[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 15, Chapter 31]
[Chapter 31. Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries]
[A. Points of Order]
[Â§ 10. Role of Committee on Rules in Waiving Points of Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 12316-12364]
 
                               CHAPTER 31
 
                Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
 
                           A. POINTS OF ORDER
 
Sec. 10. Role of Committee on Rules in Waiving Points of Order

    In the ``modern House,'' at least since the 95th Congress, the 
Committee on Rules has been called upon to craft special orders 
governing the consideration of most major pieces of legislation to be 
brought before the House. Even bills otherwise given ``privilege'' by 
standing rules of the House, such as general appropriation bills, are 
often considered pursuant to or are protected by a special 
rule.(7) Special rules can insulate a bill or amendments 
from points of order; they often are designed to expedite 
consideration.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 10.16, infra.
 8. See Sec. Sec. 10.15, 10.19-10.22, infra.

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

[[Page 12317]]

    In recent Congresses, these special orders have become more 
complex. Some waive the application of all rules which would inhibit 
consideration of a measure; (9) some waive specific 
rules.(10) Others protect vulnerable amendments 
(11) or provisions of the bill text, structure an amendment 
process,(12) or modify normal debate rules. Some special 
orders contain a variety of such provisions and more.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 10.6, 10.14, infra.
10. See Sec. Sec. 10.3, 10.13, infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 10.5, 10.18, infra.
12. See Sec. 10.23, infra.
13. See Sec. 10.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A special order can be selective, protecting some provisions or 
amendments and leaving others vulnerable.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 10.7, 10.9, 10.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A special order may recommend the waiver of any rule, even one 
created in a statute enacted pursuant to the rulemaking authority of 
the House.(15) Such an order, if adopted by the House, can 
even modify the normal application of a standing rule or 
order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.2, infra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 10.8, 10.10, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiving Points of Order Against Violation of Rule Established by 
    Statute

Sec. 10.1 One House may, pursuant to its constitutional authority to 
    make its own rules, change or temporarily waive provisions of law 
    which have been enacted as rules of each House insofar as that law 
    applies to the procedure of that House.

    On Mar. 20, 1975,(17) the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules called up for consideration a resolution reported as privileged 
by that committee. A point of order was raised against the 
consideration of the report on the ground that it purported to waive 
certain statutory provisions of the Budget Act in order to permit 
consideration of H.R. 4485, the Emergency Middle-Income Housing Act of 
1975. The resolution contained a provision waiving the applicability of 
section 401 of the Budget Act which prohibits consideration of a bill 
containing ``new spending authority'' not limited by amounts specified 
in an appropriation act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 7676, 7677, 7678, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of the point of order raised by Mr. John B. Anderson, of 
Illinois, Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, also pointed out that the 
report on the resolution did not contain a ``Ramseyer'' showing the 
waiver of section 401 of the Budget Act, arguing that the resolution 
``changed existing law'' and therefore had to comply with Rule

[[Page 12318]]

IX clause 4(d), making the so-called ``Ramseyer rule'' applicable to 
reports from the Committee on Rules.
    Several collateral parliamentary issues were raised in the argument 
on the point of order and are carried herein.

        Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 337, and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 337

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI and 
        section 401 of Public Law 93-344 to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 4485) to provide for greater 
        homeownership opportunities for middle-income families and to 
        encourage more efficient use of land and energy resources. 
        After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
        shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided 
        and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
        the Committee on Banking, Currency, and Housing, the bill shall 
        be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the 
        conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
        Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
        amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
        shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
        thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
        motion to recommit.

        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against House Resolution 337 and I would like to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order 
    against House Resolution 337 on the grounds that the Budget Act by 
    direct inference forbids any waiver of the section 401 ban on new 
    backdoor spending in the House of Representatives.
        Mr. Speaker, my point of order is grounded on two basic facts: 
    First, there is no specific provision in section 401 for an 
    emergency waiver of its provisions; and yet, in section 402, which 
    generally prohibits consideration of bills authorizing new budget 
    authority after May 15, there is specific provision for an 
    ``Emergency Waiver in the House'' if the Rules Committee determines 
    that emergency conditions require such a waiver. It is my 
    contention that if the authors of section 401 had intended to 
    permit a waiver of its provisions, they would have specifically 
    written into law as they did with section 402. Section 402 makes a 
    similar provision for waiving its provisions in the Senate.
        Second, section 904 of the Budget Act, in subsections (b) and 
    (c) states that ``any provision of title III or IV may be waived or 
    suspended in the Senate by a majority vote of the Members voting,'' 
    thus extending a waiver procedure in the Senate to section 401 as 
    well as 402. But section 904 contains no similar waiver provision 
    for the House of Representatives.

[[Page 12319]]

        It should be clear from these two facts that the House was 
    intentionally excluded from waiving the provisions of section 401 
    of the Budget Act.
        Mr. Speaker, the point may be made that the Budget Act's 
    provisions are part of the rules of the House, and, as such, are 
    subject to change at any time under the constitutional right of the 
    House to determine the rules of its proceedings. But I think a fine 
    distinction should be drawn here. This resolution is presented for 
    the purpose of making a bill in order for consideration, and is not 
    before us for the purpose of amending or changing the Budget Act. 
    Since section 401 of the Budget Act deals concurrently with the 
    House and the Senate and their integrated procedures for 
    prohibiting new backdoor spending, any attempt to alter this would 
    have to be dealt with in a concurrent resolution at the very 
    minimum, if not a joint resolution or amendment to the Budget Act. 
    It is one thing for the House to amend its rules; it is quite 
    another for it to attempt, by simple resolution, to waive a 
    provision of law relating to the joint rules of procedures of both 
    Houses.
        Mr. Speaker, on March 3, 1975, section 401 of the Budget Act, 
    as well as certain other provisions, was activated by the issuance 
    of House report 94-25 by the House Budget Committee. On page 4 of 
    that report, under the heading, ``Controls on New Backdoor 
    Authorities,'' it is written:

            The Budget Committees are implementing immediately those 
        portions of section 401 of the Act which (1) make new contract 
        and borrowing authority effective only to the extent and 
        amounts provided in appropriations acts (section 401(a)).

        The report goes on to state:

            With respect to new contract and borrowing authorities, it 
        is very much in the interest of the new budget process to 
        prohibit a last-minute rush of new backdoor authorities.

        Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that section 401 was activated on 
    March 3, the Committee on Banking and Currency did not see fit to 
    report a clean bill on March 14 which was in conformity with the 
    section 401 requirement. And on March 18, some 15 days after the 
    activation of 401, the Banking and Currency Committee asked the 
    Rules Committee to waive section 401 against its bill.
        Mr. Speaker, the relevance of all this to my point of order 
    should seem quite obvious. It is not relevant whether the committee 
    promises to offer the appropriate amendment at a later point. It 
    may or may not offer such an amendment, and it may or may not be 
    adopted. But it should be quite clear that there never was any 
    intention to permit the Rules Committee to waive the provisions of 
    section 401; for by so doing, we would in effect be repealing the 
    backdoor spending ban of the Budget Act by permitting side-door 
    spending through the Rules Committee. It is my contention that the 
    authors of the Budget Act never intended for side-door spending in 
    the Rules Committee and for that reason specifically excluded any 
    provision for emergency waivers in section 401 in the House. I 
    therefore urge that my point of order be sustained.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Missouri desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: I do, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 12320]]

        Mr. Speaker, there are a variety of grounds on which it would 
    be possible to address this point of order. It could be dismissed 
    very quickly on the grounds that the rules of the House provide 
    that it shall always be in order to call up for consideration a 
    report from the Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule or the 
    order of business, and then it proceeds to give the very limited 
    number of exceptions. The one that the gentleman from Illinois 
    makes as his point of order, and all the different ones he makes as 
    his points of order, are not included in those specific exceptions.
        So, the rules of the House specifically make it clear that the 
    Rules Committee is in order when it reports a rule dealing with the 
    order of business, and it does not qualify that authority except in 
    a very limited degree.
        Furthermore, it is an established fact that the House can 
    always change its rules. It is protected by so doing.
        Mr. Speaker, the Chair will note I have not relied on the fact 
    that as a member of the committee that dealt finally with the 
    Budget and Impoundment Control Act, I might have an opinion as to 
    what the authors of that act, and consequently the House, felt. I 
    know, as a matter of fact, that the authors of that bill in its 
    final form were well aware of the points that I have just made. It 
    seems to me very clear that the point of order is not valid on 
    those grounds.

        I think, however, it is important to add the fact that the 
    Committee on the Budget is a new committee. Quite specifically, the 
    legislation gave it a year in which it could work its way into the 
    process, and that this rule aids that committee in working its way 
    into the process.
        It has been pointed out by the gentleman from Illinois that 
    when the amendment of the committee is adopted, or the amendments 
    of the committee are adopted to the bill reported by the committee, 
    that the bill then will be in compliance even with the Budget 
    Control Act. But, this exception is fully justified on the grounds 
    of the intent of the Congress in giving the Congress itself an 
    opportunity of 1 year in which to try out the process without 
    requiring that every specific provision of that process as provided 
    in law be followed.
        So, on the general grounds, the constitutional grounds and the 
    specific grounds, it seems to me very clear that the point of order 
    is not good.
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
    be heard on the point of order.
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the gentleman 
    from Missouri on the point of order. On page 6 of the bill H.R. 
    4485, at line 14, it says:

            [The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed 
        to purchase any obligations of the Association issued under 
        this section, and for such purposes the Secretary of the 
        Treasury is authorized to use as a public debt transaction the 
        proceeds from the sale of any securities issued under the 
        Second Liberty Bond Act.]

