when this rule er, where a unanimous consent is re- was requested and granted. The Mem- quired or requested, it is my under- bers when we left on Friday were not standing that it is the entire body, not aware, to my knowledge, that there just the leadership that is supposed to was going to be a rule requested for a be involved. And to go ahead—— 1-day CR. It seems like that is kind of THE SPEAKER: If the gentleman will something that was sneaked in on us, permit the Chair to respond, it is a at least as far as I am concerned. long—standing rule that unanimous THE SPEAKER: The Chair will advise consent requests-not by the rules of the gentleman that the Rules Com- the House, but by the comity and the courtesy that exists between both 12. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.). sides—are cleared in advance of their

12450 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14 being requested, usually, with the mi- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman’s point nority leadership, and that they are of order is well taken. The gentleman not propounded unless someone rep- was not stating a parliamentary in- resenting the minority is present in quiry, but the Chair indulged him to the Chamber. That is a matter of make such statement as he desired to precedent. make. MR. BURTON of Indiana: I have a further parliamentary inquiry. § 14.33 Although the Chair re- THE SPEAKER: Permit the Chair, sponds to parliamentary in- please, to respond and the gentleman quiries concerning the will be recognized. amendment process, he does There is no requirement that all not: (1) rule on hypothetical Members be present. If there were, the questions; (2) rule retrospec- House might never achieve a unanimous consent request, and I think the tively on questions not gentleman recognizes, as will all Mem- raised in a timely fashion; bers that the minority and majority and (3) rule anticipatorily on have tried very earnestly to work to- questions not yet presented. gether in a harmonious fashion. . . . On June 6, 1990,(13) the Com- MR. BURTON of Indiana: I have a further parliamentary inquiry. mittee of the Whole had under Mr. Speaker, there was some discus- consideration the Export Facilita- sion privately of a 1-day CR on Friday, tion Act of 1990. An amendment and, Mr. Speaker, when we left, it was dealing with Soviet Union-Lithua- the understanding of this gentleman, nian relationships was pending and, I think, most Members on our when a parliamentary inquiry was side of the aisle that no legislative ac- raised about the possibility of con- tion was going to take place that would preclude our right to object to a unani- sidering additional amendments, mous consent request to go to the involving other international rela- Rules Committee or to pass a 1-day tionships. The proceedings were CR. Now, it did take place in our ab- as shown herein. sence, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Amendment offered by Mr. Durbin: at least as far as I was concerned, I Page 48, insert the following after line was misled. I do not know whether it 11: was inadvertent or not, but I feel like SEC. 124. EXPORTS TO THE SOVIET I was misled because had I known that UNION. you were going to ask unanimous consent to go to the Rules Committee to No exports to the Soviet Union otherwise permitted by virtue of the get a special rule for a 1-day CR, a 1- amendments made by this title may day extension, I would have been here be made until the President certifies to object. MR. [HENRY B.] GONZALEZ [of 13. 136 CONG. REC. 13189, 13193, Texas]: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. 13194, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.

12451 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

to the Congress that the Soviet Pennsylvania (Mr. Ritter), who would Union is not imposing any economic like to have the opportunity to offer an sanctions on Lithuania and has en- amendment to the amendment to be tered into negotiations with the elected government of Lithuania for offered by the gentleman from Indiana the purpose of restoring the inde- (Mr. Burton) on Cuba, and the Ritter pendence of Lithuania. amendment would deal with Afghani- stan along the same basis that the MODIFICATION OF AMENDMENT OFFERED gentleman from California has been BY MR. DURBIN speaking. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. LEVINE I just question: what is the par- OF CALIFORNIA TO THE AMENDMENT liamentary procedure for the recogni- OFFERED BY MR. DURBIN, AS MODI- tion of the amendment of the gen- FIED tleman from California (Mr. Levine) and whether or not it would be in MR. [MEL] LEVINE of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to order at the appropriate time for the the amendment as modified. gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rit- The Clerk read as follows: ter) to offer his amendment to the amendment based on the same sce- Amendment offered by Mr. Levine nario? of California to the amendment as modified offered by Mr. Durbin: THE CHAIRMAN: The pending situa- Insert ‘‘(a) EXPORTS.—’’ before the tion has no bearing on what might be first sentence. the situation to what the Chair cannot Add the following at the end of the anticipate, that could develop subse- amendment. quently on another amendment. (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Chairman, I have sense of the Congress that no reports to the Soviet Union otherwise per- a further parliamentary inquiry. mitted by virtue of the amendments Mr. Chairman, on what basis is the made by this title should be made if gentleman from California (Mr. Le- the Soviet Union takes action to re- vine) allowed to offer his amendment strict the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union. . . . to the amendment? And, again, I do not question the basis of his amend- MR. [GERALD B. H.] SOLOMON [of ment, because I support it. But I do New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a not see it in the rule. That is why I parliamentary inquiry. was asking. THE CHAIRMAN: (14) The gentleman THE CHAIRMAN: The rule does not will state his parliamentary inquiry. prevent amendments to the amend- MR. SOLOMON: Mr. Chairman, I ment, and no point of order with re- wholeheartedly support the statement of the gentleman from California, and gard to its germaneness was raised in I support his amendment to the a timely fashion. . . . amendment. MR. [DOUG] BEREUTER [of Ne- My parliamentary inquiry is that we braska]: Mr. Chairman, I would ad- have a Member, the gentleman from dress my parliamentary inquiry to the Chair in this fashion: is it still timely 14. Al Swift (Wash.). to object or to raise reservations under

12452 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

the point of nongermaneness to the has taken two giant steps toward nor- amendment? malizing relations with Vietnam. . . . THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would re- Now we find out that a Cabinet offi- spond in this fashion: it is too late. cial, Mr. Ron Brown, the Secretary of That point of order would have to have the Department of Commerce, is ac- come prior to the time the gentleman cused of taking $700,000 to influence from California (Mr. Levine) was recog- these decisions. . . . nized to debate his amendment. We have demanded an investigation into this, not unlike the Watergate or Chair Does Not Give Advisory the Iran-Contra investigations, because Rulings it involves our foreign policy and a Cabinet official who may have influ- § 14.34 The Chair may decline enced these decisions even though to indicate in advance there are 2,200 POW/MIA’s still unac- counted for in Vietnam. . . . whether a suggested resolution would be privileged, PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

since the Chair does not give MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- advisory opinions regarding sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pro- parliamentary questions not pound a parliamentary inquiry. . . . related to pending business. By what process can the House of Representatives begin an investigation During the one-minute period at of this very serious matter where we the beginning of the legislative can be assured that the investigation day of Sept. 29, 1993,(15) two will take place? Members sought to suggest that THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (16) The an investigation into conduct by Chair advises the gentleman that com- an executive branch official might mittees of jurisdiction can initiate in- be undertaken by a House com- vestigations on matters such as this. MR. WALKER: Well, Mr. Speaker, the mittee. They pressed the Chair to problem is that the gentleman from In- say how such a resolution might diana has already written the commit- be brought to the floor. tees of jurisdiction and is being stonewalled. My question is: LY BINH TO BEINMY OFFICE By what means can we ensure that, TOMORROW if the chairmen of those committees (Mr. Burton of Indiana asked and refuse to hold hearings on this matter was given permission to address the of major significance, the House of House for 1 minute.) Representatives can order such an in- MR. [DAN] BURTON of Indiana: Mr. vestigation to take place? Speaker, the Clinton administration THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair cannot respond more fully to the 15. 139 CONG. REC. 22988–90, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. 16. Bill Richardson (N. Mex.).

12453 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Parliamentary Inquiry as to Walker] at this time. . . . Legal Effect of Proposal MR. WALKER: . . . and I am seeking to know whether or not there is a reso- § 14.35 Questions about the lution of some sort that can be brought to the floor that would force this inves- legal effect of a pending leg- tigation to take place. islative proposal are not en- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The tertained as parliamentary Chair cannot respond beyond the fact inquiries. that a resolution can be introduced and (17) referred to the appropriate committee On Jan. 25, 1995, where the of jurisdiction. House had under consideration a MR. WALKER: But there is no privi- resolution directing certain com- leged resolution that can be brought to mittees to take action to report the floor that would force the inves- legislation to achieve a balanced tigation to take place, Mr. Speaker? budget, the Chair declined to re- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair cannot comment on such an spond to parliamentary inquiries issue until seeing such a resolution. regarding the legal or binding ef- MR. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speak- fect of the resolution. er, I have a parliamentary inquiry. MR. [MICHAEL P.] FLANAGAN [of Illi- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman will state his parliamentary nois]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House inquiry. Resolution 44, as designee of the majority leader, I call up the concurrent MR. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speak- er, I thank the gentleman from Penn- resolution (H. Con. Res. 17) relating to sylvania [Mr. Walker] for his question. the treatment of Social Security under I sent a letter to the chairman of the any constitutional amendment requir- Committee on Foreign Affairs asking ing a balanced budget, and ask for its for an investigation. That appeared to immediate consideration in the House. me to be the committee of jurisdiction. The Clerk read the title of the con- He has indicated that he did not think current resolution. he should do that, and he named a lit- The text of House Concurrent Reso- any of other committees that ought to lution 17 is as follows: be notified, and that is what prompted the gentleman from Pennsylvania to H. CON. RES. 17 ask these questions, and so we just Resolved by the House of Rep- want to know, if this merits an inves- resentatives (the Senate concurring), tigation, how do we do it? That, for the purposes of any constitutional amendment requiring a THE PEAKER RO EMPORE S P T : If the balanced budget, the appropriate gentleman wants to introduce a resolu- committees of the House and the tion, the Chair will refer it to the ap- Senate shall report to their respec- propriate committee. MR. BURTON of Indiana: Mr. Speak- 17. 141 CONG. REC. p. , 104th Cong. er, we will do that. 1st Sess.

12454 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

tive Houses implementing legislation pointed out that it was the duty of to achieve a balanced budget without increasing the receipts or reducing the proponent of an amendment the disbursements of the Federal to explain it to other Members, Old-Age and Survivors Insurance not the duty of the Chair. Trust Fund and the Federal Dis- ability Insurance Trust Fund to MR. [J. EDWARD] ROUSH [of Indiana]: achieve that goal. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (18) Pur- to the substitute amendment offered suant to the rule, the gentleman from by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Illinois [Mr. Flanagan] will be recog- Udall]. nized for 30 minutes and the gen- The Clerk read as follows: . . . tleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] will be recognized for 30 minutes. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog- The Chair recognizes the gentleman nizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan]. Roush]. MR. [CHARLES A.] HALLECK [of Indi- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY ana]: Mr. Chairman, will the gen- MR. [CHAKA] FATTAH [of Pennsyl- tleman yield for the purpose of pro- vania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- pounding a parliamentary inquiry? liamentary inquiry. MR. ROUSH: I yield to the gentleman THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The from Indiana. gentleman will state it. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from MR. FATTAH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the legal effect of the res- Indiana will state the parliamentary olution in front of us. Is it binding? inquiry. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. HALLECK: Mr. Chairman, in gentleman is not stating a parliamen- view of the fact that all of the units of tary inquiry. this proposed national park are fixed by reference to a map, is it in order to Not a Proper Inquiry-Meaning offer language in indefinite terms that of an Amendment would undertake to alter that? The gentleman from Arizona offered § 14.36 The construction or an amendment which referred to an- meaning of an amendment is other map, which is a matter of record. not a proper subject for a I do not know and I do not know parliamentary inquiry as whether anybody else knows just what such matters are for the is meant when reference is made to House and not the presiding Ogden Dunes or Burns Bog units. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would officer to determine. reply that the Chair is not in a posi- On Oct. 12, 1966,(19) Chairman tion to construe the amendment. The John J. McFall, of California, amendment technically is in order and it is up to the Member offering an 18. Jim Kolbe (Ariz.). 19. 112 CONG. REC. 26205, 89th Cong. H.R. 51, the Indiana Dunes Lake- 2d Sess. Under consideration was shore bill.

12455 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

amendment to construe the amend- tions for priority synthetic projects ment for the benefit of the Members. by State and local governments. If the Secretary determines that a priority synthetic project is being de- Anticipatory Rulings by Chair layed or threatened with delay by the inability or unwillingness of any § 14.37 The Chair declines to State or local government to implement a schedule for timely review anticipate whether an and decision, the Secretary shall no- amendment not yet offered tify the Governor of such State and might be precluded by adop- transmit to the Congress a statement describing the delay and rection of a pending amend- ommending action to alleviate or ment. prevent the delay. On June 26, 1979,(20) during MR. UDALL (during the reading): Mr. consideration of the Defense Pro- Chairman, I ask unanimous consent duction Act amendments of 1979, that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record. a lengthy amendment was offered ( ) THE CHAIRMAN: 1 Is there objection by Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, to the request of the gentleman from Chairman of the Committee on In- Arizona? terior and Insular Affairs. When MR. [CLARENCE J.] BROWN of Ohio: he asked that the reading of the Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to amendment be waived, there was object, I wish to make a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I a reservation of objection and the had offered and had printed in the following proceedings occurred. Record would be an appropriate sub- Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: stitute amendment for the amendment Page 8, after line 13 add the fol- offered by the gentleman from Arizona lowing new subsection and renumber (Mr. Udall). Under the time limitation, the subsequent sections accordingly: if I understand correctly, I have 5 min- (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is utes to offer that amendment. hereby authorized to designate a THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct if of- proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a priority synthetic project fered in the proper form. pursuant to the procedures and cri- MR. BROWN of Ohio: But if this teria provided in this section. amendment is not amended by my (2) For the purposes of this section amendment and succeeds, then I may the term— be precluded from offering that amend- (A) ‘‘Synthetic fuel or feedstock fa- ment; is that correct? cility’’ means any physical structure, THE CHAIRMAN: It would be difficult including any equipment, building, mine processing facility or other fa- for the Chair to rule on that without cility or installation used. . . . having seen the gentleman’s amend- (4) The Secretary shall keep ap- ment. prised of the processing of applica- MR. BROWN of Ohio: The question I would put to the Chair as a parliamen- 20. 125 CONG. REC. 16681–83, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. 1. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).

