§ 14. in General Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, Moved the Appeal Be Laid on the Table Parliamentary Inquiries Are in Which Motion Was Successful

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 vio- lations 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 be- lieve? 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 cus- tom. 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 de- rived 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 in- as 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 re- sent. 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 imple- ment 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 rec- tion 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 ob- tained 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 in- clined 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