        Would the gentleman please explain to me the meaning of the 
    language?
        Mr. Bolling: I think it would be more appropriate if the 
    gentleman will allow me to suggest that a member of the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency should explain it.
        Mr. Wylie: It relates to the point of order, and that is the 
    point I want to

[[Page 12321]]

    make. This provides for back-door spending and, indeed, suggests 
    that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized under the act, 
    which was passed many years ago, to increase the public debt 
    without congressional action or approval of the Committee on 
    Appropriations. It seems to me as if it goes directly to section 
    401(a), as provided in the new Budget Procedures Act.
        Mr. Bolling: I am not prepared to disagree with the gentleman 
    on his interpretation of that particular point, but I do not see 
    where it is pertinent to the point of order. I think the discussion 
    we have had on the point of order makes it clear that, despite the 
    fact, this rule is in order.
        Mr. Wylie: Does not the Budget Control Act, section 401(a) 
    prohibit back-door spending?
        Mr. Bolling: It also is possible for that provision to be 
    waived. What I tried to do in my discussion in opposition to the 
    validity of the point of order made by the gentleman from Illinois 
    was to point out the very broad basis on which such a matter could 
    be waived, a constitutional basis and a specific provision of 
    clause 4 of rule XI granting the Committee on Rules a very broad 
    authority to report matters that relate to order of business. It is 
    a well-known fact that the Committee on Rules often reports waivers 
    of points of order, and this is, in effect, a waiver of a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Illinois makes the point of order against 
    the consideration of House Resolution 337 reported from the 
    Committee on Rules, on the grounds that that Committee has no 
    authority to report as privileged a resolution waiving the 
    provisions of section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 
    Section 401 prohibits the consideration in the House of any bill 
    which provides new spending authority unless that bill also 
    provides that such new spending authority is to be available only 
    to the extent provided in appropriations acts.
        The Chair would point out that while section 401 has the force 
    and effect of law, section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
    clearly recites that all of the provisions of title IV, including 
    section 401, were enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of 
    the House, to be considered as part of the rules of the House, with 
    full recognition of the constitutional right of each House to 
    change such rules at any time to the same extent as in the case of 
    any other rule of the House. House Resolution 5, 94th Congress, 
    adopted all these provisions of the Budget Act as part of the rules 
    of the House for this Congress.
        Much of the argument of the gentleman from Illinois goes to the 
    merits or the propriety of the action recommended by Committee on 
    Rules and not to the authority of that committee to report this 
    resolution.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: I make a further point of order against the 
    consideration of this rule based on the ruling just made by the 
    Chair.

[[Page 12322]]

        The Chair has just ruled section 904 of the Budget Control Act 
    permits the House to exercise its power to change the rules of the 
    House.
        Under the rules of the House, in rule IX, 4(d), it requires 
    that--

            Whenever the Committee on Rules reports a resolution 
        repealing or amending any of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives or part thereof it shall include in its report 
        or in an accompanying document--
            (1) the text of any part of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives which is proposed to be repealed; and
            (2) a comparative print. . . .

        The report of the Rules Committee, Report 94-80, contains no 
    such comparative print. It shows nothing as to the effect of this 
    rule as it applies to any waiver or change of the rules of the 
    House; and, therefore, is in direct contradiction, on the basis the 
    Chair just cited. I, therefore, make a point of order this is not 
    in order at this time.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Bolling: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        It seems to the gentleman from Missouri that the constraint 
    purported to be placed on the House by that particular language is 
    not equal to the specific, clear, constitutional provision which 
    states that the House will make its rules and change its rules.
        Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that no subsidiary provision 
    would be prevailing when the House would be stopped from modifying 
    its rules repeatedly by technical arguments.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair agrees with the statement made by the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Bolling). The Chair would state further that the 
    objection raised by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) refers 
    to permanent changes--amendments or repeals--in the rules of the 
    House and not to temporary waivers.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the ruling of the 
    Chair, I inquire as to whether or not the ruling of the Chair has 
    the effect of rescinding the rule which is the subject of the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Illinois or whether it merely 
    suspends the application of that rule for the purposes of the 
    resolution which is now before the House.
        The Speaker: In answer to the parliamentary inquiry, the Chair 
    will state that all the ruling of the Chair does is make in order 
    the consideration of the resolution before the House. It does not 
    change the permanent rules of the House.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, would it then be necessary for the 
    resolution which is before the House to be agreed to by a two-
    thirds vote?
        The Speaker: It would not.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Pepper) is recognized for 1 
    hour.
        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the able 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), pending which I yield 
    myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 12323]]

Authority of Committee on Rules To Waive Rules Put in Place by Statute

Sec. 10.2 The Committee on Rules can call up as privileged a resolution 
    which provides for temporary waivers of House rules, even though 
    those rules may be part of a statutory scheme enacted into law as 
    an exercise of congressional rulemaking authority.

    House Resolution 352 which provided for the consideration of the 
National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Act of 1975, was reported on 
Mar. 23, 1975, and called up as privileged on the following 
day.(19) Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, raised a point 
of order against consideration of the resolution, claiming that a 
special procedural resolution could not waive provisions of a statutory 
law, in this instance a section of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
which prohibits consideration of measures containing ``new spending 
authority'' not subject to limitation by an appropriation act. He also 
argued that the report of the Committee on Rules was defective insofar 
as it did not contain a ``Ramseyer'' showing the waiver of a provision 
of the Budget Act which would have prevented consideration of the 
measure had it been applicable. The arguments raised against the 
resolution were similar to those raised against another special order 
reported by the Committee on Rules on the preceding day. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 8418, 94th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 352 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 352

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, section 401 of Public Law 93-344 to 
        the contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself 
        into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
        for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4222) to amend the 
        National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Acts in order to 
        extend and revise the special food service program for children 
        and the school breakfast program, and for other purposes 
        related to strengthening the school lunch and child nutrition 
        programs. After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
        bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Education and Labor, the bill shall 
        be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be 
        in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by

[[Page 12324]]

        the Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill as 
        an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
        minute rule, and all points of order against sections 13 and 15 
        of said substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. At the conclusion of such 
        consideration, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
        the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and 
        any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
        amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or 
        to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
        and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
        motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
        instructions.

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
        The Speaker: (20) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of House Resolution 352 on two grounds. The first 
    ground is that the rule itself attempts to permit a waiver of 
    section 401 of Public Law 93-344, the Budget Control Act.
        In support of this point of order, I cite the argument by the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), which appeared in the 
    Congressional Record on page H2074 of last Thursday, which I adopt 
    by reference, the argument being in essence that a procedural 
    resolution of the House cannot repeal, amend, or waive a section of 
    statutory law.
        Mr. Speaker, anticipating the Chair's ruling on my first point, 
    I cite the ruling of the Chair on last Thursday in which the Chair 
    said in part:

            ``. . . section 401'' and the provisions thereof ``were 
        enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House, to 
        be considered as part of the rules of the House, with full 
        recognition of the constitutional right of each House to change 
        such rules at any time to the same extent as in the case of any 
        other rule of the House.''

        This leads me to state my second point of order against the 
    report, House Report 94-107, accompanying House Resolution 352, on 
    the grounds that this report violates rule XI of clause 4(d), of 
    the Rules of the House which in essence requires that at any time a 
    rule of the House is amended or changed, there shall be printed in 
    the text of the report a comparative print showing such changes.
        Mr. Speaker, in support of this second point, I have researched 
    the records of the House; to the best extent one Member can. I 
    realize that rule XI 4(d) is a new provision, but it has a 
    comparative predecessor in the Ramseyer Rule. I have found, in 
    looking up the Ramseyer Rule, that there is no comparable case in 
    which the Chair has ever ruled that a waiver by a simple resolution 
    making in order a rule has extended to the right to change the 
    statutes of the United States, without at least attempting to 
    comply with the Ramseyer Rule. The only close case that I found was 
    a case on January 9, 1930, in which the Chair [Speaker Longworth of 
    Ohio] ruled that the Ramseyer Rule did not apply to an 
    appropriations statute being enacted by the Congress which 
    permitted a temporary waiver of another statute, but this did not 
    apply to a simple rule.

[[Page 12325]]

        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on both of these points, I suggest that 
    the consideration of this resolution and its report is not in order 
    at this time.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Bolling: I do, Mr. Speaker, very briefly.
        Mr. Speaker, I would cite the case cited by the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman), the arguments which I happen to have made on 
    that day, and the various rulings of the Chair in support of the 
    position that the rule is in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule if the gentlemen do not 
    desire to be heard further.
        For the reasons stated by the Chair last week on the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) and on the 
    point raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), the 
    Chair finds no reason to reverse the ruling he made last week and 
    therefore overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Is it the Chair's position that henceforth, rule 
    XI, clause 4(d) does not apply at all in any instance where a 
    waiver of a permanent rule of the House, or a statute which has the 
    status of a permanent rule of the House is involved; that in any of 
    those instances there is no need for the Committee on Rules to 
    inform the House of its impending action?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that, firstly, the rule if 
    adopted is a temporary waiver, and the Chair has previously stated 
    his position with respect to temporary waivers in the case of that 
    portion of the gentleman's argument which cites the Ramseyer rule. 
    That is only applicable with respect to amendments or repeals of 
    laws or rules. It is not applicable simply to a waiver of a rule.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.
        The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.

Waiver Policy of Committee on Rules

Sec. 10.3 In certain Congresses, the Committee on Rules has followed a 
    policy of not granting ``blanket waivers'' but only waivers of 
    specified House rules.