12456 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14 tary inquiry is: Does, then, my amend- Chair Does Not Rule on Hypo- ment become appropriate to this thetical Questions on Scope amendment and give me the right to 5 minutes to discuss my amendment? of Conference THE CHAIRMAN: If the gentleman § 14.38 The Chair does not ad- were to offer his amendment as a substitute for this amendment in the form vise, in response to a par- printed in the Record, he would, in- liamentary inquiry, whether deed, have the 5 minutes guaranteed the failure of conferees to to him under the rule. abide by the terms of a mo- MR. BROWN of Ohio: Then, Mr. tion to instruct would go be- Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment offered by the gen- yond the scope of their au- tleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). thority. THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- While the Chair must rule vise the gentleman that it is not yet in under Rule XXLVIII clause 3, on order. a point of order that a specific mo- Is there objection to the unanimous- tion to instruct goes beyond the consent request of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall)? scope of conference, he does not MR. BROWN of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, speculate about whether modifica- I reserve the right to object in order to tion of the language to which the make an inquiry of the Chair. motion is directed would cause a The amendment of the gentleman violation of clause 3. The pro- from Arizona now pending and in the ceedings of Oct. 29, 1981,(2) illus- process of being read, I think the Chair trate the Chair’s reluctance to get advised me, was amendable by the involved in such speculation. gentleman from Ohio who has an amendment printed in the Record. MRS. [PATRICIA] SCHROEDER [of Colo- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would ad- rado]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged vise the gentleman that any proper motion. (3) substitute for the amendment of the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The gentleman from Arizona would be in Clerk will report the motion. order. The Clerk read as follows: MR. BROWN of Ohio: And the order of Mrs. Schroeder moves that the recognition for that purpose, may I in- managers on the part of the House quire of the Chair, does not relate to at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the the establishment of the fact that there House amendments to the bill S. 815 was an amendment that is appro- be instructed to agree to the provi- priate? sions contained in section 922 of the THE CHAIRMAN: The order of recogni- Senate bill. tion, the Chair will say to the gentleman, depends on the discretion of 2. 127 CONG. REC. 26046, 26049, 97th the Chair, given which Members are Cong. 1st Sess. seeking recognition at the time. 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).

12457 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. of the parliamentary procedure is cor- DICKINSON rect. The gentlewoman from Colorado has MR. [WILLIAM L.] DICKINSON [of Ala- bama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to succeeded against the motion to table, table. in which case she has a privileged motion now pending. It is my under- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The standing she will have 1 hour to de- Clerk will report the motion. bate the motion now pending, and is in The Clerk read as follows: control of that entire time. Is this cor- Mr. Dickinson moves to lay on the rect? table the motion of the gentlewoman THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The from Colorado. gentleman stated the issue correctly. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ... motion is not debatable. MR. [SAMUEL S.] STRATTON [of New The question is on the motion to York]: Mr. Speaker, the motion offered table offered by the gentleman from by Mrs. Schroeder was that the man- Alabama (Mr. Dickinson). agers on the part of the House at the The question was taken; and on a di- conference of the disagreeing votes of vision (demanded by Mr. Dickinson) the two Houses to the bill S. 815 be in- there were—yeas 28, nays 18. structed to agree to the provisions con- MRS. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I obtained in section 922 of the Senate bill. ject to the vote on the ground that a My inquiry is to what extent does quorum is not present and make the that motion allow the House conferees point of order that a quorum is not to deviate in any way from the specific present. provisions of section 922 of the Senate THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Evi- bill? dently a quorum is not present. . . . THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The So the motion to table was rejected. Chair advises the gentleman that no The result of the vote was an- point of order would lie against the nounced as above recorded. conference report if the House con- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ferees do not follow the instructions of gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. the House, should the House agree to Schroeder) is recognized for 1 hour. the motion of the gentlewoman from MRS. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I Colorado. yield myself such time as I may con- MR. STRATTON: In other words, we sume. could accept a provision on limiting cost growth that does not follow the PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY precise wording of section 922 of the MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, I have Senate bill? a parliamentary inquiry. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The Chair is not going to rule on what will gentleman will state it. be in the scope of the conference. The MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Speaker, I Chair is advising only as to the effect would like to ask if my understanding of the motion.

12458 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

MR. STRATTON: Does this mean, Mr. MR. JOHANSEN: I direct this inquiry Speaker, that if the gentleman from to the Chair as to whether it will be in Alabama and I, who have been work- order if I secure recognition to offer an ing on a substitute for the Nunn amendment to the amendment in the amendment, come up with something nature of a substitute for the amend- that does not have one or two of the ment offered by the gentleman from provisions of the Nunn amendment in Ohio. it, we are not in violation of the motion THE CHAIRMAN: Of course, the gen- offered by the gentlewoman from Colo- tleman, if he is recognized, may offer rado? an amendment. HE PEAKER RO EMPORE T S P T : The MR. [JAMES H.] MORRISON [of Lou- Chair would restate the parliamentary isiana]: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. situation; that no point of order would Chairman. The gentleman secured rec- lie for the reason that the conferees ognition first and asked the parliamen- have not followed the instructions tary inquiry. should the House adopt the motion of the gentlewoman from Colorado. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has not been recognized, except for a par- The motion to instruct is advisory. liamentary inquiry. MR. MORRISON: The gentleman has a Offering Amendment With In- substitute amendment. quiry THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman made the parliamentary inquiry as to § 14.39 A Member recognized whether he could offer an amendment to propound a parliamentary and the Chair responded that the gen- inquiry may not, having se- tleman could offer an amendment if he cured the floor for such lim- was recognized. ited purpose, offer an amendment. Proper Forum for Inquiry On Mar. 12, 1964,(4) Chairman § 14.40 The question of the Chet Holifield, of California, rec- vote required to adopt a spe- ognized Mr. August E. Johansen, cial rule in the House is not of Michigan, to pose a parliamen- properly addressed to the tary inquiry, not to offer an Chairman of the Committee amendment. of the Whole as a parliamen- MR. JOHANSEN: Mr. Chairman, a tary inquiry but should be parliamentary inquiry. addressed to the Speaker in THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will the House. state it. On June 13, 1946,(5) Chairman 4. 110 CONG. REC. 5140, 88th Cong. 2d William M. Whittington, of Mis- Sess. Under consideration was H.R. 8986 dealing with salary increases 5. 92 CONG. REC. 6877, 6878, 79th for federal officers and employees. Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration

12459 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS sissippi, declined to answer an inclined to anticipate a ruling by a quiry concerning matters that Chairman of the Committee of the were the responsibility of the Whole. Speaker of the House to deter- MR. [JOSEPH P.] MONAGHAN [of Mon- mine: tana]: Mr. Speaker—— MR. [FRANCIS H.] CASE of South Da- THE SPEAKER: For what purpose kota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary does the gentleman from Montana inquiry. rise? THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will MR. MONAGHAN: For the purpose of state it. submitting a parliamentary inquiry. MR. CASE of South Dakota: Would it THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will be possible to get a rule making in state it. order a paragraph which had pre- MR. MONAGHAN: Is not the state- viously been stricken from the bill on a ment that was made by the gentleman point of order, unless that rule was from Oregon [Mr. Mott] correct, that if adopted by a two-thirds vote? this rule passes, then only one par- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair may say ticular plan, the plan that we now to the gentleman that that inquiry is have under discussion, may be passed not one that can be answered in the upon by the Congress? Committee of the Whole. It is a matter THE SPEAKER: The Chair is not in that would have to be determined by position to answer that parliamentary the Speaker of the House. inquiry. That is a matter which will come up subsequently under the rules Inquiries Properly Submitted of the House. The Chair would not to Chairman of Committee of seek to anticipate what the Chairman the Whole House of the Committee of the Whole may rule or what the Committee itself may § 14.41 The Speaker in reply to do. The Chair feels very certain that the Chairman of the Committee will be a parliamentary inquiry will governed, as all chairmen of commit- not anticipate a ruling by a tees are, by the rules and precedents of Chairman of the Committee the House. Certainly the Chair would of the Whole. not anticipate his ruling; and in addition to this, the Chair cannot pass (6) On Apr. 11, 1935, Speaker Jo- upon any particular amendment until seph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, de- it has been presented in all its phases.

was H.R. 6777, the Government Cor- § 14.42 It is the responsibility porations appropriation bill for 1947. of the Chairman of the Com- 6. 79 CONG. REC. 5457, 5458, 74th mittee of the Whole to pre- Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was H. Res. 197, providing for the serve decorum in that forum; consideration of H.R. 7260, social se- and the Speaker will not curity legislation. render an anticipatory rul- 12460 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

ing on what exhibits might THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Yes, be in violation of proper de- clearly it is, consistent with the rules corum after the House re- of the House. MR. WALKER: Consistent with the solves itself into the Com- rules of the House. Some of the art- mittee. work that we are about to discuss has Pending consideration of the been ruled by the courts as being per- National Foundation on Arts and fectly appropriate for public display. Humanities Amendments of 1990, My parliamentary inquiry is, will that artwork be permitted under the rules the Speaker was asked a series of of the House and under the provisions parliamentary inquiries con- of free speech to be brought to the floor cerning what exhibits might be for display to the membership during used in the debate. The Speaker the upcoming debate? elaborated on the concept of ‘‘free- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The dom of speech,’’ the constitutional Chair will make a determination based right of the House to make its on the decorum of the House. own rules, and the duty of the MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a Presiding Officer to maintain de- further parliamentary inquiry. Does corum in debate. The Speaker out- the decorum of the House override the provisions of free speech? lined the authority and responsi- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Order bility of the Chairman of the Com- has to be maintained in the House to mittee of the Whole but refused to conduct the business of the House. anticipate his ruling. The pro- MR. WALKER: But that is my ques- ceedings of Oct. 11, 1990,(7) were tion, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to as follows: the question of artwork, which has been declared by the courts as being MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- appropriate artwork, and while being sylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- so referred to by proponents in this de- liamentary inquiry. bate, will it be violative of the decorum THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (8) The of the House for such artwork to be gentleman will state his parliamentary brought to the House floor? inquiry. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Under MR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is with regard to the rules of the House, the Chair the debate on the bill that is about to makes the determination as to whether come up. Under the Rules of the House decorum is proper in the House, and of Representatives, is the right to free the Chair will make that determina- speech protected as defined in the first tion at the proper time. amendment? MR. WALKER: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. So 7. 136 CONG. REC. 28629, 28630, the Speaker is saying that the right to 28650, 28651, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. free speech on the House floor can in 8. Dennis M. Hertel (Mich.). fact be limited by the Chair, at the

12461 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Chair’s discretion, despite the fact that THE CHAIRMAN: The first amend- there are court rulings that indicate ment to the Constitution provides that that the artwork is perfectly appro- Congress shall make no law abridging priate for public display? the freedom of speech. The Chair THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The notes, however, the Constitution also gentleman knows that the Chair has provides that the House may deter- the responsibility for the House to be mine the rules of its proceedings, and in order, and that includes the deco- in clause 2 of rule I, the House has as- rum in the House. The gentleman from signed to the Speaker the sole respon- Pennsylvania knows that. The Chair sibility to preserve order and decorum. will enforce that. . . . In similar circumstances on Sep- MR. WALKER: I have a further par- tember 13, 1989, the Chair advised he liamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. would prevent the display of exhibits THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The that in his judgment might disrupt gentleman will state his parliamentary order or impair decorum in the Cham- inquiry. ber. The current occupation of the MR. WALKER: Since a jury has inter- Chair would intend to apply that preted that this artwork is appropriate standard. for public display, is the Chair going to MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I have permit such artwork to be displayed on a further parliamentary inquiry. the floor during the course of the de- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will bate? state his parliamentary inquiry. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, how Chair has already ruled and explained are we going to make that determina- to the gentleman. The Chair will make tion about what interferes with the de- sure that there is decorum in the House. The Chair will rule at any ap- corum of the House? propriated time that there will be deco- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would not rum in the House. That is the Chair’s entertain any exhibits in this debate. ruling. Pursuant to House Resolution 494 Chair Does Not Speculate on and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the Future Recognition House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for § 14.43 The Chairman of the the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4825. Committee of the Whole does [In Committee.] not speculate, in response to MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. a parliamentary inquiry, as THE CHAIRMAN: (9) The gentleman to whom the Speaker might will state it. recognize to offer a motion MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, am I in the House. permitted to show such photographs on the House floor? Pending a preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole 9. John P. Murtha (Pa.). rise and report the bill back to the 12462 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14

House with the recommendation MR. MCCOLLUM: I do not? that the enacting clause be strick- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman does en, the Chair refused to advise not. what Member might be given rec- MR. MCCOLLUM: Then I do not wish to yield at this point, Mr. Chairman. ognition back in the House to offer Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how a motion to refer before the ques- much time I have remaining. tion would be put on the rec- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from ommendation to strike the enact- Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 5 minutes ing clause. The pertinent pro- remaining. ceedings of Apr. 14, 1994,(10) were MR. [ROBERT S.] WALKER [of Penn- as follows: sylvania]: Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for a parliamentary MR. [BILL] MCCOLLUM [of Florida]: inquiry? Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential MR. MCCOLLUM: I yield to the gen- motion. tleman from Pennsylvania. The Clerk read as follows: MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, par- Mr. McCollum of Florida moves liamentary inquiry. that the Committee do now rise and THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will report the bill back to the House state his parliamentary inquiry. with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. . . . MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, am I correct that should the motion carry, PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES and this is not a motion to kill the bill, MR. MCCOLLUM: Mr. Chairman, I this is simply a motion for the Com- have a parliamentary inquiry. If I mittee to rise, and it can at that point would yield to the gentleman from decide that another amendment can be Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] for the pur- made in order, is that right? poses of one, am I using my time up on THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is to re- the debate we are involved with here port to the House with a recommenda- for purposes of this privileged motion? tion that the enacting clause be strick- THE CHAIRMAN: (11) The gentleman en out, an action that would reject the would be. bill if carried in the House. MR. MCCOLLUM: Mr. Chairman, an- MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, a fur- other parliamentary inquiry: ther parliamentary inquiry: Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to Mr. Chairman, as we established in reserve time or on this motion do I the previous colloquy, I think that have to consume all my 5 minutes? there is also an action available to the THE CHAIRMAN: Under the rules of House at that point to further amend this House, the gentleman does not the bill, is that correct? have the right to reserve time. THE CHAIRMAN: A motion to refer would be in order. 10. 140 CONG. REC. 7453, 7454, 103d MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, it Cong. 2d Sess. would be in order, and it could be a 11. Robert G. Torricelli (N.J.). motion to refer and report back forth-

