Parliamentary Inquiries

Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries

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

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

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

11941 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

11943 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11949 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

11951 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11957 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

11959 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

11961 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

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

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

11965 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

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

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

11969 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

11971 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

11973 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11977 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

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

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

11979 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

11981 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

11983 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

11985 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

11987 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

11989 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

11991 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

11993 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

11995 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

11997 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

12001 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

12003 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

12005 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

12007 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12011 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12015 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

12017 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

12019 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12025 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

12027 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

12029 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

12031 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

12033 Ch. 31 § 1 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

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

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

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

12035