    In the 100th Congress, a member of the minority leadership included 
in the Record a list of special orders which contained blanket waivers, 
and a copy of his letter to the then chairman of the Committee of Rules 
requesting adherence to the policy of granting only specific waivers. 
The insertion of Nov. 20, 1987,(1) is carried, in part, 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 133 Cong. Rec. 33209, 33210, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, the House Rules 
    Committee is rapidly becoming the ruleless committee. This week 
    alone, of the four

[[Page 12326]]

    rules we granted for the consideration of bills and conference 
    reports, all four waived all points of order against consideration. 
    In other words, for all we know, each of those measures could have 
    violated every rule in the book, including the entire Budget Act, 
    but the Rules Committee was saying, ``It's okay.''
        Mr. Speaker, about 9 years ago, when Congressman Bolling became 
    chairman of the Rules Committee, a conscious policy was instituted 
    to avoid blanket waivers of the rules in favor of specified 
    waivers. This policy has proved extremely useful to Rules Committee 
    members, the rest of the House, and to committees.
        When our current chairman, Senator Pepper, took over in 1983, 
    he continued to observe this policy, and, according to my research, 
    during his first term as chairman in the 98th Congress, 1983-84, 
    not once did we have a blanket waiver for a bill, a substitute made 
    in order as original text, or a conference report. In the last 
    Congress, though, such blanket waivers comprised 17 percent of all 
    rules. And thus far in this Congress, they constitute 23 percent of 
    all rules.
        Mr. Speaker, I don't think committees have become all that more 
    flagrant in their violations of rules than before to warrant such a 
    heavy reliance on blanket waivers. It's just that such rules are 
    easier to draft and explain away. In short, we are becoming sloppy 
    and lazy, and, in so doing, we will eventually be encouraging 
    committees to become so as well when it comes to complying with 
    House rules.
        I have therefore today written to Chairman Pepper, urging that 
    we return to our policy of specifying waivers in the rules we 
    grant. This is the best way Members will know what's involved with 
    both the rules we report and the bills they make in order. And, it 
    is the best way to keep committees honest and ensure that our rules 
    are honored to the maximum extent possible.
        At this point in the Record, Mr. Speaker, I will insert my 
    letter to Chairman Pepper and two tables I have prepared on blanket 
    waivers. The materials follow:
        Congress of the United States,
            House of Representatives,
              Washington, DC, Nov. 20, 1987.
                                                 Hon. Claude Pepper,
                 Chairman, House Committee on Rules, Washington, DC.

            Dear Mr. Chairman: Several years ago, the Rules Committee 
        made a conscious decision to avoid waiving all points of order 
        against measures, and instead to specify in our rules just 
        which House rules and Budget Act provisions were being waived.
            As a result of this policy, our Committee Members were 
        better prepared to explain the potential rules violations that 
        were being protected; House Members were consequently better 
        informed about the necessity for the rule and problems with the 
        bills made in order; and, I think, committees were likely to be 
        more careful about not violating House rules in drafting their 
        bills and reports.
            In reviewing rules granted in the last three Congresses, I 
        was pleased to learn that none of the 190 rules granted in the 
        98th Congress waived all points of order against a bill or its 
        consideration, against a substitute as original text, or 
        against a conference report. However, in the 99th Congress, 
        such waivers comprised 17% of all rules, and, in this

[[Page 12327]]

        Congress, amount to 23% of the rules reported to date. In fact, 
        in this week alone, all four of the rules reported waived all 
        points of order against the measures involved. (See enclosed 
        tables.)
            I would like to strongly urge that our Committee return to 
        our former policy of specifying waivers for the benefit of our 
        Committee members, the rest of the House, and as a deterrent 
        against even more violations by committees. While waiving all 
        the rules may be easy and convenient on the surface, it only 
        glosses over deeper troubles that are bound to disrupt surface 
        appearances and conditions the more the practice is relied on.
            With warm personal regards, I am
              Sincerely yours,
                                                       Trent Lott.

            Enclosures.

    The following is a list of rules containing waivers of all points 
of order in the 98th Congress:

                  100th Congress (as of Nov. 19, 1987)
    H. Res.:
      38..................................  H.R. 2.
      124.................................  H.R. 2 (CR).
      116.................................  H.J. Res. 175.
      151.................................  H.R. 3.
      191.................................  H.R. 4.
      227.................................  H.R. 2470.
      233.................................  H.R. 3022.
      236.................................  H.R. 27.
      238.................................  H.J. Res. 132.
      247.................................  H.J. Res. 324 (CR).
      265.................................  H.R. 3030.
      296.................................  H.R. 3545.
      298.................................  H.R. 3545.
      308.................................  H.R. 1451 (CR).
      309.................................  H.R. 1748 (CR).
      310.................................  H.R. 1720 (CR).
      314.................................  H.R. 1346.
      316.................................  H.R. --.
                     (CR) denotes conference report.


Chairman of the Budget Committee Announced Policy Regarding Waivers of 
    Budget Act Provisions Preventing Consideration of Bills

Sec. 10.4 In the first year of the implementation of the Congressional 
    Budget Act of 1974, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
    stated to the House the policies to be followed by his committee 
    regarding waivers recommended by the Committee on Rules for bills 
    violating restrictions against ``back-door spending'' contained in 
    the Budget Act.

    After several resolutions providing special orders of business 
reported from the Committee on Rules had been challenged by points of 
order when called up for consideration, and the Speaker had held them 
to be in order as proper exercises of rulemaking authority, the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, Mr. Brock Adams, of 
Washington, explained the policies to be followed by the Committee on 
the Budget in enforcement of the restrictions in the Budget Act. He 
acknowledged the authority of the House to waive provisions of the 
Budget Act but stated a policy of monitoring such waivers, supporting 
or

[[Page 12328]]

opposing them as necessary to protect the integrity of the budget 
process. The statement by Mr. Adams on Mar. 24, 1975,(2) 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 8419, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
    this time. I would like to have at this time the attention of the 
    House so that I might outline the procedure which will be followed 
    by the Budget Committee.
        As the gentleman from Missouri has explained, these rules came 
    up without an opportunity for us to debate this motion before the 
    Rules Committee. I blame no one for this, because we are in the 
    process of implementing a new statute, which, as was described in 
    the earlier colloquy, puts together a process to be used for 
    closing back-door spending.
        The Speaker has ruled, as the statute (Public Law 93-344) 
    provides in section 401 that it shall not be in order under the 
    rules of the House to engage in new backdoor spending--as provided 
    in the act--unless this provision is waived by rule. This can be 
    recommended by the Committee on Rules, and that is proposed in this 
    case. The Budget Committee intends to implement this procedure in 
    the following fashion:
        First, I have written to the chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules, and stated that it will be the position of the Budget 
    Committee that it wishes to be heard on any proposed waiver of the 
    rules of the Budget Committee Act with regard to backdoor spending. 
    Thus the Budget Committee will have the opportunity to appear 
    before the Committee on Rules and argue the matter of whether a 
    rule waiving points of order should be granted. It is not the 
    general intention of this Member, as chairman of the Budget 
    Committee, to expect any waiver of such rule.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter 
    of March 21, 1975, to the chairman of the Committee on Rules 
    setting forth this position be included in the Record at this 
    point.
        The Speaker: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The letter follows:
                                                   March 21, 1975.
    Hon. Ray J. Madden,
    Chairman, Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives, 
        Washington, D.C.

            Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, on March 3, 1975, the 
        Committee on the Budget filed a report with the House (H. Rept. 
        No. 94-25) implementing certain new budget procedures contained 
        in P.L. 93-344, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
        Control Act of 1974.
            Two of the important new procedures implemented (effective 
        March 3) are as follows: (1) section 401(a), which prohibits 
        floor consideration of any new contract or borrowing authority 
        legislation unless it contains a provision that such new 
        authority is to be effective only to the extent or in such 
        amounts as are provided in appropriations acts; and (2) section 
        401(b)(1), which prohibits floor consideration of entitlement 
        legislation having an effective date before the start of the 
        next fiscal year.

[[Page 12329]]

            In order to assure effective implementation of these 
        provisions, I would ask that any request to the Rules Committee 
        for a waiver of points of order relating to sections 401(a) or 
        401(b)(1) of P.L. 93-344 be called immediately to the attention 
        of the Budget Committee. In such cases, the Committee will make 
        known to you its views on the waiver request as promptly as 
        possible.
            With warmest regards,
                                                  Brock Adams,
                                                       Chairman.

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have also contacted all of the seated 
    committee chairmen of the House again by a special letter of March 
    21, 1975, and have indicated to them the procedure which is 
    required to be followed if back-door spending is to be allowed, 
    indicating the alternatives, and indicating that if a committee 
    wishes to have a waiver of the rule, that we are available to 
    discuss this matter with them before the matter is presented to the 
    Rules Committee. This has just been done with the other two bills 
    that were involved before the Rules Committee last week. In those 
    bills the back-door spending has been removed. We now have made 
    clear the procedure to be followed so that when the Budget 
    Committee members appear before the Committee on Rules, any 
    chairman looking for a waiver of this rule will know the procedure 
    to be followed.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter 
    of March 21, 1975, which was sent to each chairman of a standing 
    committee, be included in the Record at this point.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Washington?
        There was no objection.
        (The letter follows:)

            Identical Letter to all Chairmen of Standing Committees
                                                   March 21, 1975.
    Hon. Ray Roberts,
    Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, U.S. House of 
        Representatives, Washington, D.C.

            Dear Mr. Chairman: On March 3, 1975, the Committee on the 
        Budget filed a report with the House (H. Rept. No. 94-25) 
        implementing certain new budget procedures contained in P.L. 
        93-344, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 
        1974.
            Two of the important new procedures implemented (effective 
        March 3) are as follows: (1) section 401(a), which prohibits 
        floor consideration of any new contract or borrowing authority 
        legislation unless it contains a provision that such new 
        authority is to be effective only to the extent or in such 
        amounts as are provided in appropriations acts; and (2) section 
        401(b)(1), which prohibits floor consideration of entitlement 
        legislation having an effective date before the start of the 
        next fiscal year.
            In order to assure effective implementation of these 
        provisions, I have asked the Rules Committee to bring to the 
        attention of the Budget Committee any request for a waiver of 
        points of order relating to sections 401(a) or 401(b)(1) of 
        P.L. 93-344. In such cases, the Budget Committee plans to 
        inform the Rules Committee of its views on the waiver request 
        as promptly as possible.
            Similarly, I would like to ask you to bring to the 
        attention of the Budget Committee any request you plan to make 
        for such a waiver. I assure you that our Committee will do 
        everything possible to work out with you any problems relating 
        to these new provisions of the Budget Act.
            I have asked George Gross, the Budget Committee's General 
        Coun

[[Page 12330]]

        sel, to contact your staff concerning any questions you may 
        have on these new procedures.
            With warmest regards,
                                                  Brock Adams,
                                                       Chairman.