12463 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

with, which would in effect at that Parliamentary Inquiries Re- point allow an amendment on the garding Budget Act floor? Scorekeeping and Points of THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would say Order that a motion to refer could include that instruction. § 14.44 The Speaker has re- MR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, that sponded to parliamentary in- has precedence over the motion to quiries concerning the appli- strike the enacting clause, is that correct? cation of section 311 (the THE CHAIRMAN: A motion to refer mechanism for enforcement would be in order pending the question of budget aggregates) of the of the House’s concurrence in the rec- Congressional Budget Act ommendation to strike out the enact- and the most recent concur- ing clause. rent resolution on the budget MR. WALKER: I thank the Chair. to upcoming appropriation THE CHAIRMAN: The time of the gen- measures prior to their ac- tleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] tual consideration in the has expired. House. MR. [HAROLD L.] VOLKMER [of Mis- ( ) souri]: I have a parliamentary inquiry, On Mar. 6, 1984, 12 the Speak- Mr. Chairman. er,(13) in response to a parliamen- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will tary inquiry, informed the House state his parliamentary inquiry. the sources of information on MR. VOLKMER: Mr. Chairman, in the which he would rely in deciding event that the motion presently pend- points of order raised against a ing by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. bill on the ground that it would McCollum] would prevail, would any cause the budget ceilings detailed Member then be eligible for recognition in Section 311 of the Congres- to make a motion to refer, or is the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCol- sional Budget Act to be exceeded. lum] the only one that can make that? Under Section 312(a), the Chair THE CHAIRMAN: At that point we must rely on estimates and infor- would be proceeding in the House and mation provided by the Com- it would be for the Speaker to recog- mittee on the Budget in deter- nize. mining the current levels of new MR. VOLKMER: I would ask the budget authority or outlays. In Chair, the Speaker could recognize any the instance shown below it was Member? THE CHAIRMAN: The Speaker would 12. 1130 CONG. REC. 4620–22, 98th have his usual power of recognition Cong. 2d Sess. under the precedents. 13. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

12464 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14 the interrelationship between Mr. Speaker, I note that the Parlia- those estimates and the mandates mentarian’s status report on the cur- of the latest concurrent resolution rent level of total Federal spending, on the budget that created the printed in the Congressional Record of February 22, indicates that there are need for an explanation by the $3,079 million in budget authority and Chair. only $16 million in outlays remaining MR. [JAMIE L.] WHITTEN [of Mis- under the aggregate spending ceilings sissippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the set forth in the concurrent resolution order of the House of Wednesday, Feb- on the budget for fiscal year 1984. ruary 29, 1984, I call up for consider- Under section 311 of the Budget Act, ation in the House as in the Com- once Congress has completed a second mittee of the Whole the joint resolution budget resolution, bills, resolutions or (H.J. Res. 492) making an urgent sup- amendments providing new budget au- plemental appropriation for the fiscal thority or new spending authority as year ending September 30, 1984, for described in section 401(c)(2)(C) of the the Department of Agriculture. Budget Act, would be subject to a point The Clerk read the title of the joint of order against their consideration in resolution. the House if their adoption would cause the aggregate budget authority PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY or outlay ceilings in the most recently MR. [TOM] LOEFFLER [of Texas]: Mr. agreed to budget resolution to be ex- Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. ceeded. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will For fiscal year 1984, as was the case state it. in fiscal year 1983, the first budget MR. LOEFFLER: Mr. Speaker, I make resolution included language which al- this parliamentary inquiry because the lows enforcement of section 311 after bills under consideration today—House October 1 of the fiscal year, if Congress Joint Resolution 492 and House Joint does not adopt a second budget resolu- Resolution 493, which provide for ur- tion by that date. gent supplementals for the Public Law As reported by the Appropriations 480 program and low income energy assistance—are the first appropria- Committee, both bills under consider- tions bills to come before the House ation would cause the aggregate outlay this year. It is my purpose to be cer- ceilings under the first budget resolu- tain that I and other Members fully tion to be breached—although not the understood the procedures that will be aggregate budget authority ceiling— used in scorekeeping for these and fu- which, under enforcement provisions in ture appropriations bills. effect for fiscal year 1983, would have In particular, my inquiry relates to resulted in these bills being subject to the enforcement of section 311 of the a point of order under section 311. Congressional Budget Act. I have sev- Is my understanding correct that eral questions, so if the Chair will bear this year the operation of section 311 with me, I will proceed as expedi- has been further modified by a provi- tiously as possible. sion, section 5(B), contained in House

12465 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Concurrent Resolution 91, the first The gentleman from Texas has re- concurrent resolution on the budget for quested the Chair to interpret the rela- fiscal year 1984—the so-called Fazio tionship between bills providing new language? spending for fiscal year 1984 and the Further, could the Chair explain how provisions of the most recently agreed section 5(B) of House Concurrent Reso- to budget resolution for that fiscal lution 91 affects the applicability of year. section 311 points of order to spending As the gentleman has pointed out in bills, including those before us today, his inquiry. The first concurrent reso- and to any amendments that may be lution the budget for fiscal year 1984 offered to such bills? (H. Con. Res. 91), adopted by the Is it correct that neither the total House and Senate on June 23, 1983, level of outlays nor a committee’s out- provided, in section 5, that it would be- lay allocation under section 302(A) of come the second concurrent resolution the Budget Act would be considered in on the budget for the purpose of sec- determining whether a section 311 tion 311 of the Budget Act. Failing ac- point of order would apply to spending tual adoption of a second budget reso- bills or amendments thereto? lution by October 1, 1983. However, Could the Chair explain the basis section 5(b) of the budget resolution upon which it makes a determination provided for a more limited application of section 311 than would apply if a regarding the discretionary budget au- second budget resolution had actually thority remaining available to commit- been adopted. The Speaker received tees of the House? today from the chairman of the Com- Further, is it not the case that once mittee on the Budget a revised status the Congress adopts a second budget report on the current level of spending resolution for fiscal year 1984, updat- under the budget resolution. The sta- ing and revising the first budget reso- tus report indicates that any measure lution, that the provisions of section providing budget in excess of $6 mil- 5(B) in House Concurrent Resolution lion would cause the total level of out- 91 would no longer be in effect, and lays under the budget resolution to be section 311 would operate as set forth exceeded. The chairman of the Com- in the Budget Act, based on the newly mittee on the Budget included in that established aggregate ceilings and pro- letter a summary and explanation of visions in the second budget resolu- the operation of section 5 of the budget tion? Finally, can one assume that the resolution once outlays are exceeded, Appropriations Committee’s discre- and the Chair will now read that state- tionary budget authority allocation will ment, which is responsive to much of be reduced by the amounts in these the gentleman’s inquiry: ‘‘The proce- bills plus any amendments adopted dural situation with regard to the that increase spending, once they are spending ceiling will be affected this enacted? . . . year by section 5(b) of House Concur- THE SPEAKER: The Chair will re- rent Resolution 91. As I explained dur- spond to the inquiry of the gentleman ing debate on the conference report on from Texas. that resolution, enforcement against

12466 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 14 breaches of the spending ceiling under budget authority, according to tables section 311(a) of the Budget Act will prepared by the Budget Committee, in- not apply where a measure would not serted in the Congressional Record of cause a committee to exceed its appro- March 1, 1984, and included in today’s priate allocation pursuant to section status report. The amount of budget 302(a) of the Budget Act. In the House, authority contained in the joint resolu- the appropriate 302(a) allocation in- tions scheduled for today is well within cludes ‘‘new discretionary budget au- that allocation. As to amendments to thority’’ and ‘‘new entitlement author- those joint resolutions, or to other ity’’ only. It should be noted that under spending measures for fiscal year 1984, this procedure neither the total level of germane amendments which increase outlays nor a committee’s outlay allo- budget authority are in order as long cation is considered. This exception is as they do not cause the measure, as only provided because an automatic amended, to exceed the total remaining budget resolution is in effect and allocation of discretionary budget au- would cease to apply if Congress were thority to the committee with jurisdic- to revise the budget resolution for fis- tion over the measure or amendment. cal year 1984. The Chair’s determination, whether The intent of the section 302(a) dis- a measure or amendment thereto, vio- cretionary budget authority and new lates section 311 as made applicable by entitlement authority subceiling pro- the budget resolution, is based upon estimates made by the Committee on vided by section 5(b) of the resolution the Budget, pursuant to section 311(b) is to protect a committee that has of the Budget Act, of the remaining al- stayed within its spending allocation— location to each committee. Once a bill discretionary budget authority and providing new budget authority or en- new entitlement authority—from titlement authority is enacted, the re- points of order if the total spending maining allocation of the committee ceiling has been breached for reasons with subject matter jurisdiction will be outside of its control. The 302(a) alloca- changed by the net amount of new tions to House committees made pur- budget authority contained in the suant to the conference report on measure, and the Chair is confident House Concurrent Resolution 91 were that the Committee on the Budget will printed in the Congressional Record, keep the Chair currently informed as June 22, 1983, H4326. to the status of each committee. The Chair has been advised that The Chair would finally point out each of the supplemental appropriation that the provisions of section 5 of the joint resolutions scheduled for today, current budget resolution would cease House Joint Resolution 492 and House to apply if Congress does adopt a sec- Joint Resolution 493, provides more ond concurrent resolution on the budg- than $6 million in budget outlays for et for fiscal year 1984. In that event, fiscal year 1984 and would thus cause the actual prohibition contained in sec- the total level of outlays to be exceed- tion 311 of the Budget Act would take ed. The Committee on Appropriations effect, unless modified by any special has, however, a remaining allocation of procedures contained in a second budg- $2 billion, $351 million in discretionary et resolution.

12467 Ch. 31 § 14 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

§ 15. When in Order but no Member has as yet re- (1) Parliamentary inquiries are sponded to his name, or inquir- generally in order at any time, ies relating to the conduct of the subject to the Chair’s discre- vote itself. tionary power of recognition. How- ever, a Member who has the floor may not be interrupted by a par- Interruption of Members in De- liamentary inquiry without his bate (14) consent. § 15.1 A Member may not be If a Member does yield for a taken from the floor by a parliamentary inquiry while he parliamentary inquiry. has the floor, the time consumed (2) by the inquiry and reply is taken On July 22, 1965, Chairman out of his time.(15) And there are John J. Rooney, of New York, advised Mr. John H. Dent, of Penn- times when the Chair will not en- sylvania, that he could not ask a tertain an inquiry because of the parliamentary inquiry while an- occasion, as during the reading of other Member had the floor. the President’s message on the state of the Union.(16) The Chair MR. DENT: Mr. Chairman, a par- has also declined to accept parliamentary inquiry. MR. [WILLIAM H.] AYRES [of Ohio]: liamentary inquiries when a point Mr. Chairman, I do not yield for that ( ) of no quorum is pending, 17 dur- purpose. ( ) ing a roll call, 18 or during a tell- MR. DENT: Mr. Chairman, under the er (19) or division vote,(20) although rules I demand recognition for a par- there are exceptions permitting liamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman [Mr. the asking of a parliamentary in- Ayres, of Ohio] declines to yield. quiry at such times as, for exam- The gentleman will proceed. ple, when the roll has been called § 15.2 One Member may not 14. See §§ 15.1–15.3, infra, and 8 Can- submit a parliamentary in- non’s Precedents § 2455. quiry while another Member 15. See §§ 15.4, 15.5, infra, and Ch. 29, supra. 1. See § 15.16, infra. 16. See § 15.10, infra. 2. 111 CONG. REC. 17931, 89th Cong. 17. See § 15.12, infra. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 18. See § 15.13, infra, and 8 Cannon’s H.R. 8283, amendments to the Eco- Precedents § 3132. nomic Opportunity Act of 1965. See 19. See § 15.17, infra. also106 CONG. REC. 11267, 86th 20. See § 15.19, infra. Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 1960.

12468 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 15

has the floor without his con- Similarly on Mar. 13, 1936,(4) sent. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Ten- On July 25, 1935,(3) Speaker Jo- nessee, reiterated the right of a seph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, dur- Member to speak without inter- ing an acrimonious exchange be- ruption. tween Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state Texas, and Mr. Samuel Dickstein, to the gentleman from Washington of New York, found it necessary to that the Chair is now entertaining a remind the Members that a par- point of order made by the gentleman liamentary inquiry may not inter- from Montana, and cannot recognize the gentleman from Washington to rupt a Member without his con- submit another point of order. sent. MR. [MARION A.] ZIONCHECK [of MR. BLANTON: . . . Oh, there is Washington]: I rise to a question of plenty for the gentleman to do if the personal privilege then. gentleman would only do it. There is THE SPEAKER: The Chair declines to plenty here at home for him to look recognize the gentleman for that pur- after, if he would protect our home pose while the gentleman from Mon- folks and would attend to his own busi- tana has the floor. ness, and let foreign governments at- The gentleman from Montana will tend to their own business. proceed. MR. DICKSTEIN (from his seat): Why MR. [THOMAS] O’MALLEY [of Wis- do you not attend to your own busi- consin]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary ness? inquiry. MR. BLANTON: I am attending to THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from mine and am performing a good job. Wisconsin cannot take the gentleman THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from from Montana off the floor by a par- Texas will suspend. It is distinctly liamentary inquiry. If the gentleman against the rules for a gentleman in from Wisconsin will permit the gen- his seat to interrupt a Member who is tleman from Montana to proceed in speaking.... order, perhaps this matter can be dis- The rules provide that a Member posed of in a very few minutes. must rise and address the Chair.... MR. DICKSTEIN: Mr. Speaker, a par- § 15.3 A Member recognized by liamentary inquiry. the Chair may be interrupted MR. BLANTON: Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for a parliamentary inquiry. by a demand that his words THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from be taken down, but he may New York cannot take the gentleman decline to yield for a par- from Texas off his feet by a parliamentary inquiry without his consent. 4. 80 CONG. REC. 3720, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was H. 3. 79 CONG. REC. 11864, 74th Cong. 1st Res. 447, entitled investigation of old Sess. age pension schemes.