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I might state that the reason we have 
    had these problems is that the implementing report of the committee 
    was only filed on March 3, 1975. We were then required to wait for 
    the filing of the Senate committee report which was filed on March 
    5, 1975. It was this process which put into effect section 401 of 
    Public Law 93-344. If we had not filed this report the back-door 
    spending closure would not have gone into effect until next year. 
    So we were implementing this provision a year in advance, and it is 
    now in effect.

Where Special Order Waives Point of Order Against Specific Amendment, 
    Germane Amendments Thereto May Be Considered and the Amendment as 
    Modified Remain Protected

Sec. 10.5 Where a special rule waives points of order against the 
    consideration of a designated amendment which might otherwise be 
    ruled out as not germane, and does not specifically preclude the 
    offering of amendments thereto, germane amendments to the amendment 
    may be offered and adopted but it is then too late to challenge the 
    amendment as modified even though its text is no longer that 
    protected by the explicit description in the waiver.

    The special order providing for consideration of the Energy 
Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 made an amendment offered by 
Mr. Robert Krueger, of Texas, in order, notwithstanding the fact that 
it was arguably not germane. The rule did not address amendments to the 
protected amendment, and it was this aspect of the special rule which 
presented the procedural questions that arose in the July 22, 
1975,(4) proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 23990, 23991, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Schroeder to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Krueger: In section 8(d)(2)(E) (ii)(a)(1) of the 
        Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 as amended by Mr. 
        Krueger's amendment) strike the words ``(including development 
        or production from oil shale,'' and insert a comma after 
        ``gas''.
            In section 8(d)(2)(E)(ii)(a)(2) of the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973 (as amended by Mr. Krueger's amendment) 
        strike the words ``oil shale,''.

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order, and pending that I have a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 12331]]

        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from Texas reserves 
    a point of order, and the gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: The parliamentary inquiry is what determines 
    germaneness of this amendment, if it is germane, to the Krueger 
    amendment? It would then be admissible at this time as germane, as 
    I understand it. In other words, the relation to the Krueger 
    amendment would determine germaneness in this instance, I would 
    assume.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman is asking whether the amendment 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado has to be germane, the 
    answer, of course, is ``yes.'' Is the gentleman contending that it 
    is not germane?
        Mr. Eckhardt: No. The gentleman merely asks whether or not on 
    the question of germaneness with respect to this amendment, the 
    question is determined on whether or not this amendment is germane 
    to the Krueger amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Eckhardt: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Schroeder) to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Brown of Ohio) there were--ayes 39, noes 31.
        So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 
    the Krueger amendment.

        The Chairman: The Chair will have to state he believes the 
    point of order comes too late.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I am not making one at this time if 
    I need not make one, but I would certainly make one at such time as 
    the Krueger amendment would be voted on.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman restate what he is doing? Is 
    he making a point of order against the Krueger amendment?
        Mr. Eckhardt: I am making a point of order against the Krueger 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: That comes too late.
        Mr. Eckhardt: If the Chairman would hear me on the point of 
    order I will be glad to explain.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the point of order. It comes too late.
        The Chairman: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman from 
    Texas on the timeliness of his point of order.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair would permit me, I 
    should make a point of order now if I must do so or I will at such 
    time as the vote arises on the Krueger amendment on the ground that 
    the Krueger amendment is now outside the rule.
        If the Chair will recall, I queried of the Chair whether or not 
    the question of germaneness on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Colorado was based upon its germaneness to the 
    Krueger amendment or if that were the standard. The Chair answered 
    me that it was. Therefore, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
    from Colorado was not subject to a point of order at that time and 
    I

[[Page 12332]]

    point out to the Chair that the question of germaneness rests upon 
    whether or not the amendment is germane to the amendment to which 
    it is applied.
        At that time it was not in order for me to urge that the 
    amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado was not germane 
    because it was indeed germane to the Krueger amendment, but the 
    rule protects the Krueger amendment itself from a point of order on 
    the grounds of germaneness and specifically says that it shall be 
    in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order 
    the text of an amendment which is identical to the text of section 
    301 of H.R. 7014 as introduced and which was placed in the 
    Congressional Record on Monday and it is described.
        The Krueger amendment upon the adoption of the Schroeder 
    amendment becomes other than the identical amendment which was 
    covered by the rule. At this point the question of germaneness of 
    the Krueger amendment rests on the question of whether or not it is 
    at the present time germane to the main body before the House.
        It is not germane to the main body before the House because of 
    the--and I cite in this connection Deschler on 28, section 24 in 
    which there are several precedents given to the effect that an 
    amendment which purports to create a condition contingent upon an 
    event happening, as for instance the passage of a law, is not in 
    order. For instance 24.6 on page 396 says:

            To a bill authorizing funds for construction of atomic 
        energy facilities in various parts of the Nation, an amendment 
        making the initiation of any such project contingent upon the 
        enactment of federal or state fair housing measures was ruled 
        out as not germane.

        There are a number of other authorities in that connection, 
    that is, an amendment postponing the effectiveness of legislation 
    pending contingency.
        Now, with respect to the question of timeliness, the gentleman 
    from Texas could not have raised the point of order against the 
    Schroeder amendment because of the fact that the Schroeder 
    amendment was, in fact, germane to the Krueger amendment. It is 
    clearly stated that the test of germaneness must rest on the 
    question of the body upon which the amendment acts, and as I 
    queried the Chair at the time, I asked that specific question, 
    would the germaneness of the Schroeder amendment rest upon the 
    question whether it is germane to the Krueger amendment.
        The Chair answered, I think correctly, that it was germane. I 
    could not quarrel with that ruling and I could not at that point 
    raise a question whether it was effective to the main body involved 
    here; but at this time is the very first time I have had an 
    opportunity and I raise the point of order that the Krueger 
    amendment as now constituted is not protected by the rule.
        The Chairman: Does any other Member desire to be heard on the 
    point of order?
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I only state 
    that it seems to me that the rule makes the Krueger amendment in 
    order by its text, but it does not prohibit it being amended by 
    subsequent action of this body and that if the text had been 
    changed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Krueger) in its 
    introduction, the

[[Page 12333]]

    point of order might have been appropriate; but the point of order 
    that is attempted to prohibit this body from amending the text of 
    the Krueger amendment after it has been properly introduced and 
    been made germane by the rule would prohibit those others in the 
    majority of this body from acting on any perfection of the Krueger 
    amendment. I do not think that is the purpose of the rule.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule, unless another Member 
    desires to be heard.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by this point of 
    order. I think, first of all, it comes too late. I think the 
    amendment, Mr. Chairman, comes, first of all, too late.
        Second, it would make a nullity of the actions of the Committee 
    on Rules, which very specifically made in order the Krueger 
    amendment.
        As a matter of fact, it was at the request of this particular 
    Member and the gentleman from Texas that that was done and also it 
    was at the request of this particular Member of this body that the 
    Committee on Rules made appropriate amendments to the Krueger 
    amendment. If the point of order of the gentleman from Texas would 
    prevail, the gentleman would be able to ex post facto undo the work 
    of the Committee on Rules and convert a prior amendment, which may 
    or may not have been germane, into such a vehicle that it would 
    strike at the actions of the Committee on Rules.
        The time to raise this point of order was at the time of 
    offering the amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule, but the Chair would 
    be glad to hear from additional Members.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard only because of 
    the statement of the gentleman from Michigan, who is a very correct 
    man with respect to points of order, but the gentleman is now not 
    quite correct.
        The gentleman from Michigan did, in truth, ask that the rule 
    include the specific provision protecting the Krueger amendment, if 
    amended; but the Committee on Rules did not include the gentleman's 
    request, but rather very sharply and definitely prescribed that the 
    matter that would be relevant and nothing else was the body of that 
    amendment as printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The rule under which the matter is being considered did in fact 
    make in order the so-called Krueger amendment, and any amendment to 
    that amendment which is germane to that amendment was thus, at the 
    same time, made in order. There was no need for special provision 
    to make amendments germane to the Krueger amendment in order, and 
    the argument made by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is very 
    much to the point.
        The Chair, therefore overrules the point of order.

Waiving Points of Order

Sec. 10.6 Rules of the House which are designed to prohibit 
    consideration of a bill can be waived if the House adopts a special 
    order which makes consideration in order

[[Page 12334]]

    notwithstanding violations of Budget Act provisions or inadequacies 
    in the committee report.

        House Resolution 601 of the 95th Congress, 1st Session, 
    providing for the consideration of the Victims of Crime Act (H.R. 
    7010), illustrates the type of special order which may be used to 
    allow a bill to be considered where, absent the adoption of such a 
    rule, points of order would prevent consideration.
        The content of the special order and the explanation of its 
    provisions are included below.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 17965, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., June 8, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 601

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, section 401(b)(1) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), clause 
        2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI, and clause 7 of rule XIII to the 
        contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7010) to provide for grants 
        to States for the payment of compensation to persons injured by 
        certain criminal acts and omissions, and for other purposes. 
        After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
        shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided 
        and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
        the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be read for 
        amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
        rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
        may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
        final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit.