12469 Ch. 31 § 15 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

liamentary inquiry about his floor before I can make a parliamen- words. tary inquiry of the Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, if that Member Chairman Barney Frank, of has the floor. Massachusetts, clarified the rights MR. YOUNG of Alaska: That is a new of a Member holding the floor in rule, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: For the information debate when another Member at- of the Members of the House, the tempted to be recognized for a Chair will point out that one Member parliamentary inquiry. The pro- cannot make a parliamentary inquiry when another Member is speaking (5) ceedings of July 13, 1989, were without that Member’s yielding. When as follows: the floor is not occupied, one may make a parliamentary inquiry of the MR. [DON] YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Chair’s discretion. The Chair wishes to Chairman, will the gentleman yield? point that out for the benefit of the MR. [ROBERT J.] MRAZEK [of New gentleman from Alaska. York]: No, I will not yield. I only have an additional minute. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY MR. YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Chair- MR. YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? man, I have a parliamentary inquiry. MR. MRAZEK: I will not yield. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state it. MR. YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Chair- man, the gentleman used my name. MR. YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Chair- man, when the gentleman refers to an- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman says other gentleman, is it not true that he that he will not yield. can ask the Chair for a point of order MR. MRAZEK: I will not yield, Mr. or a parliamentary inquiry? Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: No. The Chair will MR. YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Chair- state that at that point, if the gen- man, I have a parliamentary inquiry. tleman wishes to have the gentleman’s words taken down, he does not need THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has the gentleman’s permission. stated he will not yield, and the gen- MR. YOUNG of Alaska: I would not do tleman does not yield for that purpose. that, Mr. Chairman. MR. YOUNG of Alaska: But I have a THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. confused two points. A parliamentary THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman has inquiry requires the permission of the not yielded to the gentleman from Member occupying the floor. An objec- Alaska for the purpose of making a tion to his words and a request that parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman they be taken down does not require from New York will proceed. his permission. MR. YOUNG of Alaska: Mr. Chair- man, do I understand that I have to Time Used in Making Par- have permission from a Member on the liamentary Inquiry

5. 135 CONG. REC. 14633, 14634, 101st § 15.4 Although a Member may Cong. 1st Sess. not be interrupted by an- 12470 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 15

other for a parliamentary infor a portion of general de- quiry without his consent, if bate yields for a parliamen- he does yield for a par- tary inquiry, the time con- liamentary inquiry, the time sumed in answering the in- consumed by the inquiry and quiry comes out of the time reply is taken out of his time. for debate. On May 26, 1960,(6) Mr. Donald On Sept. 25, 1975,(9) Mr. Ed- R. Matthews, of Florida, declined ward J. Derwinski, of Illinois, who to yield for a parliamentary in- was controlling part of the time quiry while he had the floor. allotted for general debate on a MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the measure under consideration in poet, Robert Frost, in his poem, ‘‘Road Committee of the Whole, yielded Not Taken,’’ starts out with these time for debate. The following in- lines—— quiry then was directed to the MR. [CLEVELAND M.] BAILEY [of Chair: West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. MR. DERWINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I THE CHAIRMAN: (7) Does the gen- yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from tleman from Florida yield for a par- Alabama (Mr. Buchanan). liamentary inquiry? (Mr. Buchanan asked and was given MR. MATTHEWS: Will it be taken out permission to revise and extend his re- of my time? marks.) THE CHAIRMAN: It will be taken out MR. [JOHN] BUCHANAN [of Alabama]: of the gentleman’s time. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary MR. MATTHEWS: I regret I cannot inquiry. ( ) yield to my beloved colleague. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: (10) The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. § 15.5 Where a Member to MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether whom time has been yielded the making of this parliamentary inquiry is taken out of my time? 6. 106 CONG. REC. 11267, 11268, 86th THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will state Cong. 2d Sess. See also 110 CONG. that it will be taken out of the gentle- REC. 1998, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. man’s time. 5, 1964 [under consideration was H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of Time Used in Parliamentary 1963]; 81 CONG. REC. 3283–90, 75th Inquiry Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8, 1937 [under consideration was H. Res. 83, involv- § 15.6 Time consumed on a ing an investigation of un-American parliamentary inquiry is activities]. 7. Aime J. Forand (R.I.). 9. 121 CONG. REC. 30196, 94th Cong. 8. For further discussion of charging 1st Sess. time in debate, see Ch. 29, supra. 10. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).

12471 Ch. 31 § 15 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

counted against that of the A rhetorical question addressed Member controlling the floor to those present in the Chamber, who yields for that purpose. like a parliamentary inquiry ad- On May 5, 1988,(11) during con- dressed to the Chair, comes out of sideration of an amendment to the the time of the Member holding Defense authorization bill, fiscal the floor. The proceedings of June (13) 1988, the ranking minority mem- 27, 1990, are illustrative: ber of the Committee on Armed MR. [JAMES A.] TRAFICANT [of Services was controlling time on a Ohio]:...Mr. Chairman, I ask pending amendment. Another unanimous consent that the House agree that my question be posed to Member asked that he yield for a anyone who can answer it, and I have parliamentary inquiry. 10 calendar days to receive such an answer. MR. [LES] AUCOIN [of Oregon]: Mr. (14) Chairman, I make a parliamentary in- THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a quiry. proper question to be made in the Committee of the Whole at this time. THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: (12) The gentleman is still recognized Does the gentleman from Alabama under the rule. yield for the purpose of a parliamen- MR RAFICANT tary inquiry? . T : Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that because no MR. [WILLIAM L.] DICKINSON [of Ala- one would answer my question that bama]: Mr. Chairman, if it does not that time not be subtracted from my come out of my time. 10 minutes. THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: It THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- does come out of the time of the gen- vise the gentleman from Ohio, in pro- tleman from Alabama. pounding the question it is a procedure MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Chairman, then that he is entitled to make, and there- I will not yield. fore is, in fact, deducted from his time. THE CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE: The The gentleman is still recognized in gentleman from Alabama declines to support of his amendment under the yield. rule.

§ 15.7 The time used by a Mem- Time Consumed by Parliamen- ber in posing a rhetorical tary Inquiry Prior to Recogni- question and waiting for an tion answer comes out of the time he has been allotted for de- § 15.8 When the Chair enter- bate. tains a parliamentary in-

11. 134 CONG. REC. 9935, 100th Cong. 13. 136 CONG. REC. 15821, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. 2d Sess. 12. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.). 14. Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio).

12472 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 15

quiry before a Member who conference report, see proceedings of has called up a measure in the House of Friday, October 3, 1986.) the House has been recog- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Pursu- ant to House Resolution 577, the gen- nized for debate, the time tleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) consumed by the inquiry is will be recognized for 1 hour and 45 not deducted from the time minutes and the gentleman from New to be allocated to the man- York (Mr. Lent) will be recognized for 1 hour and 45 minutes. ager of the measure. On Oct. 8, 1986,(15) it was dem- PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES onstrated that where both the ma- MR. [PHILIP M.] CRANE [of Illinois]: jority and minority managers of a Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized? conference report are in favor of MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. the report, a Member opposed to THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The the report may claim one-third of gentleman will state his parliamentary the time. An inquiry concerning inquiry. the application of Rule XXVIII MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, is the clause 2, intervened between the time that is now being used being calling up of the report and the taken out of the time that is fixed beginning of debate. The pro- under the rule? THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ceedings were as follows: gentleman has not been recognized yet, so this time is not being taken out of CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2005, the gentleman’s time. SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAU- MR. CRANE: Mr. Speaker, may I in- THORIZATION ACT OF 1986 quire as to whether the majority or mi- MR. [JOHN D.] DINGELL [of Michi- nority managers of this conference re- gan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the port are opposed to it? provisions of House Joint Resolution THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Is the 577, I call up the conference report on gentleman from New York (Mr. Lent) the bill (H.R. 2005) to amend title II of opposed? the Social Security Act and related MR. [NORMAN F.] LENT [of New provisions of law to make minor im- York]: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman provements and necessary technical from New York is supportive of the changes. conference report. The Clerk read the title of the bill. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (16) Pur- gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) suant to the rule, the conference report would be entitled to one-third of the is considered as having been read. (For time if he opposes. MR. CRANE: Mr. Speaker, I do op- 15. 132 CONG. REC. 29714, 99th Cong. pose, and under clause 2, rule XXVIII, 2d Sess. as leader of the opposition, I will be re- 16. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.). served 1 hour and 10 minutes?

12473 Ch. 31 § 15 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. BAUMAN: Mr. Speaker, before gentleman from Illinois will be entitled the gentleman from Maryland decides to that time. whether, under clause 1, rule I, he MR. CRANE: I thank the Chair. would like to ask for a vote on the ap- MR. DINGELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a proval of the Journal, as that rule pro- parliamentary inquiry. vides, could the Chair tell us whether THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The or not he will entertain a motion for a gentleman will state his parliamentary call of the House and at what point he inquiry. might entertain such a motion today? MR. [JOHN] BRADEMAS [of Indiana]: MR. DINGELL: I understand, under the ruling of the Chair, that the time Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? is apportioned, one-third to the gen- THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state it tleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), or is his understanding the gentleman some Member in opposition to the leg- from Indiana (Mr. Brademas) intends islation; one-third to the gentleman to move a call of the House. from New York (Mr. Lent); and one- MR. BAUMAN: So, Mr. Speaker, there third to myself for subsequent appor- will be a call after the 1-minute tionment. speeches? HE PEAKER THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The T S : The gentleman is cor- gentleman is correct. rect. MR. BAUMAN: I thank the Chair.

Before Approval of Journal THE JOURNAL § 15.9 The Speaker has enter- THE SPEAKER: The Chair has exam- tained a parliamentary in- ined the Journal of the last day’s proceedings and announces to the House quiry relating to the order of his approval thereof. business before the approval Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the of the Journal. Journal stands approved. On Feb. 28, 1979,(17) Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr., of Massa- During Reading of Presi- chusetts, was about to announce dential Message his approval of the Journal when § 15.10 Parliamentary inquir- the following inquiry intervened: ies are not necessarily enter- Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Mary- tained during the reading of land]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- the President’s message on liamentary inquiry. the state of the Union. THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from ( ) Maryland will state his parliamentary On Jan. 21, 1946, 18 the Chair inquiry. declined to entertain a parliamen-

17. 125 CONG. REC. 3465, 3466, 96th 18. 92 CONG. REC. 164, 79th Cong. 2d Cong. 1st Sess. Sess.

12474 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 15 tary inquiry during the reading of tion bill until the amendment was the message of the President on offered. the state of the Union and the MR. [JOSEPH E.] KARTH [of Min- budget. nesota]: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. R OBERT ICH M . [R F.] R [of Pennsyl- THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will vania] (interrupting the reading of the state it. message): Mr. Speaker, a parliamen- MR. KARTH: Mr. Chairman, if that tary inquiry. figure cannot be further amended, and THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (19) The the gentleman chooses to pursue his Clerk read a message from the Presi- amendment, and change the figure on dent of the United States, and the page 2, would it then be a proper Chair feels that an inquiry at this time amendment? should not be entertained.(20) THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not pass on that until an amendment described by the gentleman from Min- Time for Inquiries on Amend- nesota is offered. ments Inquiries Following Point of § 15.11 The Chair does not re- No Quorum spond to a parliamentary inquiry concerning the pro- § 15.12 The Chair need not rec- priety of an amendment until ognize a Member to pro- the amendment is offered. pound a parliamentary in- On June 28, 1967,(1) Chairman quiry while a point of no John J. Flynt, Jr., of Georgia, de- quorum is pending. clined to pass upon the propriety On July 23, 1942,(2) it was indi- of an amendment to an appropria- cated that the Chair should decline to hear a parliamentary in- 19. John W. McCormack (Mass.). quiry when a point of order of no 20. Parliamentarian’s Note: The Presi- quorum is pending. dent’s message contained approximately 25,000 words and took about MR. [WRIGHT] PATMAN [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order three hours to read. Under the mod- that a quorum is not present. ern practice, the reading of a Presi- MR. [ADOLPH J.] SABATH [of Illinois]: dential message of such length Mr. Speaker, may I ask unanimous would be done ‘‘scientifically’’—in ab- consent that we call up a resolution? breviated form-to shorten the time. MR. PATMAN: Mr. Speaker, I make 1. 113 CONG. REC. 17754, 90th Cong. the point of order that a quorum is not 1st Sess. Under consideration was present. H.R. 10340, authorizing appropriations for the National Aeronautics 2. 88 CONG. REC. 6540, 77th Cong. 2d and Space Administration. Sess.

12475 Ch. 31 § 15 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. [EARL C.] MICHENER [of Michi- On Oct. 12, 1962,(5) there were gan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in- repeated instances in which the quiry. Speaker, John W. McCormack, of THE SPEAKER: (3) The Chair doubts the authority of the Chair to recognize Massachusetts, permitted par- the gentleman to propound a parliamentary inquiries to interrupt liamentary inquiry when a point of the roll call. order is made unless the gentleman (After completion of first call of the from Texas withholds it. roll:) MR. [WILLIAM H.] AVERY [of Kansas]: Inquiries During Roll Calls Mr. Speaker—— and Votes THE SPEAKER: For what purpose does the gentleman from Kansas rise? § 15.13 The Speaker may in his MR. AVERY: Mr. Speaker, a par- discretion decline to permit liamentary inquiry. a parliamentary inquiry dur- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will ing a roll call. state it. MR. AVERY: What motion is the ( ) On Sept. 6, 1961, 4 Speaker Pro House presently voting on? Tempore John W. McCormack, of THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state Massachusetts, refused to recog- that the parliamentary inquiry is very nize for a parliamentary inquiry pertinent. The Chair will state in re- during a roll call. sponse that the House is voting on a motion which was made by the gen- MR. [PETER F.] MACK [Jr., of Illi- tleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] to nois]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in- recede and concur in a Senate amend- quiry. ment, with an amendment. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The MR. [CLARENCE] CANNON [of Mis- Chair cannot recognize the gentleman souri]: Mr. Speaker, my motion was for for a parliamentary inquiry during a the previous question. rollcall. THE SPEAKER: The House is voting on a motion made by the gentleman § 15.14 A roll call may be inter- from Missouri to recede and concur in rupted for a parliamentary the Senate amendment, with an inquiry under the proper cir- amendment. That is the motion pending at the cumstances and at the dis- present time. cretion of the Chair. The Clerk will proceed to call the roll of those Members who failed to an- 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.). swer on the first rollcall. 4. 107 CONG. REC. 18256, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 5. 108 CONG. REC. 23433, 23434, 87th H.R. 9000, the extension of Public Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration Laws 815 and 875 and the National was H.R. 12900, the public works ap- Defense Education Act. propriations for fiscal 1963.

12476 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 15

(The Clerk resumed calling the roll.) MR. EDMONDSON: Mr. Speaker, is it MR. [WILLIAM C.] CRAMER [of Flor- possible to have a recapitulation of the ida] (interrupting call of the roll): Mr. votes that have been cast in advance of Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. the announced vote? THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state state his parliamentary inquiry. that there has been no vote announced MR. CRAMER: Mr. Speaker, do I un- as yet. Therefore, at this point it is not derstand the parliamentary situation possible to request a recapitulation. to be that the motion now being voted (The Clerk resumed calling the roll.) upon is a motion to recede and concur MR. [WILLIAM M.] COLMER [of Mis- in a Senate amendment with an sissippi] (interrupting the rollcall): Mr. amendment, and a vote ‘‘no’’ is a vote Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. for $205,000 for the Florida Cross- THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will State Barge Canal planning, and a state his parliamentary inquiry. vote of ‘‘aye’’ is against it? MR. COLMER: Mr. Speaker, in the THE SPEAKER: The Chair has already event that a quorum is shown not to be stated that the parliamentary inquiry present, what procedure is then left to is correct in response to the inquiry of the House? the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. THE SPEAKER: The House can wait Avery]. The Chair is confident that the until a quorum arrives, or a motion to Members know what they are voting adjourn would be in order. upon. MR. CANNON: Mr. Speaker, is a (The Clerk resumed calling the roll.) quorum present? Mr. Hardy, Mr. Abbitt, Mr. THE SPEAKER: The rollcall has not as Gathings, Mr. Ashbrook, Mr. Byrnes of yet been completed. Wisconsin, and Mr. Gary changed their MR. CANNON: Mr. Speaker, in the vote from ‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’Mr. Blatnik, absence of a quorum only one motion is Mr. Bow, and Mr. Avery changed their in order, and that is to adjourn. I move vote from ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’ that the House now adjourn. MR. [H. R.] GROSS [of Iowa] (inter- THE SPEAKER: The Chair has not an- rupting the rollcall): Mr. Speaker, I de- nounced the fact that a quorum is not mand the regular order. present as yet. At this point that mo- THE SPEAKER: The regular order is tion is not in order. proceeding. (The Clerk resumed calling the roll.) MR. GROSS (interrupting the rollcall): MR. EDMONDSON (interrupting the Mr. Speaker, I demand the well be rollcall): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary cleared. inquiry. THE SPEAKER: Members will take THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will their places out of the well. . . . state it. MR. [EDMOND] EDMONDSON [of Okla- MR. EDMONDSON: May a recess be homa] (interrupting the rollcall): Mr. declared in advance of the completion Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. of the vote? THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state state his parliamentary inquiry. that [in] the present situation the

12477 Ch. 31 § 15 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Chair may not declare a recess with a device in the House on the ap- rollcall in process. proval of the Journal. Members MR. [CARL] ALBERT [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Chair an- were late in reaching the Cham- nounce the vote. ber to record their votes, and the THE SPEAKER: On this vote there Speaker determined to allow vot- were 84 yeas and 120 nays. ing stations to remain open a bit So a quorum is not present. longer than was customary.

Parliamentarian’s Note: The THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (7) Are leadership had kept the House in there Members in the Chamber who session on this date, hoping that have failed to cast their votes? the two Houses might reach The Chair will advise Members that agreement on certain outstanding the electronic voting stations are still issues and adjourn sine die. The open, and they will remain open for 5 roll call on Mr. Cannon’s motion minutes. was taken very slowly in order MR. [ROBERT E.] BADHAM [of Cali- that all available Members, and fornia]: My card did not work, Mr. Speaker. hopefully a quorum of the House, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: If there might reach the Chamber. When are Members who do not have cards, the call had proceeded for over 50 the Chair will certainly take the word minutes the Majority Leader of those Members and they may vote asked the Speaker to announce in the well. the vote. When it appeared that a MR. [GARRY] BROWN of Michigan: quorum was not present, the Ma- Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that the jority Leader moved to adjourn. rules provide for qualification. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Mem- Parliamentary Inquiry During bers who desire to vote may do so. The voting stations will remain open for 5 a Roll Call minutes. § 15.15 Although the Chair or- MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- land]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- dinarily refuses to recognize liamentary inquiry. for a parliamentary inquiry THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The during a roll call vote, the Chair will take the parliamentary in- Chair may, in his discretion, quiry, although he is not required to do entertain an inquiry relating so during the vote. to the conduct of the call. MR. BAUMAN: The gentleman from Maryland thanks the Chair for his in- On Mar. 14, 1978,(6) a roll call dulgence. vote was being taken by electronic The gentleman from Maryland was aware that the Speaker of the House of 6. 124 CONG. REC. 6840, 6841, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 7. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).

12478 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 15

Representatives had previously an- The gentleman will not be able to nounced rules governing the operation change his vote at this time; he will be of the electronic voting device. Is the able to vote for the first time. If the Chair now announcing that those rules gentleman desires to change his vote, have been permanently changed, and he should come to the well when we that there will be no 5-minute closed take changes at the end of the 5 min- period at the end of all 15-minute roll- utes. calls? THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Five THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The minutes has expired. The Chair will Chair will state that he is not making accept changes for an additional 5 min- a change. He is just adapting the pro- utes. cedure to fit the situation. Messrs. Johnson of Colorado, MR. BAUMAN: I thank the Chair. Schulze, Hagedorn, Ketchum, Wam- MR. [JAMES G.] MARTIN [of North pler, Coughlin, O’Brien, Walker, Col- Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I have a par- lins of Texas, Crane, Del Clawson and liamentary inquiry. Treen changed their vote from ‘‘nay’’ to THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The ‘‘yea.’’ gentleman will state it. Messrs. Kindness, Dickinson, Living- MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, the ston, Martin, and Steers changed their Speaker has announced that the elec- vote from ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’ tronic recording devices are open. They So the motion was agreed to. are, but they have neglected to throw The result of the vote was an- the switch which will allow us to nounced as above recorded. change our vote, which is what I have MR. [MICKEY] EDWARDS of Okla- been trying unsuccessfully to do. homa: Mr. Speaker, I offer a pref- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The erential motion. Chair would advise the gentleman that The Clerk read as follows: the voting stations remain open for Mr. Edwards of Oklahoma moves those Members who have not yet re- to reconsider the vote whereby the corded their votes. Pursuant to the an- Journal was approved. nouncement of the Speaker on March 22, 1976, changes in votes already re- MR. [THOMAS S.] FOLEY [of Wash- corded may not be made from the vot- ington]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the ing stations during the last 5 minutes motion to reconsider on the table. of a vote taken by electronic device, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The but must be made by card from the question is on the motion to table the well. motion to reconsider. MR. MARTIN: That is right, Mr. The question was taken; and the Speaker, because I have not been able Speaker pro tempore announced that to change my vote. the ayes appeared to have it. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Will MR. EDWARDS of Oklahoma: Mr. the gentleman from North Carolina Speaker, on that I demand the yeas (Mr. Martin) bring his card to the and nays. well? The yeas and nays were ordered.

12479 Ch. 31 § 15 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

The vote was taken by electronic de- THE SPEAKER: For what purpose vice, and there were—yeas 308, nays does the gentleman from Maine rise? 91, not voting 35, as follows:... MR. BREWSTER: To propound a par- Mr. McEwen changed his vote from liamentary inquiry. ‘‘present’’ to ‘‘yea.’’ THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will Mr. Beard of Tennessee changed his state it. vote from ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’ MR. BREWSTER: Mr. Speaker, it was So the motion to table was agreed to. my intention to offer a motion to re- The result of the vote was an- commit. nounced as above recorded. MR. [THOMAS L.] BLANTON [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point § 15.16 Where no Member has of order. The Clerk had already begun as yet responded to his name the calling of the roll and had called during the roll call, an inter- the first name, ‘‘Allen.’’ I make the ruption of the call for a par- point of order the gentleman from liamentary inquiry may be Maine cannot interrupt the roll call. THE SPEAKER: The Chair overrules permitted. the point of order. The gentleman from On June 27, 1935,(8) Speaker Maine is entitled to propound a legiti- Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, mate parliamentary inquiry, and the allowed a parliamentary inquiry Chair presumes that the inquiry pro- after the Clerk had commenced pounded is a proper one. The gentleman from Maine will state his par- calling the names on a roll call, liamentary inquiry. although no Member had as yet MR. BREWSTER: Mr. Speaker, do I responded. understand that a motion to recommit cannot be submitted at this stage? THE SPEAKER: The question is on the passage of the bill. THE SPEAKER: Such a motion is not The question was taken; and on a di- in order at this time. vision (demanded by Mr. McFarlane and Mr. O’Malley) there were—ayes § 15.17 The Chair has refused 145, noes 131. to entertain a parliamentary MR. [WILLIAM D.] MCFARLANE [of inquiry during a teller vote. Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the (9) yeas and nays. On June 28, 1967, Chairman The yeas and nays were ordered. John J. Flynt, Jr., of Georgia, in- The Clerk proceeded to call the roll. formed Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, of MR. [RALPH O.] BREWSTER [of Louisiana, that a parliamentary Maine]: Mr. Speaker—— 9. 113 CONG. REC. 17748, 90th Cong. 8. 79 CONG. REC. 10288, 10289, 74th 1st Sess. Under consideration was Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration H.R. 10340, authorizing appropria- was H.R. 8555, the Merchant Marine tions for the National Aeronautics bill. and Space Administration.

12480 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 15 inquiry would not be heard during Ohio [Mr. Kirwan] that the House re- a teller vote. cede from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 2 and concur therein MR. [GEORGE P.] MILLER of Cali- with an amendment. fornia: Mr. Chairman, I demand tell- MR. [JOHN J.] RHODES of Arizona: ers. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the Tellers were ordered, and the Chair- yeas and nays. man appointed as tellers Mr. The yeas and nays were ordered. Roudebush and Mr. Miller of Cali- fornia. MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: Those in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will from Indiana [Mr. Roudebush] to the state his parliamentary inquiry. amendment offered by the gentleman MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, is it the from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] will parliamentary situation at the present pass through the tellers. time in regard to the amendment No. MR. WAGGONNER: Mr. Chairman, a 2 such that it would provide almost $1 parliamentary inquiry. billion for construction by the Corps of THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee is in Engineers, and that we are voting on the process of voting, and no par- these funds without the $875,000 for liamentary inquiry can be made at this Dickey-Lincoln? time. THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that the House has before it the mo- § 15.18 The Speaker may enter- tion by the gentleman from Ohio that tain a parliamentary inquiry the House recede from its disagree- after the yeas and nays are ment to the amendment of the Senate numbered 2, and concur therein with ordered, but debate on the an amendment, as follows: In lieu of pending question is not in the sum proposed, insert order. ‘‘$967,599,000’’. On Oct. 25, 1967,(10) Speaker MR. GIAIMO: In other words, Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massa- Speaker, this takes out the $875,000 for Dickey-Lincoln? chusetts, entertained an inquiry THE SPEAKER: That is not within the after the yeas and nays were or- prerogative of the Chair to state. dered, but he did not allow Mr. MR. GIAIMO: Mr. Speaker, can we get Robert N. Giaimo, of Connecticut, an explanation from the committee? to debate. THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state that it is too late for that. However, it THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from is the understanding of the Chair that would be the result. 10. 113 CONG. REC. 29943, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was § 15.19 A Member may not in- H.R. 11641, a public works appro- terrupt a division vote with a priation for fiscal 1968. parliamentary inquiry.

12481 Ch. 31 § 15 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

On Feb. 13, 1946,(11) Mr. How- of Illinois, for a division vote, but ard W. Smith, of Virginia, offered before the Chair called for the a resolution raising a question of Members to rise, Mr. William D. privilege of the House to correct Ford, of Michigan, interposed a the Congressional Record after an- parliamentary inquiry. other Member, Charles R. Savage, THE CHAIRMAN: (13) The question is of Washington, had allegedly in- on the amendment offered by the gen- serted something unauthorized tleman from Illinois [Mr. Erlenborn] to therein. During the division vote the amendment offered by the gentle- demanded by Mr. Smith, Mr. woman from Oregon [Mrs. Green]. Hugh De Lacy, of Washington, at- The question was taken and the Chairman announced the Chair was in tempted to interpose a parliamen- doubt. tary inquiry, which Speaker Sam MR. ERLENBORN: Mr. Chairman, I Rayburn, of Texas, held out of ask for a division. order. MR. WILLIAM D. FORD: Mr. Chair- man, a parliamentary inquiry. MR. SMITH of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division. THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will state it. The House proceeded to divide. MR. WILLIAM D. FORD: In the event MR. DE LACY (interrupting the divi- that the amendment offered by the sion): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary in- gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Erlen- quiry. born] which is offered to the amend- THE SPEAKER: The House is dividing ment offered by the gentlewoman from now. Nothing else is in order now. Oregon [Mrs. Green] is defeated at this time and the amendment offered by § 15.20 A parliamentary in- the gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. quiry may not interrupt a di- Green] is also defeated, would the Er- vision; but such inquiries are lenborn amendment then be in order if entertained until the Chair offered separately? asks those in favor of the MR. [HAROLD R.] COLLIER [of Illi- proposition to rise. nois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Is a parliamentary inquiry in order at ( ) On Sept. 29, 1966, 12 after the this time during the vote? request of Mr. John N. Erlenborn, THE CHAIRMAN: The parliamentary inquiry was made before the Chair put 11. 92 CONG. REC. 1274, 1275, 79th the question pursuant to the demand Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Er- was H. Res. 523. lenborn] for a division. 12. 112 CONG. REC. 24457, 89th Cong. In response to the parliamentary in- 2d Sess. Under consideration was quiry by the gentleman from Michigan, H.R. 15111, economic opportunity amendments of 1966. 13. Daniel J. Flood (Pa.).