        The Speaker: (7) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John Joseph] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: . . . .
        Section 401(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
    prohibits consideration of any bill containing new entitlement 
    authority which could take effect before the first day of the 
    fiscal year which begins during the calendar year in which the bill 
    is reported. H.R. 7010 is clearly an entitlement within the meaning 
    of the act.
        The Committee on Judiciary has agreed to offer an amendment on 
    the floor which will insure that the entitlement provision cannot 
    take effect before October 1, 1977. The amendment will bring the 
    bill into full compliance and, on the basis of this agreement, the 
    Committee on Budget has supported a waiver of the point of order 
    and the Committee on Rules has reported a resolution containing the 
    waiver.
        Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI provides that reports of 
    committees shall contain oversight findings and recommendations. Of 
    course, the Victims of Crime Act establishes an entirely new 
    program. Since the program does not yet exist, the Committee on 
    Judiciary could hardly exercise any oversight

[[Page 12335]]

    at this point. The committee intends to exercise vigorous oversight 
    and a simple statement like the one I am making contained in the 
    committee report would have satisfied the requirement of the rule. 
    It is a purely technical waiver and I am aware of no possible 
    controversy.
        Clause 7 of rule XIII requires any report to contain a cost 
    estimate. This was added to the rules of the House by the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and has been rendered 
    largely obsolete by enactment of the Congressional Budget Act 
    creating the Congressional Budget Office. The act added to the 
    rules of the House a rule (clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI) which 
    requires all committee reports to contain a cost estimate prepared 
    by the Congressional Budget Office. Since CBO has greater 
    professional expertise in this area, the old rule is usually 
    complied with by a single sentence stating the committee reporting 
    the bill accepts the CBO estimate as accurate. The violation of the 
    rule occurs simply because the report does not contain a statement 
    conceding the CBO estimate. It should be noted that a detailed cost 
    estimated by CBO is included in the report (H. Rept. 95-337) on 
    pages 11 through 14 inclusive. While the Committee on Judiciary 
    neglected to include a statement that it accepts the estimate, it 
    does agree and notes that the departmental estimate is in the same 
    range. This waiver is quite technical and presents no controversy 
    at all. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, House 
    Resolution 601 is a 1-hour, open rule providing for the 
    consideration of H.R. 7010, the Victims of Crime Act of 1977. Mr. 
    Speaker, this rule contains three waivers, two of which would have 
    been unnecessary if the committee had taken more care in preparing 
    its report. The first waiver, mentioned at line 2 of the rule, is 
    of section 401(b)(1) of the Budget Act which prohibits 
    consideration of any new spending authority which would take effect 
    prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. This waiver is necessary 
    because subsection 2(c) of the bill, beginning on line 22 of page 
    2, provides an automatic entitlement of travel, transportation and 
    per diem expenses to the members of the Advisory Committee on 
    Victims of Crime. Since this advisory committee presumably could be 
    in operation before October 1 of this year, the waiver became 
    necessary. I would hasten to add, though, that the waiver does not 
    apply to the grants made available to victims of crime. Under 
    section 9 of the bill, the compensation grants to victims of crime 
    does not begin until fiscal year 1978.

Resolutions Providing Partial Waivers, Leaving Certain Provisions 
    Unprotected From Points of Order

Sec. 10.7 A resolution may propose the waiver of points of order 
    against legislative provisions in a general appropriation bill 
    except for certain enumerated provisions which then remain 
    vulnerable to points of order.

    When the Committee on Rules has a hearing to consider a rule 
waiving points of order against

[[Page 12336]]

provisions in a general appropriation bill, Members may appear at that 
hearing to ask that certain language not receive the protection of a 
waiver.
    The special rule granting waiver protection to certain provisions 
in the Defense appropriation bill for fiscal 1978 was called up in the 
House on June 24, 1977.(8) In the debate on the rule, the 
necessity for certain explanatory language in the rule, limiting the 
effect of a point of order against an unprotected provision to the 
precise words targeted by the point of order, was explained by Mr. 
Delbert L. Latta, of Ohio, a minority member on the Committee on 
Rules.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 20706, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. Since the special rule identified the parts of the bill which were 
        to be protected by page and line numbers, the Parliamentarian 
        suggested to the Committee on Rules that a proviso be added to 
        the rule making it clear that the remainder of a paragraph 
        would not be ruled out if a portion thereof was unprotected. 
        The fact that the remainder of a paragraph was protected by a 
        waiver of a particular House rule would not of itself alter the 
        general principle that an entire paragraph of an appropriation 
        bill is subject to a point of order if any provision therein is 
        vulnerable to a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gillis W.] Long of Louisiana: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 655 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 655

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        7933) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
        the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and for other 
        purposes, all points of order against the following provisions 
        in said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 2, rule XXI are hereby waived: beginning on page 13, 
        line 14 through page 16, line 9; beginning on page 17, line 17 
        through page 20, line 19; beginning on page 21, line 15 through 
        page 23, line 21; beginning on page 25, line 8 through page 27, 
        line 25; and beginning on page 40, line 25 through page 42, 
        line 16; and all points of order against the following 
        provisions in said bill for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 6, rule XXI are hereby waived: beginning 
        on page 15, line 13 through page 24, line 15, except with 
        respect to the language on page 19 beginning with the word 
        ``and'' on line 17 and all that follows up to the semicolon on 
        line 21: Provided however, That a point of order if sustained 
        against the language falling within the exception in the 
        preceding sentence shall apply only to that language and not to 
        the entire paragraph in which it appears.

        The Speaker: (10) The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
    Long) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statements that were 
    just made by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long).

[[Page 12337]]

        I would like to point out that there is a proviso in this rule 
    which would seem to set a new precedent. I have reference to line 
    5, page 2 of the rule where the following proviso appears:

            Provided however, That a point of order if sustained 
        against the language falling within the exception in the 
        preceding sentence shall apply only to that language and not to 
        the entire paragraph in which it appears.

        Mr. Speaker, this unusual provision was included in the rule as 
    a result of an amendment offered in the Rules Committee. A member 
    objected to the waiver of clause 6, rule XXI as it applied to 
    language transferring funds for the hydrofoil missile ship program 
    to other purposes. He strongly favored the hydrofoil ship program 
    and did not favor transferring the funds from the hydrofoil ship 
    program to other purposes. Therefore, he moved to amend the rule so 
    that the waiver of clause 6, rule XXI would not apply to the 
    language transferring funds from the hydrofoil ship program to 
    other purposes.
        The Rules Committee adopted his amendment excepting from the 
    waiver of clause 6, rule XXI, the language in the bill on page 19, 
    beginning with the word ``and'' in line 17 and all that follows up 
    to the semicolon on line 21.
        Once part of the paragraph was exempted from the waiver, it was 
    then necessary to add the proviso clause, insuring that the rest of 
    the paragraph would still stand. This was necessary because the 
    House precedents state that an entire appropriating paragraph is 
    subject to a point of order when a part of that paragraph is 
    subject to a point of order.

Special Order Modifying Application of Germaneness Rule

Sec. 10.8 The Committee on Rules may report a special order altering 
    the ordinary test of germaneness, such as rendering only one 
    portion of an amendment subject to challenge by a point of order as 
    being not germane, while protecting the consideration of the 
    remainder of the amendment.

    The Defense Department authorization bill, 1979 was considered in 
the House on May 24, 1978. A special order, with the unique feature 
which permitted a point of order to lie against one provision in an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, had been adopted on May 23. 
The critical part of the special rule and the resulting proceedings in 
Committee of the Whole under this rather unique rule were as follows.
    The pertinent language in H. Res. 1188, adopted by the House on May 
23, 1978,(11) was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 15094, 15095, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 1188

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole

[[Page 12338]]

        House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
        bill (H.R. 10929) to authorize appropriations during the fiscal 
        year 1979, for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval 
        vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons, 
        and research, development, test and evaluation for the Armed 
        Forces, and to prescribe the authorized personnel strength for 
        each active duty component and of the Selected Reserve of each 
        Reserve component of the Armed Forces and of civilian personnel 
        of the Department of Defense, to authorize the military 
        training student loads, and to authorize appropriations for 
        civil defense, and for other purposes. . . . It shall be in 
        order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
        recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in 
        the bill as an original bill for the purposes of amendment, 
        said substitute shall be read for amendment by titles instead 
        of by sections and all points of order against said substitute 
        for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 5, rule XXI 
        and clause 7, rule XVI, are hereby waived, except that it shall 
        be in order when consideration of said substitute begins to 
        make a point of order that section 805 of said substitute would 
        be in violation of clause 7, rule XVI if offered as a separate 
        amendment to H.R. 10929 as introduced. If such point of order 
        is sustained, it shall be in order to consider said substitute 
        without section 805 included therein as an original bill for 
        the purpose of amendment, said substitute shall be read for 
        amendment by titles instead of by sections and all points of 
        order against said substitute for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 5, rule XXI are 
        hereby waived. . . .

    The proceedings of May 24,(12) when the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was pending in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 15293-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, May 23, 1978, all time for general debate on the bill had 
    expired. Pursuant to the rule, the Clerk will now read by titles 
    the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the reported bill 
    as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense Appropriation 
        Authorization Act, 1979''.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, in 
    accordance with the rule, House Resolution 1188, I make a point of 
    order that section 805 of the committee amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, if offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 10929 as 
    introduced, would be in violation of clause 7 of House Rule XVI 
    regarding germaneness. This provision which deals with the 
    withdrawal of troops from Korea, and section 805 which deals with 
    the withdrawal of troops from Korea, is not germane to the 
    Department of Defense authorization bill. . . .
        Thus, by whatever test of germaneness one examines, section 805 
    is not germane to H.R. 10929.