12482 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31 § 15

the Chair will state that the amend- latter amendment as perfecting ment may be offered later as a sepa- and it was adopted by a voice rate amendment. vote. The Chair then announced Parliamentary Inquiry Is Not that the pending question was on ‘‘Intervening Business’’ Pre- the underlying motion to strike cluding Demand for a Divi- out and insert which had been offered by Mrs. Millicent Fenwick, sion Vote on a Pending of New Jersey. The Chair declared Amendment that the ayes had prevailed on a § 15.21 A parliamentary in- voice vote when a parliamentary quiry as to the status of the inquiry intervened. Chair’s announcement of the MRS. FENWICK: Mr. Chairman, I am result of a voice vote and the not sure but that I have let the time go effect of the adoption of an by, but I offer an amendment. amendment on subsequent The Clerk read as follows: amendments which might be Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick: Page 11, strike out lines 1 offered is not such ‘‘inter- through 12 and insert in lieu thereof: vening business’’ as to pre- ‘‘(d) Not more than 50 per centum vent a demand for a division of the aggregate mortgage amounts approved in appropriation Acts may vote. be allocated (1) for use with respect to existing previously occupied dwell- During consideration of a bill ings which have not been substan- for amendment under the five- tially rehabilitated and (2) for use minute rule in Committee of the with respect to new, unsold dwelling (14) units the construction of which com- Whole on Mar. 21, 1975, some menced prior to the enactment of confusion was apparent about the this Act. Not more than 10 per cen- status of pending amendments tum of the aggregate mortgage amounts approved in appropriation and the order of voting. A motion Acts may be allocated with respect to to strike out a paragraph in the dwelling units with appraised values section which was open for in excess of $38,000.’’... amendment and insert new lan- MR. [LES] AUCOIN [of Oregon]: Mr. guage had been first offered, fol- Chairman, I offer a perfecting amend- lowed by a ‘‘perfecting amendment. ment’’ which could have been con- The Clerk read as follows: strued as a substitute or as a per- Perfecting amendment offered by fecting amendment to the under- Mr. AuCoin: On page 11, line 1, strike out ‘‘25’’ and insert in lieu lying text. The Chair treated the thereof ‘‘30’’. On page 11, line 3, insert ‘‘with re- 14. 121 CONG. REC. 7950, 7952, 7953, spect to existing units and’’ imme- 94th Cong. 1st Sess. diately after ‘‘use’’.

12483 Ch. 31 § 15 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

THE CHAIRMAN: (15) The Chair will Mr. Chairman, a further parliamen- treat this amendment as a perfecting tary inquiry. amendment to the paragraph of the THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman will bill and it will be voted on first. . . . state his parliamentary inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on MR. ASHLEY: It is on this basis, Mr. the perfecting amendment offered by Chairman, that I misunderstood the the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. parliamentary situation. I had thought AuCoin). that the gentleman’s amendment was The perfecting amendment was in the nature of a substitute. Inas- agreed to. much as the gentleman’s amendment THE CHAIRMAN: The question is on was adopted, is it also the fact that the the amendment offered by the gentle- amendment of the gentlewoman from woman from New Jersey. New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) was adopted? The question was taken; and the THE HAIRMAN Chairman announced that the ayes ap- C : Yes, thereby deleting the language which contained the peared to have it. perfecting amendment of the gen- MR. [THOMAS L.] ASHLEY [of Ohio]: tleman from Oregon. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary in- MR. ASHLEY: In that case, Mr. Chair- quiry. man, I would ask for a division on the Does the Chairman mean the vote. amendment, as amended? MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will ad- land]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of vise the gentleman that the amend- order. ment offered by the gentleman from THE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) was a perfecting Maryland will state his point of order. amendment to section 9(d) on page 11, MR. BAUMAN: It is too late. Other line 1 through line 8. The amendment business had intervened. offered by the gentlewoman from New THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will rule Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) is an amend- that no further business had inter- ment which would strike all of the lan- vened, that at the instant when the guage in the paragraph of the bill and Chair was ready to declare the vote on substitute her language. the amendment of the gentlewoman The Chair will now preserve the from New Jersey, the gentleman from rights of Members who were standing Ohio (Mr. Ashley) was on his feet seek- at the time of the vote when the Chair ing recognition with respect to whether put the question and stated that the to ask for a division vote on that amendment offered by the gentle- amendment. The Chair has stated that woman from New Jersey (Mrs. he would protect the rights of the gen- Fenwick) had carried. tleman from Ohio. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. The question is on the amendment of Ashley) seek recognition? the gentlewoman from New Jersey MR. ASHLEY: Yes, I do, Mr. Chair- (Mrs. Fenwick). man. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Ashley) there 15. Robert N. Giaimo (Conn.). were—ayes 34, noes 60.

12484 INDEX TO PRECEDENTS

Affecting, point of order as Amendments (see also Appropria- amendments offered en bloc, §§ 1.13, tions bills, points of order 1.14 against amendments to)—Cont. amendments to appropriations bills, points of order against a paragraph §§ 1.19–1.21 considered before amendments to the amendments to legislative bills, paragraph, §§ 5.1, 6.14, 6.15 §§ 1.24–1.26 portion subject to point of order sub- appointment of conferees does not lie, jects entire amendment to point of § 1.29 order, §§ 1.24, 1.25 appropriations bills, §§ 1.15–1.18 recognition to offer not subject to point committee reports failing to comply of order, § 1.32 with the Ramseyer rule, § 1.45 reinserting text stricken by a point of conferee appointments not affected, order, §§ 1.22, 1.26 § 1.29 reservation of point of order to be re- conference reports, § 1.27 solved before amendments are ad- debate, relevancy in, § 1.44 mitted, §§ 3.5, 5.2 recognition by Chair not subject to point of order, §§ 1.30–1.32 withdrawal by unanimous consent, al- section of bill where only a portion of lowed by Chair while point of order the section subject to a point of pending, §§ 1.6, 11.5 order, § 1.23 where bill open for amendment at any unfunded mandates, § 1.57 point, points of order against any Amendments (see also Appropria- provision to be resolved before tions bills, points of order amendments offered, §§ 5.3, 5.5–5.8 against amendments to) Amendments, timing of points of Chair may rule out on his own initia- order against tive, § 6.11 generally, § 6 Clerk’s failure to transmit copies to considered as read, where amendment majority and minority not subject to is, by unanimous consent, point of point of order, §§ 6.12, 6.13 order must follow disposition of committee members receive priority in unanimous-consent request, §§ 6.5, recognition to make a point of order 6.6 against an amendment, § 1.4 debate, if Chair does not recognize for, copies, failure of Clerk to transmit to point of order still viable, § 6.30 majority and minority, not subject to debate, point of order must come be- point of order, §§ 6.12, 6.13 fore, §§ 6.7, 6.8, 6.16, 6.31–6.37 debate not in order, a point of order must be made and not reserved, debate, recognition for, does not pre- § 3.30 clude point of order, §§ 6.23, 6.24 not usually admitted while reservation diligence in seeking recognition, Mem- of point of order pending, §§ 3.5, 5.2 ber showing, may make point of parliamentary inquiry regarding effect order, §§ 6.38–6.42 of adopting amendment on further intervening business, as affecting, amendments, § 14.10 §§ 6.17–6.22, 6.25–6.29, 6.36, 6.37

12485 Ch. 31 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Amendments, timing of points of Appealing from Chair’s decision on a order against—Cont. point of order—Cont. parliamentary inquiry, in relation to, Chair sustained on appeal by voice §§ 6.3, 6.4, 6.20, 6.21 vote, § 13.7 point of order, earlier, having already demand for yeas and nays, Chair’s been resolved, § 6.22 count for second, not subject to ap- previous question, as affecting, § 6.37 peal, § 13.13 reading, interrupting with point of form of question on appeal, § 13.9 order, § 6.10 merits not considered, only validity of reading, point of order not to be made Chair’s ruling on the point of order, before Clerk’s, § 6.2 § 13.2 reading, point of order to follow imme- procedural request, Chair’s count of diately after, §§ 6.1, 6.16, 6.31–6.37 Members supporting, not subject to reading, where dispensed with by appeal, § 13.14 unanimous consent, point of order quorum, appeal does not lie against must follow disposition, §§ 6.5, 6.6 Chair’s refusal to entertain point of no, § 13.5 reading, where not completed, Chair may require re-reading, § 6.9 quorum, Chair’s count to determine not subject to appeal, § 13.12 reading, where point of order inter- recognition, within Chair’s discretion, rupts, Chair may decline to rule not subject to appeal, § 13.11 until reading completed, § 6.10 reconsider, motion to, vote on which recognition, point of order not too late appeal was tabled, itself tabled, after recognition for debate, but be- § 13.16 fore debate begins, §§ 6.7, 6.23, 6.24 second to support a demand for the recognition for debate not having been yeas and nays, Chair’s count to de- granted, point of order may be made termine not subject to appeal, § 13.13 even if debate has begun, § 6.30 subject of vote on appeal is ruling, not recognition for point of order, Member merits of proposition giving rise to seeking, on his feet at the proper the point of order, § 13.2 time, point of order in order, §§ 6.38– tabled, appeal, on motion, § 13.15 6.42 withdrawal of appeal, § 13.10 seeking recognition at the appropriate yeas and nays, Chair’s count to deter- time protects right to offer, §§ 6.38– mine second on demand for, not sub- 6.42 ject to appeal, § 13.13 unanimous-consent request, as affect- Appropriations bills, points of order ing, §§ 6.17–6.19, 6.25, 6.26, 6.36 against amendments to Appealing from Chair’s decision on a authorization for appropriation, burden point of order of proof on amendment’s proponent, generally, §§ 13.1, 13.3 § 8.11 Chair sustained on appeal, §§ 13.6, legislation, burden of proof that an 13.7 amendment does not constitute, falls Chair sustained on appeal by division on amendment’s proponent, §§ 8.7– vote, § 13.6 8.10

12486 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31

Appropriations bills, points of order Appropriations bills, points of order against amendments to—Cont. against portions of —Cont. legislation, where point of order alleges proviso, point of order against having amendment to general appropriation been considered, a point of order bill constitutes, if subject to two in- against the paragraph in which it terpretations, the Chair will sustain appears is not too late, § 5.13 the point of order, pending addi- proviso, point of order if made against tional showing by proponent as to only, does not require the Chair to the better view, §§ 8.9, 8.10 strike the entire paragraph, § 1.18 portion of amendment, when subject to proviso, when subject to point of order, a point of order, subjects entire subjects entire paragraph to point of amendment to the point of order, order, §§ 1.16, 1.17, 1.21 §§ 1.19, 1.20 reinserting portions of a paragraph not ‘‘tax provision’’ under Rule XXI clause subject to a point of order by amend- 5(b), points of order against, burden ment, § 1.22 on Member making point of order, reservation not allowed, point of order § 8.15 must be pressed immediately after Appropriations bills, points of order reading, §§ 3.27, 3.29 against portions of resolved before debate under pro forma amendments, points of order not ad- amendments, § 1.56 mitted once consideration of amend- rule protecting some provisions, leav- ments has begun, §§ 5.10, 5.11 ing others vulnerable, § 10.7 authorization, lack of, points of order rule waiving prohibition on legislation for, must be made to specific text, and unauthorized appropriations, not generally, § 8.6 §§ 10.9, 10.11 authorization, lack of, burden of proof sections, where paragraphs contained in a section, point of order must still on Appropriations Committee to be made immediately after para- show specific authorization, § 8.5 graph to be challenged, § 5.26 exception to requirements regarding ‘‘tax provision’’ under Rule XXI clause the time to offer points of order 5(b), burden on Member making made where Member seeking rec- point of order to show tax con- ognition at the appropriate time, sequences, § 8.15 §§ 5.23, 5.24 vacating proceedings where language made before any amendments to the stricken from bill after point of order paragraph are considered, §§ 5.1, sustained, § 9.19 6.15 waiving points of order against a spe- made during general debate, § 5.9 cific section by unanimous consent, made only after paragraph is read, § 9.5 §§ 5.14–5.22, 5.26 where bill open to amendment at any modification of portion by unanimous time, §§ 5.5–5.8 consent has been allowed to resolve where two points of order are raised, point of order, § 3.28 one against a paragraph, the second parliamentary inquiry regarding suffi- against a proviso within the para- ciency of funds after point of order graph, the Chair must rule on the sustained, not admitted, § 14.18 first, § 1.15

12487 Ch. 31 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Budget Act (see Congressional Budg- Chair (see also Appealing from et Act, points of order arising Chair’s decision on a point of under) order; Deciding points of order; Burden of proof on points of order Resolving points of order before appropriations bills and amendments, decision by the Chair)—Cont. point of order against as being a ‘‘tax provision’’ under rule XXI clause amendments, Chair may rule out on 5(b), unlike other points of order his own initiative, § 6.11 against such bills and amendments, clarification of ruling in the Record, burden on Member making point of §§ 7.23, 7.24 order to show tax consequences, conference report, points of order aris- § 8.15 ing under a single rule, Chair may authorization for appropriations, bur- require all to be stated at once, den to show specific authority on Ap- § 4.18 propriations Committee, § 8.5 constitutional questions, not decided authorization for appropriations, point by, §§ 1.37–1.39, 13.4 of order must be made against precise text, § 8.6 debate, rules concerning propriety in authorization for appropriations made debate, Chair takes initiative in en- in amendment, burden to show spe- forcing, §§ 9.17, 9.18 cific authority on amendment’s pro- decides only question raised by point of ponent, § 8.11 order, not collateral questions raised Congressional Budget Act, points of by interpretation of ruling, § 1.28 order arising under some sections of, drafting of legislative language, Chair governed by Budget Committee esti- does not rule on adequacy, § 1.43 mates, § 8.14 effect of legislative language, Chair germaneness of amendment, burden on does not rule on, § 1.42 amendment’s proponent, §§ 8.1–8.3 enforces on own initiative at his discre- germaneness of amendment, where tion, §§ 9.17, 9.18 proponent concedes point of order, § 8.3 House proceedings, point of order aris- legislation in an amendment to an ap- ing under, while in Committee of the propriations bill, burden on amend- Whole to be decided by Speaker, ment’s proponent, §§ 8.7–8.10 § 1.46 legislation in an appropriations bill, hypothetical questions, Chair does not burden on reporting committee, § 8.4 rule on, § 1.40 ‘‘tax provision’’ in violation of Rule XXI parliamentary inquiry, Chair has dis- clause 5(b), unlike other points of cretion to recognize Member for, order against appropriations bills, §§ 14.1, 14.2, 14.6 burden on Member making point of preferential status, Chair may deter- order to show tax consequences, mine qualification of a motion for, on § 8.15 own initiative, § 8.12 Chair (see also Appealing from protects Members’ rights on own initia- Chair’s decision on a point of order; Deciding points of order; tive, § 1.3 Resolving points of order before recognition of Member by, not subject decision by the Chair) to point of order, §§ 1.30–1.32 admits multiple points of order at his reservation of points of order allowed discretion, § 1.8 at Chair’s discretion, §§ 3.15–3.18

12488 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31

Chair (see also Appealing from Conference reports—Cont. Chair’s decision on a point of Chair may require all points of order order; Deciding points of order; against a report arising under a sin- Resolving points of order before gle rule, to be stated before ren- decision by the Chair)—Cont. dering a decision, § 4.18 reverse early decision, has authority debate on points of order against mo- to, § 1.5 tion to recommit a conference report where points of order waived, Chair limited to point of order, not to ex- will not rule on whether point of tend to merits, § 7.18 order would have applied absent the nongermane provisions, points of order waiver, § 10.17 against, §§ 4.21, 4.22 Clerk open conference, point of order against amendments, failure of Clerk to trans- failure to conduct, § 4.17 mit copies of amendments to major- point of order lies after reading and be- ity and minority not subject to point fore reading of managers’ statement, of order, §§ 6.12, 6.13 §§ 4.10–4.13 Committee ruled out of order under Budget Act, jurisdiction, as basis for point of order §§ 1.27, 4.14 under special rule, § 1.23 scope of conference, Chair does not procedure, point of order against, in admit parliamentary inquiry regard- the House or Committee of the Whole, § 1.47, 1.48 ing the effect of a motion to instruct Ramseyer rule, point of order arising on, § 14.38 under, § 1.45 signatures, point of order against im- Committee of the Whole, point of proper, must be made prior to con- order during proceedings in sideration, § 4.20 House proceedings, point of order aris- where proceedings are postponed, ing under, not decided by Chair in §§ 4.15, 4.16 Committee of the Whole, § 1.46 where ruled out of order, acting on Committee on Rules, see Rules Com- amendment in disagreement, § 1.27 mittee Congressional Budget Act, points of Conferees order arising under Speaker’s appointment not subject to avoided by special rule making in point of order, § 1.29 order an unreported measure, Conference reports § 10.23 against entire report, points of order, Budget Committee, policy of, con- considered before points of order cerning, § 10.4 against portions of the conference re- conference reports, against entire, con- port, § 4.14 sidered before other points of order appropriations contained in, point of against portions of the conference re- order does not lie if the version of the bill passed by the House con- port, § 4.14 tained the same provision, § 4.23 conference reports, against new spend- appropriations contained in, points of ing contained in, § 1.27 order lie only against if arising from consideration of a measure, where a Senate amendment, not the Senate point of order arising under the Act legislative bill before the conferees, applies to, must be raised when § 4.19 measure called up, §§ 4.2, 4.3

12489 Ch. 31 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Congressional Budget Act, points of Debate—Cont. order arising under—Cont. point of no quorum in Committee of criteria for decisions on points of order the Whole, Chair may entertain dur- arising under, § 8.14 ing, § 12.12 parliamentary inquiries regarding, point of no quorum in House, Chair § 14.44 may not entertain during, § 12.14 Rules Committee, requirement regard- point of order may interrupt, § 11.1 ing statement of estimated costs does reservation of point of order does not not apply to resolution which ‘‘self- grant Member reserving control of executes’’ new budget authority, any time, § 3.4 §§ 10.21, 10.22 time for parliamentary inquiry, as af- waived, notwithstanding violations of, fecting allocations of time for debate, by special rule, § 10.6 §§ 7.8, 7.16 Consideration, voting on, as way of time for point of order, as affecting al- determining certain points of location of time for debate, §§ 7.13– order, § 1.57 7.15 Consistency, Chair does not rule on Debating points of order amendment to amendment previously Chair’s discretion to allow, §§ 7.1, 7.2, adopted, § 1.35 7.4–7.7, 7.17 amendment to authorization-appro- clarification of Chair’s ruling in the priations process, § 1.36 Record, §§ 7.23, 7.24 bill, to law it amends, § 1.34 ‘‘colloquies’’ not permitted, § 7.17 Constitution (see also Constitutional concession of point during debate, amendments, amending resolu- Chair rules unless another Member tions proposing to the states) desires to be heard against the point Revenue bill origination requirement of order, § 7.20 presents question of privilege, not debate time on measure or amend- point of order, § 1.39 ment, debate on point of order as af- Constitutional amendments, amend- fecting, §§ 7.13–7.15 ing resolutions proposing to the extension of remarks not allowed states, § 1.33 under, §§ 7.21, 7.22 Debate House rule may be read during, if it call of the House, Chair may allow mo- relates to the point of order, § 7.19 tion for in his discretion, but a point limited to point of order, may not go to of no quorum cannot lie, § 12.14 merits, §§ 7.9–7.12, 7.18 irrelevant remarks in, point of order prior to Member making point of order, lies against, § 1.44 Chair may admit Members’ argu- merits of provision allowed under res- ments either orally or in writing, ervation, not allowed once point of § 1.7 order made, § 3.2 revision and extension not allowed in parliamentary inquiry does not give debate on point of order, §§ 7.21, 7.22 control over time, Member making revision of Chair’s ruling in Record, may not yield, § 14.5 §§ 7.23, 7.24

12490 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31

Debating points of order—Cont. Deciding points of order (see also scope of debate limited to point of Burden of proof on points of order, not to extend to merits of lan- order; Resolving points of order guage against which point of order before decision by the Chair)— made, §§ 7.9–7.12, 7.18 Cont. Senate rule may be read during, if it drafting of legislative language, Chair relates to the point of order, § 7.19 does not rule on adequacy of, § 1.43 time not to be reserved or yielded, effect of legislative language, Chair §§ 7.2, 7.4–7.7 does not rule on, § 1.42 time, to be secured by seeking recogni- germaneness, analysis limited to text, tion from the Chair, §§ 7.3, 7.17 not possible effects, § 8.2 Deciding points of order (see also hypothetical questions, Chair does not Burden of proof on points of rule on, § 1.40 order; Resolving points of order precedents, Chair follows, § 1.1 before decision by the Chair) proponent’s intentions in offering an ambiguities, Chair does not rule on, amendment as a basis for ruling, § 1.41 § 8.13 by voting on consideration, rather than revision of Chair’s decision in Record, ruling by Chair, § 1.57 §§ 7.23, 7.24 Chair decides only when required to do Unfunded Mandates Act, resolved by so, § 1.6 vote on consideration, § 1.57 clarification of Chair’s decision in Effect of enactment, not subject to Record, §§ 7.23, 7.24 point of order, § 1.42 collateral questions raised by interpre- En bloc amendments, §§ 1.13, 1.14 tation of ruling not decided, only Federal income tax rate increase, question raised by point of order, see Tax rate increase § 1.28 Germaneness committee procedure, Chair does not anticipatory ruling on, § 6.4 usually decide, §§ 1.47, 1.48 burden of proof in showing, §§ 8.1–8.3 committee reports, sufficiency of, nongermane provisions, points of order §§ 1.45, 1.49 against, §§ 4.21, 4.22 concession of point, Chair rules unless parliamentary inquiry regarding, not another Member wishes to argue sufficient to rule out of order absent against the point, § 7.20 a point of order, § 6.3 Congressional Budget Act, points of rule altering ordinary test for, §§ 10.8, order arising under some sections of, 10.10 Budget Committee estimates provide ruling based on text of amendment basis for ruling, § 8.14 only, § 8.2 consistency of bill with existing law, House Rule I clause 4 governing § 1.34 points of order, § 1 introduction consistency of text to text it amends, Hypothetical questions, Chair does Chair does not decide, §§ 1.35, 1.36 not rule on, § 1.40 constitutional questions, not decided by Income tax rate increase, see Tax Chair, §§ 1.37–1.39 rate increase

12491 Ch. 31 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Jurisdiction, point of order based on Making points of order (see also Re- Committee’s, created by special serving points of order)—Cont. rule, § 1.23 reservation by one Member does not Making parliamentary inquiries prohibit another Member from mak- amendment, regarding, not admitted ing the same point of order, § 3.10 until amendment is pending, § 15.11 specific, Member should be, as to lan- demand for division vote, parliamen- guage against which he is, § 2.2 tary inquiry does not constitute in- while one point of order already pend- tervening business for purpose of ing, Chair may admit another at his precluding, § 15.21 discretion, § 1.8 interrupting another Member who con- words in debate, point of order not to trols the time, not allowed without be made against, proper remedy is Member’s consent, §§ 15.1–15.3 demand that words be taken down, Journal, admitted before the Journal § 1.50 has been approved, § 15.9 Multiple points of order pending at point of no quorum, not necessarily ad- one time mitted while pending, § 15.12 Chair’s discretion to allow, §§ 1.8, 1.11 presidential message, not necessarily Chair need only sustain one to dis- admitted during reading of, § 15.10 pense with consideration of all oth- time used in, taken from the allocation ers, §§ 1.10, 1.12 of the Member yielding for that pur- order of consideration and decision at pose, §§ 15.4–15.7 Chair’s discretion, § 1.9 time used in, where no one has been where one made against a proviso and recognized for debate, time not sub- another made against the paragraph tracted from allocation for debate, containing the proviso, the Chair § 15.8 must strike the entire paragraph if vote, making a parliamentary inquiry he sustains the point of order, § 1.15 during a, §§ 15.13–15.21 ‘‘One-minute’’ speeches, refusal of Making points of order (see also Re- recognition by Speaker for, not serving points of order) subject to point of order, § 1.30 Committee members have priority of Parliamentary inquiry (see also Par- recognition in, against proposed liamentary inquiry, topics admit- amendments, § 1.4 ted or not admitted by way of; distinguish from parliamentary in- Making parliamentary inquiries) quiry, Member should, § 2.3 answer, Chair may delay in providing interrupting debate, Member may be in order to review the precedents, recognized by Chair while another §§ 14.24–14.28 Member controls time, § 4.24 anticipatory ruling in response to, § 6.4 manager may make against own bill, appeals to Chair’s response not admit- §§ 1.54, 1.55 ted, § 14.4 priority recognition in, to Committee Chair, inquiry properly submitted to, members against amendments, § 1.4 § 14.14 recognition by Chair required before, Chair answers, official reporters do not § 2.1 read back proceedings, § 14.14

12492 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31

Parliamentary inquiry (see also Par- Parliamentary inquiry, topics admit- liamentary inquiry, topics admitted or not admitted by way of— ted or not admitted by way of; Cont. Making parliamentary inquir- advisory opinion on future ruling, not ies)—Cont. admitted, §§ 14.19, 14.33, 14.34, Committee of the Whole, procedure 14.37 and actions, inquiries regarding, amendment, effect of adoption on fur- properly addressed to the Chair, not ther amendment, §§ 14.10, 14.37 the Speaker, §§ 14.41, 14.42 amendment process, § 14.33 Congressional Budget Act, inquiries re- Clerk’s progress in reading a docu- garding, § 14.44 ment, § 14.12 debate time, as affected by, §§ 7.8, 7.16 committee policy, not admitted, § 14.29 delay, Chair may, response to, committee report, sufficiency of, §§ 14.24–14.28 §§ 14.9, 14.13 desk, Speaker may examine matter at conference committee, scope of, not ad- the, in answering an inquiry, § 14.13 mitted, § 14.38 House procedure and actions, inquiries Congressional Budget Act, § 14.44 regarding properly addressed to the consistency of House actions, not ad- Speaker, not the Chair of the Com- mitted, §§ 14.20, 14.21 mittee of the Whole, §§ 14.40, 14.43 construction of proposition, § 14.36 point of order, Chair explains effect of desk, status of matters at the, § 14.13 ruling on prior, in response to parliamentary inquiry, § 14.6 effect of adopting an amendment, not admitted, § 14.22 point of order takes precedence over, § 14.3 effect of striking material from a general appropriations bill on a point of recognition for, in Chair’s discretion, §§ 14.1, 14.2, 14.6 order as to sufficiency of funds, not admitted, § 14.18 recognition for, limited to parliamentary inquiry, does not allow Member historical context of pending matter, recognized to offer amendment, not admitted, § 14.15 § 14.39 House legislative program, not admit- reporters, inquiries do not request ted by Chair in Committee of the that, read back portions of the Whole, § 14.30 Record, § 14.14 hypothetical questions, not admitted, response by Chair insufficient to rule §§ 14.16, 14.17, 14.33 nongermane amendment out of order legal effect of proposed measure, not absent a point of order, § 6.3 admitted, § 14.35 yielding time under a parliamentary meaning of proposition, not admitted, inquiry not allowed, § 14.5 § 14.36 Parliamentary inquiry, topics admit- order of business, § 14.7 ted or not admitted by way of parliamentary situation, § 14.14 admitted, generally, §§ 14.7–14.13 point of order, as to timing of, § 14.11 admitted, generally not, §§ 14.15– privileged status, advisory opinion on, 14.23, 14.29–14.38 of resolution not yet pending, § 14.34