[[Page 12339]]

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

[[Page 12340]]

    to H.R. 10929 as introduced. The strength levels prescribed in the 
    bill are for 1 fiscal year only and deal with the overall strength 
    of the Armed Forces, not with the location of Armed Forces 
    personnel. As indicated in the argument of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin, the withdrawal of American Forces stationed abroad 
    pursuant to an international agreement, and the relationship of 
    that withdrawal to peace agreements between foreign nations and to 
    the transfer of American military equipment to foreign powers, are 
    issues not only beyond the scope of the bill but also within the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. Although 
    committee jurisdiction over an amendment is not the sole test of 
    germaneness, the Chair feels that it is a convincing argument in a 
    case such as the present one where the test of germaneness is 
    between a limited 1-year authorization bill and a permanent 
    statement of policy contingent upon the administration of laws 
    within the jurisdiction of another committee.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the Chair may have just stated a 
    novel concept which has never before been heard in a ruling. That 
    is that the sequential referral rule somehow serves as the basis 
    for jurisdiction, and thus can support a point of order dealing 
    with a section in a bill such as the one before us.
        The parliamentary inquiry I have is this: Simply because under 
    the new procedure adopted for the first time in this Congress the 
    rules allow sequential referral at the discretion of the Speaker, 
    does that mean that a committee that has primary jurisdiction, such 
    as the Committee on Armed Services, may be challenged on the floor 
    and have a point of order sustained removing a provision that might 
    be partially under the jurisdiction of another committee on a 
    sequential referral?
        The Chairman: The ruling of the Chair does not stand for that 
    proposition.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland 
    understood the Chair to say that the argument of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin was persuasive to the Chair regarding jurisdiction. If 
    that is the case, it seems to me every committee of this House is 
    somehow going to be challenged on the floor henceforth if its 
    jurisdiction is shared to the slightest degree by another 
    committee.
        The Chairman: All the Chair has stated is that section 805 is 
    not germane to the introduced bill, and the rule provides that the 
    point of order would lie on that ground.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I have this further parliamentary 
    inquiry:
        Then the ruling of the Chair is based on germaneness of this 
    amendment to this bill and does not go to any effect the sequential 
    jurisdiction would have on the provision?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Special Order Waiving Points of Order and Refining Application of Rule 
    XXI Clause 2 to Particular Provision in Bill

Sec. 10.9 Form of a special order providing that during con

[[Page 12341]]

    sideration of a general appropriation bill, all points of order 
    under Rule XXI clause 2 are waived except with respect to a portion 
    of one paragraph, which is left unprotected.

    The form of the resolution waiving certain points of order against 
House Resolution 332, the supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal 
1984, is carried in full, below: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 27329, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 5, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Martin] Frost [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 332 and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 332

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        3959) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending September 30, 1984, and for other purposes, all points 
        of order against the bill for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 2, rule XXI are hereby waived, except 
        against the language beginning with the word ``Provided'' on 
        page 2, line 21 through the colon on page 2, line 25: Provided 
        That a point of order against that provision may be made only 
        against that provision and not against the entire paragraph.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Frost) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frost: . . . House Resolution 332 provides for the 
    consideration of these items by waiving all points of order against 
    consideration of the bill for failure to comply with the provisions 
    of clause 2, rule XXI. A number of provisions in the bill are not 
    authorized and there is also language in the bill which is 
    considered legislation, thus necessitating the waiver of clause 2 
    of rule XXI. There is, however, one exception to this blanket 
    waiver. In chapter I of the bill, the Committee on Appropriations 
    added legislative language to the provision of funds for the 
    Emergency Veterans' Job Training Act of 1983 which would have 
    changed the eligibility requirements for job training as provided 
    in the authorizing act. Consequently, the Committee on Rules did 
    not provide the waiver of clause 2, rule XXI for this language and 
    a point of order against this language, but not against the entire 
    paragraph, will stand if it is raised during consideration of the 
    bill.

Altering Application of Germaneness Rule by Special Order

Sec. 10.10 Example of a special order which alters the application of 
    the germaneness rule, making part of an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute vulnerable to a separate challenge as ``not germane'' 
    to the bill as introduced, while protecting the remainder of the 
    amendment.

    The special rule providing for consideration of the Civil Service

[[Page 12342]]

Reform Act of 1979 permitted points of order to be lodged against two 
titles of the substitute. The text of the rule, as excerpted from the 
proceedings of Aug. 11, 1978,(16) is set forth herein:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 25705, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lloyd] Meeds [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1307 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1307

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, section 402(a) of the Congressional 
        Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 11280) to reform the civil 
        service laws. After general debate, which shall be confined to 
        the bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
        minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
        Service, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
        minute rule. It shall be in order to consider the amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Post 
        Office and Civil Service now printed in the bill as an original 
        bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, 
        said substitute shall be read for amendment by titles instead 
        of by sections, and all points of order against said substitute 
        for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI 
        are hereby waived, except that it shall be in order when 
        consideration of said substitute begins to make one point of 
        order that titles IX and X would be in violation of clause 7, 
        rule XVI if offered as a separate amendment to H.R. 11280 as 
        introduced. If such point of order is sustained, it shall be in 
        order to consider said substitute without titles IX and X 
        included therein as an original bill for the purpose of 
        amendment, said substitute shall be read for amendment by 
        titles instead of by sections and all points of order against 
        said substitute for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 7, rule XVI are hereby waived. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
        rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
        may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate 
        vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
        the Whole to the bill or to the amendments in the nature of a 
        substitute made in order by this resolution. The previous 
        question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
        amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
        except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Meeds) is recognized for 1 hour.

Rules Selectively Protecting Provisions Against Point of Order

Sec. 10.11 The Committee on Rules can protect portions of a general 
    appropriation bill from points of order under

[[Page 12343]]

    Rule XXI clause 2, and leave other portions unprotected and subject 
    to being ruled out on points of order.

    The special order reported from the Committee on Rules 
(17) to govern consideration of the State, Justice, 
Commerce, and the Judiciary appropriations bill, fiscal 1982, is a 
valid example of how special rules can be tailored to meet particular 
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 127 Cong. Rec. 18799, 18800, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., July 30, 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo C.] Zeferetti [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 188 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 188

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        4169) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, 
        Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for 
        fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, and for other purposes, 
        all points of order against the following provisions in said 
        bill for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 2 of 
        rule XXI are hereby waived; beginning on page 3, lines 1 
        through 4; beginning on page 3, line 20 through page 6, line 
        12; beginning on page 8, line 4 through page 10, line 7; 
        beginning on page 13, lines 6 through 23; beginning on page 17, 
        line 3 through page 23, line 21; beginning on page 25, lines 1 
        through 14; beginning on page 25, lines 16 through 20; 
        beginning on page 26, lines 7 through 14; beginning on page 26, 
        line 19 through page 33, line 14; beginning on page 33, line 16 
        through page 34, line 6; beginning on page 34, line 15 through 
        page 36, line 11; beginning on page 39, lines 4 through 18; 
        beginning with the word ``to'' on page 7, line 19 through page 
        7, line 20; beginning with the word ``Provided'' on page 24, 
        line 13 through page 24, line 16; and all points of order 
        against the following provisions in said bill for failure to 
        comply with the provisions of clause 6, rule XXI are hereby 
        waived: beginning on page 6, lines 6 through 12: Provided, That 
        in any case where this resolution waives points of order 
        against only a portion of a paragraph, a point of order against 
        any other provision in such paragraph may be made only against 
        such provision and not against the entire paragraph. . . .

        Mr. Zeferetti: . . . Clause 2 of rule XXI prohibits 
    unauthorized appropriations and legislation in an appropriation 
    bill. H.R. 4169 includes various programs which have not yet 
    completed the authorization process and without this waiver would 
    be subject to a point of order.
        Clause 6 of rule XXI prohibits reappropriations in an 
    appropriations bill. This waiver is required due to one item in 
    title I permitting administrative costs for the coastal energy 
    impact fund to be derived from unobligated funds in the expired 
    account for environmental grants.
        As in House Resolution 171, HUD appropriations, House 
    Resolution 188 includes a provision that insures in any case where 
    this resolution waives points of order against only a portion of a 
    paragraph, a point of order against any other provision in such 
    paragraph

[[Page 12344]]

    may be made only against such provision and not against the entire 
    paragraph.

Points of Order Against Special Rules

Sec. 10.12 No point of order lies against a special order of business 
    reported from the Committee on Rules waiving points of order or 
    otherwise altering procedures governing consideration of a measure, 
    where no rule of the House or law enacted as rulemaking authority 
    prohibits such consideration.

    Public Law 96-389 amended Public Law 95-435 to reaffirm 
congressional commitment toward achieving a balanced budget. A fair 
summary of the law was that beginning with fiscal year 1981, the total 
budget outlays of the federal government shall not exceed its receipts. 
This statute did not constitute a rule of the House and did not prevent 
consideration of any budget resolution or other measure providing 
budget outlays in excess of revenues.
    The resolution and the budget resolution which it made in order are 
excerpted from the Record of June 10, 1982,(18) and carried 
herein:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 13352, 13353, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 1983

        Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 496 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                H. Res. 496

        Resolution providing for the consideration of the concurrent 
            resolution (H. Con. Res. 352) revising the congressional 
            budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year 
            1982 and setting forth the congressional budget for the 
            United States Government for the fiscal years 1983, 1984, 
            and 1985

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order, section 305(a)(1) of the Congressional 
        Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, to move that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 352) 
        revising the congressional budget for the United States 
        Government for the fiscal year 1982 and setting forth the 
        congressional budget for the United States Government for the 
        fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985, and the first reading of the 
        resolution shall be dispensed with. General debate in the 
        Committee of the Whole on said resolution shall continue not to 
        exceed two hours, with not to exceed one hour equally divided 
        and controlled as provided in section 305(a)(2) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act and not to exceed one hour for debate 
        on economic goals and policies as provided in section 305(a)(3) 
        of the Congressional Budget Act. No amendment to the resolution 
        shall be in order ex

[[Page 12345]]

        cept the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
        Congressional Record of June 8, 1982, by Representative Latta 
        of Ohio, said amendment shall be in order any rule of the House 
        to the contrary notwithstanding and shall be considered as 
        having been read, and said amendment shall be debatable for not 
        to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
        Budget. Said amendment shall not be subject to amendment except 
        for a substitute consisting of the text of the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record of 
        June 8, 1982, by Representative Jones of Oklahoma, said 
        amendment shall be in order any rule of the House to the 
        contrary notwithstanding and shall be considered as having been 
        read and said amendment shall not be subject to amendment but 
        shall be debatable for not to exceed one hour, to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on the Budget. The resolution shall not 
        be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the 
        House pending final adoption. It shall also be in order to 
        consider the amendment or amendments provided in section 
        305(a)(6) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 necessary to 
        achieve mathematical consistency. Upon the adoption of H. Con. 
        Res. 352, the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 92 shall be 
        considered to have been taken from the Speaker's table, to have 
        been amended with an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
        consisting of the text of H. Con. Res. 352 as adopted by the 
        House, to have been adopted by the House as so amended, and the 
        House shall be considered to have insisted on its amendment to 
        S. Con. Res. 92 and to have requested a conference with the 
        Senate thereon; the Speaker shall then appoint conferees 
        without intervening motion.

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    reserve a point of order against consideration of the rule.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman has to state his 
    point of order. There is no reserving a point of order against 
    consideration of a report from the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I request a point of order against the 
    legislation for the fact that it puts in order consideration of a 
    bill which, if passed, would violate the law of the land; namely, 
    Public Law 95-435; and that the rule provides no waiver for that 
    particular violation of law, nor does the resolution that we will 
    be taking up provide any waiver of that law.
        So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, we will be considering a rule and 
    legislation which would be in direct contravention of a law which 
    was reaffirmed by this House yesterday by a vote of 375 to 7.
        Mr. Speaker, I would demand a ruling on my point of order.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Pepper) wish 
    to speak on the point of order?
        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, I invite the ruling of the Chair.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Section 904 of the Budget Act makes it clear that that act was 
    adopted as an exercise of rulemaking powers. Those rules and laws 
    which do constitute rules of the House may be waived at any time by 
    either House of the Congress of the United States, and

[[Page 12346]]

    this power lies in the Rules Committee.
        However, the statute that the gentleman cites which has been 
    amended is not a rule of the House. It triggers no point of order, 
    it needs no waiver, so the gentleman's point of order is not well 
    taken.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Pepper) is recognized for 1 
    hour.

Example of the Interaction of Two House Rules Governing Admissibility 
    of Amendments

Sec. 10.13 Where an amendment may be protected by a special order from 
    vulnerability to a point of order under one rule of the House, it 
    may still be susceptible to a point of order under another rule.

    On July 17, 1985,(20) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary 
appropriation bill for fiscal 1986. Points of order had been waived 
against unauthorized items in the bill by a special rule. An amendment 
was offered to a paragraph of the bill which increased the unauthorized 
figure therein. Two points of order were raised against the amendment: 
the Chair overruled one and sustained the second. The proceedings 
showing the interaction of two House rules are carried herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 19432, 19435, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [C. W. Bill] Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Florida: On page 15, line 
        4 strike ``$1,194,132,000'' and insert ``$1,203,625,000''. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
    order on the amendment.
        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from California 
    [Mr. Edwards] insist on his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman from 
    Florida [Mr. Young] withdraw his amendment?
        Mr. Young of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I did not withdraw the 
    amendment, no.
        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, it was my 
    understanding there was a commitment made to withdraw the 
    amendment. If that is not true, I insist on my point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards] will 
    state his point of order.
        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, the amendment violates 
    clause 2 of House rule XXI, which provides no appropriation shall 
    be reported in any general appropriation bill for any expenditure 
    not previously authorized by law.

[[Page 12347]]

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

[[Page 12348]]

        The Chairman: If no one else wishes to be heard on the point of 
    order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        With regard to the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Edwards], as to appropriation without 
    authorization, the Chair is constrained to overrule that point of 
    order on the grounds that a waiver has been provided in the rule 
    against the amount in the bill, and the amendment merely increases 
    that amount without an earmarking for an unauthorized purpose.
        With regard to the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Iowa [Mr. Smith] as to whether it has not been waived by the rule, 
    the Chair is constrained to uphold that point of order on the 
    grounds that, while consideration of the bill itself has in House 
    Resolution 221 received a waiver from section 303(a) of the Budget 
    Act, that does not apply to amendments adding new budget authority 
    to the bill and the Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.

Rules Committee May Protect Various Types of Amendments

Sec. 10.14 On occasion, the Committee on Rules will report a resolution 
    which protects an amendment from all points of order if offered by 
    a specific Member.

    Rules which self-execute the adoption of amendments, or protect a 
stated amendment from points of order if offered by a particular 
proponent, are more commonplace. The following special order excerpted 
from the proceedings of Sept. 12, 1986,(2) is illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 132 Cong. Rec. 23154, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Waiving Certain Points of Order Against Consideration of H.R. 5313, 
     Departmant of Housing and Urban Development-Independent Agencies 
                          Appropriations Act, 1987

        Mr. [Anthony C.] Beilenson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 532 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 532

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        5313) making appropriations for the Department of Housing and 
        Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
        commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
        ending September 30, 1987, and for other purposes, all points 
        of order against the following provisions in the bill for 
        failure to comply with the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI 
        are hereby waived: beginning on page 2, line 8 through page 7, 
        line 9; beginning on page 7, line 22 through page 9, line 11; 
        beginning on page 10, line 1 through page 13, line 21; 
        beginning on page 14, lines 13 through 16; beginning on page 
        15, line 21 through page 16, line 9; beginning on page 16, line 
        23 through page 18, line 4; beginning on page 18, line 10 
        through page 19, line 12; beginning on page 20, line 10 through 
        page 25, line 3; beginning on page 26, line 1

[[Page 12349]]

        through page 29, line 4; beginning on page 29, line 13 through 
        page 33, line 8; beginning on page 35, line 20 through page 36, 
        line 9; and beginning on page 39, line 7 through page 41, line 
        22. It shall be in order to consider an amendment to the bill 
        printed in section two of this resolution, if offered by 
        Representative Boland of Massachusetts, and all points of order 
        against said amendment for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI are hereby waived.
            Sec. 2. On page 26, line 14, insert at the end of the 
        sentence: ``: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
        under this heading, not to exceed $160,000,000 shall be 
        provided for space station phase C/D development and such funds 
        shall not be available for obligation until the enactment of a 
        subsequent appropriations Act authorizing the obligation of 
        such funds.''. . . .

        Mr. Beilenson: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 532 is the 
    rule waiving certain points of order against consideration of H.R. 
    5313, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 
    independent agencies appropriations for fiscal year 1987.
        Since general appropriation bills are privileged under the 
    rules of the House, the rule does not provide for any special 
    guidelines for the consideration of the bill. Provisions related to 
    time for general debate are not included in the rule.
        Customarily, Mr. Speaker, general debate time is limited by a 
    unanimous-consent request by the chairman of the Appropriations 
    Subcommittee prior to the consideration of the bill.
        Mr. Speaker, the rule protects specified provisions of the bill 
    against points of order for failure to comply with the provisions 
    of clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI prohibits 
    unauthorized appropriations and legislative provisions in an 
    appropriations bill. The specific provisions of the bill for which 
    the waiver is provided are detailed in the rule by page and line.
        Also, Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order an amendment offered 
    by Representative Boland of Massachusetts. The amendment is printed 
    in section 2 of the rule. The rule waives points of order against 
    the amendment under clause 2 of rule XXI which, as I stated 
    earlier, prohibits the inclusion of unauthorized appropriations and 
    legislation in general appropriation bills.

Authority of Committee on Rules To Grant Waivers

Sec. 10.15 Where a special report from the Committee on Rules, filed on 
    a preceding day, specifies that only ``amendments printed in the 
    report accompanying this resolution'' are eligible for 
    consideration, and the report has not been printed at the time the 
    resolution is called up for consideration, no point of order lies 
    against consideration of the report on that ground.

    On Apr. 28, 1988,(3) a second rule was reported to 
govern the further consideration of the Defense authorization bill, 
fiscal

[[Page 12350]]

1989. This second rule limited the number of amendments which could be 
considered during the further consideration of the bill and specified 
the order of consideration and debate time allotted to amendments 
printed in a report accompanying the resolution. The report had not 
been returned from the Government Printing Office and was thus not 
available to Members when the rule was called up. Several parliamentary 
inquiries were raised as the debate on the rule commenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 134 Cong Rec. 9194, 9196, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Providing for Further Cnsideration of H.R. 4264, National Defense 
                    Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989

        Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 436 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 436

            Resolved, That during the further consideration of the bill 
        (H.R. 4264) to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 
        1989 amended budget request for military functions of the 
        Department of Defense and to prescribe military personnel 
        levels for such Department for fiscal year 1989, to amend the 
        National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 
        1989, and for other purposes, no further amendment to the bill 
        or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified 
        and as amended, shall be in order except the amendments 
        designated in section 2 of this resolution, in the report of 
        the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, or by 
        paragraph (2) of section 2 of H. Res. 435. Said amendments 
        shall be considered only in the order and in the manner 
        specified. The amendments designated in this resolution shall 
        be printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
        this resolution and shall be considered as having been read 
        when offered. Each amendment may only be offered by the Member 
        designated for such amendment in the report of the Committee on 
        Rules, or this resolution, or their designee. Debate on each of 
        said amendments shall not exceed the time designated in said 
        report, to be equally divided and controlled between the 
        proponent and an opponent. All points of order are waived 
        against the amendments contained in sections 1 and 2, and 
        against amendments numbered 5, 6, 7, 11, 19, 20, 28, 35, 47, 
        and 50 in section 3 of the report of the Committee on Rules. No 
        amendment, except for amendments printed in section 3 of the 
        report of the Committee on Rules, shall be subject to amendment 
        except as specified in this resolution or in the report of the 
        Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, or to a demand 
        for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
        of the Whole. Debate on any amendment offered to an amendment 
        printed in section 3 of the report of the Committee on Rules 
        shall be limited to ten minutes, equally divided and controlled 
        by the proponent of the amendment and a member opposed thereto. 
        Any particular amendment under consideration when the Committee 
        of the Whole rises on a legislative day shall be completed when 
        the Committee of the Whole next resumes its sitting on H.R. 
        4264. During the consideration of the bill, pro forma 
        amendments for the purpose of debate shall

[[Page 12351]]

        be in order only if offered by the chairman or ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Armed Services. Any period of 
        general debate specified in this resolution shall be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Armed Services.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from 
    Florida (Mr. Pepper) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Marvin Leath (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, this refers to a report which I 
    believe will contain the various amendments and explain precisely 
    what the Clerk so lengthily just read.
        Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that that report is not 
    available, that that report has not been printed.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: There is a copy at the minority table.
        Mr. Gingrich: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, under the rules of 
    the House in terms of the individual Members' access to 
    information, they should be given a document which has been marked 
    up, edited. This has various handwriting and is not available to 
    Members. This is a loose collection of papers. This is not a 
    published report at this time, and would it not be better, I would 
    ask the Speaker, for the House to delay considering this rule until 
    we have the report of the Committee on Rules so Members could see 
    what they are voting on?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is not stating a point 
    of order. He is perhaps stating a reason to vote against the rule.
        Mr. Gingrich: I believe it was a parliamentary inquiry whether 
    or not Members are protected and have any recourse in the rules of 
    the House against having a report printed.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question of consideration cannot 
    be raised against a rule filed on a prior day. The Chair would 
    suggest that Members could vote against the rule.
        Mr. Gingrich: So, Mr. Speaker, Members who want a printed 
    report should vote ``no,'' is the Chair's recommendation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman is dissatisfied with 
    the report he has, that would be a recommendation.
        Mr. Gingrich: I thank the Chair.