12493 Ch. 31 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Parliamentary inquiry, topics admit- Point of no quorum—Cont. ted or not admitted by way of— parliamentary inquiry regarding num- Cont. ber of Members in the Chamber not recognition, inquiry regarding Chair’s in order when a point of no quorum intent for future, not admitted, would not lie, § 12.16 § 14.23 pending question, what constitutes for rule, interpretation of, §§ 14.8, 14.9 purposes of permitting point of no Rules Committee guidelines for sub- quorum, §§ 12.7, 12.8, 12.10 mission of amendments, not admit- pending question, where question has ted, § 14.31 not been put to a vote, point of no sufficiency of funds in a general appro- quorum does not lie, § 12.2 priations bill, not admitted, § 14.18 privileged over other request for rec- unanimous-consent request, inquiry to ognition where a quorum has not register objection to, when previously previously been established, § 12.17 granted, not admitted, § 14.32 quorum, once established, no business Point of no quorum having intervened, a point of no admitted after Chair has put the ques- quorum does not lie, § 12.13 tion and before the result has been recorded vote having been refused, a announced, § 12.8 point of no quorum may still lie, appeal does not lie against Chair’s re- § 12.9 fusal to entertain point of no request for leave for a committee to sit quorum, § 12.3 during consideration of amendments call of the House, Speaker has discre- under the five-minute rule, does not tion to recognize Member to move for constitute a pending question put to a, § 12.2 a vote, §§ 12.7, 12.10 Constitution does not create separate rise, motion that the Committee of the basis for point of order, § 12.2 Whole, in order while point of no debate in Committee of the Whole, quorum pending, § 12.5 Chair may entertain during, § 12.12 suspension motion, where vote post- debate in the House, Chair may enter- poned, point of no quorum consid- tain motion for a call of the House, ered as withdrawn, § 12.6 but not a point of no quorum during, withdrawal not allowed after Chair’s at his discretion, §§ 12.12, 12.14 announcement that a quorum is not debate under the five-minute rule, once present, § 12.4 a quorum has been established, a Point of order, topics admitted by call of the House may only be made way of by unanimous consent, § 12.15 appropriations bill, legislation in, demand for a recorded vote, point of no §§ 8.7–8.10 quorum takes precedence over, § 12.1 appropriations bill, unauthorized ap- objection to vote for lack of a quorum propriations, §§ 8.5, 8.6, 8.11, 10.9, takes precedence over a point of no 10.11 quorum, § 12.11 Budget Act violations, §§ 1.27, 4.14, parliamentary inquiry not necessarily 8.14 admitted while point of no quorum committee procedure and reports, defi- pending, § 15.12 ciencies in, §§ 1.23, 1.45, 1.47–1.49

12494 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31

Point of order, topics admitted by Recognition—Cont. way of—Cont. parliamentary inquiry, Chair has dis- conference reports, §§ 1.27, 4.14, 4.17, cretion to recognize Member for, 4.19–4.23 §§ 14.1, 14.2, 14.6 debate, relevancy in, § 1.44 parliamentary inquiry, recognition lim- germaneness, §§ 4.21, 4.22 ited to, Member so recognized may tax rate increase, § 5.27 not offer amendment, § 14.39 unfunded mandates, § 1.57 point of order, recognition by Chair re- Preferential status, Chair may deter- quired before making, § 2.1 mine qualification of motion for, point of order, recognition for, may be on own initiative, § 8.12 granted without waiting for time to be yielded, § 4.24 Privileged questions Recommit, motion to parliamentary inquiry regarding status of resolution as, not admitted before debate on point of order against motion to recommit a conference report con- resolution pending, § 14.34 fined to point of order, not to extend Questions of privilege to merits, § 7.18 establishing procedure for unique par- point of order lies after reading and be- liamentary question, § 1.33 fore debate, § 4.25 pre-empting point of order, § 1.33 Reserving points of order revenue bill constitutional origination generally, § 3.1 requirement presents, not subject to amendments not admitted while res- point of order, § 1.39 ervation pending, § 5.2 Speaker rules on status of resolution appropriations bills, points of order re- as presenting, §§ 1.51–1.53 served upon reporting of the bill, statement of, may be interrupted by §§ 3.25, 3.26 point of order, § 11.2 appropriations bills, portions of, points Quorum, see Point of no quorum of order against must be made, not Ramseyer rule reserved, §§ 3.7, 3.27, 3.29 point of order arising under, § 1.45 Chair can reserve to protect Members’ raised when bill called up, not after rights on own initiative, § 1.3 the House resolves into the Com- Chair’s discretion to allow, §§ 3.15–3.18 mittee of the Whole, §§ 4.7–4.9 debate not allowed on an amendment, Recognition a point of order must be made, and amendments, Chair’s recognition of cannot be reserved, § 3.30 Member to offer not subject to point debate on merits allowed under res- of order, § 1.32 ervation, § 3.2 Committee members receive priority debate time not allocated to Member in, to make a point of order against reserving, § 3.4 an amendment, § 1.4 distinguished from making points of decision of Chair on, not subject to ap- order, § 3.2 peal, § 13.11 further amendments not usually ad- decision of Chair regarding, not subject mitted while reservation pending, to point of order, §§ 1.30, 1.31 §§ 3.3, 3.5

12495 Ch. 31 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Reserving points of order—Cont. Rules Committee (see also Waiving inquiry to sponsor acceptable under points of order in a special rule) reservation, § 3.31 budget authority created by special making point of order, one Member’s order ‘‘self-executing’’ an amend- reservation does not prohibit another ment, Congressional Budget Act re- Member from, § 3.10 quirement for statement of esti- once a point of order reserved, all mated cost inapplicable to Rules points of order against the same text Committee report, §§ 10.21, 10.22 are reserved, §§ 3.8–3.14 creating point of order based on committee jurisdiction, § 1.23 regular order, demand for, not to interrupt proponent’s initial five-minute parliamentary inquiry regarding guidelines of, on submission of amend- debate time, § 3.20 ments, not admitted, § 14.31 regular order, demand for, requires points of order not to lie against re- resolution of point of order, §§ 3.18, ports by, § 10.12 3.19 privileged resolution reported by, point withdrawing a reservation, §§ 3.21– of order against in order after resolu- 3.24 tion called up and before Clerk has Resolving points of order before de- read, § 4.1 cision by the Chair (see also De- waiver policy, § 10.3 ciding points of order) waiving points of order under a special modification of portion of appropria- rule, § 9.1 tions bill allowed by unanimous con- Rules of the House sent while reservation of point of order enforced before adoption of, § 1.2 order pending, § 3.28 parliamentary inquiry regarding inter- ruling may be forestalled by a motion pretation of, §§ 14.8, 14.9 to rise from the Committee of the points of order governed by Rule I Whole, § 11.3 clause 4, § 1 introduction withdrawal of amendment while point Ramseyer rule, point of order arising of order pending, Chair allows unan- under, § 1.45 imous-consent request for, § 1.6 Rule I clause 4 governing points of withdrawal of motion against which order, § 1 introduction point of order lodged, obviates the Senate amendments need for the Chair to rule, § 4.6 rule providing amendment ‘‘hereby’’ Revenue bills, constitutional origina- adopted precludes points of order tion requirement presents ques- under rule requiring consideration in tion of privilege, not point of Committee of the Whole, § 10.19 order, § 1.39 ‘‘self-executing’’ rule agreeing to Senate Reversing decided points of order amendment precludes points of order (see also Appealing from Chair’s that would ordinarily lie against the decision on a point of order) amendment, § 10.20 Chair has authority to reverse previous Speaker decision, § 1.5 generally, see Chair

12496 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31

Speaker—Cont. Timing of points of order (see also House proceedings, points of order Amendments, timing of points of arising from, decided by Speaker, not order against)—Cont. to be decided in Committee of the failure to make a timely point of order Whole, § 1.46 against a motion, leaves the motion question of privilege, Speaker rules on as the will of the House until it or- status of resolution as presenting, ders otherwise, § 9.15 §§ 1.51–1.53 general debate, points of order not to Special rule, see Rules Committee; be raised during, § 5.9 Waiving points of order in a spe- paragraphs not yet read, points of cial rule order where allowed against by Supermajority vote requirement unanimous consent, are entertained tax rate increase, point of order based in order, § 5.4 on three-fifths vote requirement in parliamentary inquiry, timing of point order when question put on final of order appropriate subject for, passage, § 5.27 § 14.11 Tax rate increase privileged resolution, point of order point of order regarding applicability of against in order after resolution requirement of three-fifths vote for, called up and before Clerk has read, in order when question put on final §§ 4.1, 4.4 passage, § 5.27 privileges of the House, point of order Three-fifths vote against report concerning, in order point of order regarding applicability of after reading of report, § 4.5 requirement for, in order when question put on final passage, § 5.27 proposition, against, considered before amendments to the proposition are Timing of points of order (see also Amendments, timing of points of considered, §§ 5.1, 6.14, 6.15 order against) Ramseyer rule, point of order alleging amendments, points of order against a failure to comply with, in order when portion of bill are considered before measure called up, not after resolv- amendments to it, § 5.10 ing into the Committee of the Whole amendments not in order to bill open for consideration, §§ 4.7–4.9 at any point until all points of order recognition for point of order may be against any provision are resolved, granted without waiting for time to § 5.3 be yielded, § 4.24 appropriations bills, §§ 5.13–5.22, 5.26 recommit, motion to, point of order ‘‘at any time,’’ points of order which against must be made immediately rules allow, §§ 5.28, 5.29 after the motion is read and before conference reports, points of order debate, § 4.25 against, §§ 4.10–4.23 supermajority voting, point of order reconsideration of a measure, point of lating to requirement for, in order order against in order when measure when question put on final passage, called up, §§ 4.2–4.4 § 5.27 exceptions made for Members seeking voting by supermajority, point of order recognition at appropriate time, but based on, in order when the question not recognized in time, §§ 5.23, 5.24 is put on final passage, § 5.27

12497 Ch. 31 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Timing of points of order (see also Waiving points of order (see also Amendments, timing of points of Waiving points of order in a spe- order against)—Cont. cial rule)—Cont. where bill open to amendment at any failure to raise a timely point of order point, points of order to be resolved against a motion, the motion rep- before amendments admitted, §§ 5.3, resents the will of the House until it 5.5–5.8 orders otherwise, § 9.15 yielding of time not required for rec- germaneness of a perfecting amend- ognition to make a point of order, ment, by unanimous consent, § 9.6 § 4.24 Rules Committee may waive in special Unfunded Mandates Act, point of rule, against portion of bill language, order arising under, resolved by § 9.1 voting on consideration, § 1.57 scope of waiver, §§ 9.3, 9.4 Vacating point of order proceedings, statutory rule, waived by motion to § 9.19 suspend the rules, § 9.2 Waiving points of order (see also suspension of the rules waives statu- Waiving points of order in a spe- tory rules, § 9.2 cial rule) timing of resolution, after consider- amendments not covered by waiver for ation and reading for amendment bill, § 9.9–9.13 has begun, not too late, § 9.7 appropriations bill, section of protected unanimous-consent requests, §§ 9.3–9.6 by unanimous-consent request, § 9.5 where waiver by failure to raise point appropriations bill, waiver of points of of order leaves uncertain situation, order against, not protecting amend- the Chair may use his discretion to ments to, § 9.11 clarify the situation and let pro- bills, where points of order waived, ceedings continue, § 9.16 protection for amendments, not pro- where waiver not issued and point of vided, §§ 9.9–9.11 order made, House may vacate pro- bills protected as amendment to an- ceeding under point of order, § 9.19 other bill, where points of order Waiving points of order in a special waived against, no protection to indi- rule vidual portions of the bill if offered amendment, where protected by rule, separately, § 9.14 the rule protects that amendment as committee amendments, where points modified by a subsequent amend- of order not waived against, comment, § 10.5 mittee amendments treated as other amendments if offered by a particular amendments, § 9.12 Member protected, § 10.14 committee substitute, where points of appropriations, legislative provisions, order against are waived, protection some protected, some left vulnerable, does not apply to amendments to § 10.7 substitute, § 9.13 appropriations bill, rule waiving mul- construing scope, Chair may look to de- tiple points of order and providing bate in Committee of the Whole in, for altered procedure for consider- § 9.8 ation of amendments, § 10.16

12498 POINTS OF ORDER; PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES Ch. 31

Waiving points of order in a special Waiving points of order in a special rule—Cont. rule—Cont. appropriations provision, portions of germaneness, rule altering ordinary protected from prohibition on legisla- test of germaneness, §§ 10.8, 10.10 tion and unauthorized appropria- ‘‘hereby’’ resolutions waiving point of tions, §§ 10.9, 10.11 order, § 10.19 Budget Act provisions, violations of Member, amendments offered by par- waived notwithstanding, § 10.6 ticular, protected, § 10.14 Budget Committee policy on waivers of points of order against the rule, not to Congressional Budget Act points of lie unless prohibited under rule- order, § 10.4 making authority, § 10.12 Chair does not rule on whether a point Rules Committee, waivers against cer- of order would lie against a provision where it has been waived, § 10.17 tain language but not all provisions in bill, § 9.1 classes of amendments protected, § 10.14 Rules Committee policy on waivers, Congressional Budget Act, points of § 10.3 order arising under, avoided by spe- ‘‘self-executing’’ agreement to a Senate cial rule making in order an unre- amendment precludes points of order ported measure, § 10.23 against the amendment, § 10.20 Congressional Budget Act, points of Senate amendments, rules affecting order arising under, Budget Com- points of order relating to, §§ 10.19, mittee policy regarding, § 10.4 10.20 Congressional Budget Act, points of statutory rules providing points of order arising under, regarding state- order, §§ 10.1, 10.2 ment of estimated costs, not applica- where point of order under one rule ble to special rule ‘‘self-executing’’ waived, point of order may still lie new budget authority, §§ 10.21, 10.22 under another rule, § 10.13 consideration, rules designed to gov- where waivers based on report accom- ern, waived by rule providing that panying rule, report not required to something be considered to pass by be printed before consideration of virtue of the adoption of the rule, § 10.19 resolution, § 10.15 consideration, rules designed to pro- Words used in debate, not subject to hibit, waived by making consider- point of order, demand that words ation in order notwithstanding such be taken down proper remedy, rules, § 10.6 § 1.50 debate, mischaracterization of rule not Yielding to affect actual implementation of point of order may be made without, waivers, § 10.18 by Member controlling time, § 11.1 Æ

12499