Sec. 10.16 Special order providing for consideration of a general 
    appropriation bill, waiving points of order against legislation in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2, reappropriations in violation of 
    Rule XXI clause 6, where the authorizing committees had consented 
    to the waivers; permitting consideration of specified amendments 
    which were not germane and specifying the order of amendments to be 
    considered under a ``king of the mountain'' procedure.

    The rule providing for consideration of the dire emergency sup

[[Page 12352]]

plemental appropriation bill for fiscal 1989, H.R. 2072, on Apr. 26, 
1989,(5) provides an example of the complexities often 
required to permit the timely consideration of appropriation measures 
which precede the authorization process and interact with the 
constraints of the Congressional Budget Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 135 Cong. Rec. 7489, 7490, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Waiving Certain Points of Order Against Consideration of H.R. 2072, 
     Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Transfers, Urgent 
        Supplementals, and Correcting Enrollment Errors Act of 1989

        Mr. [Joe] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 135 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 135

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
        XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
        bill (H.R. 2072) making dire emergency supplemental 
        appropriations and transfers, urgent supplementals, and 
        correcting enrollment errors for the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1989, and for other purposes, and the first 
        reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
        order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply 
        with the provisions of sections 302(f) and 311(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344, as amended 
        by Public Law 99-177) are hereby waived. After general debate, 
        which shall be confined to the bill and which shall not exceed 
        one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
        and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, 
        the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
        minute rule. During the consideration of the bill, all points 
        of order against the bill for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 2 and 6 of rule XXI are hereby waived, 
        except against the provisions beginning on page 20, line 19 
        through page 21, line 6; beginning on page 31, lines 5 through 
        12; and beginning on page 34, lines 19 through 25. It shall be 
        in order to consider the amendments printed in the report of 
        the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, said 
        amendments shall be considered in the order specified in the 
        report, may be offered only by the Member specified or his 
        designee, shall be considered as having been read, shall be 
        debatable for not to exceed one hour each, equally divided and 
        controlled by the offeror and a Member opposed thereto, and 
        shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a division 
        of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
        All points of order against said amendments are hereby waived, 
        except for points of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against 
        provisions identical to those provisions in the bill against 
        which points of order were not waived by this resolution. Any 
        such point of order may lie only against those specified 
        portions of an amendment, and not against an entire amendment. 
        If both of said amendments are adopted, only the latter 
        amendment which is adopted shall be considered to have been 
        finally adopted and reported back to the House.

[[Page 12353]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Moakley) is recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. Moakley: . . . Mr. Speaker, the rule waives points of order 
    under two specified sections of the Congressional Budget Act 
    against consideration of the bill, section 302(f) and section 
    311(a).
        Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits 
    consideration of measures that would exceed the subcommittee 
    allocations of new discretionary budget authority made pursuant to 
    section 302(b) of the Budget Act. Since the bill provides new 
    budget authority in excess of the Appropriations Committees 302(b) 
    allocations the bill would violate section 302(f) of the Budget 
    Act.
        Mr. Speaker, the second budget act waiver against consideration 
    of the bill is section 311(a). Section 311(a) of the Budget Act 
    prohibits consideration of any measure which would cause the budget 
    authority or outlay ceilings established by the concurrent 
    resolution on the budget for such fiscal year to be breached. Since 
    the budget authority and outlays set forth in House Concurrent 
    Resolution 268, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
    year 1989, have already been exceeded, the bill would violate 
    section 311(a) by causing the spending ceilings to be further 
    exceeded. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the rule also waives clause 2 and 6 of rule 21, 
    against the bill, except for certain provisions. Clause 2, of rule 
    21, prohibits the inclusion of legislation and unauthorized 
    appropriations in any appropriation bill.
        There are three provisions that are subject to points of order. 
    The first two provisions deal with adjusting pay rates for certain 
    health care occupations within the Defense and Veterans 
    Departments, and a provision that directs the Federal Aviation 
    Administration to initiate rulemaking procedures to require 
    airlines to use a particular type of explosive detection equipment.
        These sections Mr. Speaker, were left unprotected at the 
    request of the committees that have legislative jurisdiction on 
    these matters.
        Clause 6 of rule 21 prohibits reappropriations in a general 
    appropriations bill, because the bill contains transfers of 
    previously appropriated funds the waiver is necessary.
        Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order two amendments 
    that are printed in the report accompanying this resolution. The 
    amendments are to be offered by the member named or his designee, 
    and only in the order specified in the report.

Sec. 10.17 The Chair will not render an advisory opinion as to whether 
    a particular amendment against which points of order are waived by 
    a special rule would in fact be subject to a point of order.

    The Committee on Rules, in reporting a special order waiving points 
of order against a specified amendment, sometimes does so out of an 
abundance of caution. The fact that a waiver is included does not 
necessarily mean that a valid point of order would in fact lie if the 
amendment were unpro

[[Page 12354]]

tected. The inquiry raised by Mr. Coleman on June 28, 
1989,(6) is illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 135 Cong. Rec. 13688, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                amendment offered by mrs. martin of illinois

        Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Page 13, line 
        24, strike the period and insert the following: ``: Provided 
        further, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
        Chief of Engineers, shall use $600,000 of the funds 
        appropriated under this heading for a flood control project on 
        Loves Park Creek, Loves Park and vicinity, Illinois, as 
        authorized by Public Law 99-662, sec. 401.''.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        The Chairman: (7) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Coleman) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Don J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald D.] Coleman of Texas: I have parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Coleman of Texas: I understand, am I correct, that this 
    amendment is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXIII, that it was 
    granted a waiver, is that correct, under the rule?
        The Chairman: The rule waives that point of order against the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Coleman of Texas: And those Members on the other side of 
    the aisle that object to rules that waive points of order would not 
    do so in this particular instance, is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Coleman of Texas: I thank the Chairman.

Waiver of Points of Order by Special Order

Sec. 10.18 Where a special order adopted by the House waived points of 
    order against certain of the amendments carried in the committee 
    report, those amendments not protected by the waiver remain subject 
    to points of order when offered, despite certain debate to the 
    effect that ``all specified amendments'' (those in the report) 
    could be considered.

    Where the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is faced with a 
point of order against an amendment enumerated in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying the special order setting the terms for 
the consideration of the bill, he is guided by the language in the 
special order, not on interpretations of the debate accompanying its 
adoption. Where the rule is clear, it must be followed literally.
    On June 24, 1992,(8) disagreement over the protection 
afforded

[[Page 12355]]

a particular amendment manifested itself during the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 138 Cong. Rec. 16106, 16107, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) The Clerk will designate the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Brian J. Donnelly (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gekas: Page 36, after line 5, 
        insert the following new section:
            Sec. 312. Section 313 of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
        of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 439a) is amended by striking out ``may be'' 
        the first place it appears and all that follows through the end 
        of the section and inserting in lieu thereof ``shall, when the 
        individual ceases to hold Federal office, as determined by the 
        individual--
            ``(1) be submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury for 
        deposit in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts;
            ``(2) be contributed to any organization described in 
        section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
            ``(3) be returned to the persons who made the 
        contributions;
            ``(4) be transferred without limitation to any national, 
        State, or local committee of any political party; or
            ``(5) be contributed to an authorized committee of a 
        candidate for Federal, State, or local office, within the 
        limits provided for by law.''.

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the gentleman's amendment and wish that he would 
    explain it to the Members.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California reserves a point of 
    order on the amendment.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] is recognized for 
    10 minutes.
        Mr. [George] Gekas [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    myself such time as I may consume. . . .

                               point of order

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] 
    wish to be heard on his point of order?
        Mr. Fazio: Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the Committee 
    on Rules has made distinctions between those which they protected 
    and which they did not. This clearly is not in the protected 
    category, and I would indicate to the chairman that while many, 
    many Members of this body are not at all affected by the 
    grandfather clause and while many who are covered by it have made 
    public their decision not to exercise it or have, by their decision 
    to seek reelection, made themselves ineligible to utilize it, it is 
    important that we keep faith with the Ethics Reform Act which was 
    passed overwhelmingly in this body several years ago.
        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
    because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
    legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates 
    clause 2 of rule XXI.
        Mr. Gekas: Mr. Chairman, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Gekas: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. Is there time available to 
    debate the point of order undertaken by the gentleman?
        The Chairman: Within the Chair's discretion, the gentleman is 
    recognized to debate the point of order.
        Mr. Gekas: Mr. Chairman, the point of order that has been 
    exercised is the

[[Page 12356]]

    one to which I made my previous remarks, that it is legislating, if 
    I am correct, that it is legislating in an appropriations bill. If 
    that is the stem of the point of order, then I submit, again, for 
    the record, that standing alone, any one of a dozen provisions in 
    this legislative appropriations bill that is before us, had it 
    exchanged places with me and with this amendment, would be subject 
    to the same point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond that the rule waived 
    certain points of order against provisions in the bill, but not 
    against all amendments, and the rule was adopted by the House. The 
    Chair is prepared to rule.
        Mr. Gekas: I understand. I made a point of parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The Chair will continue that the rule did not 
    exempt this amendment from a point of order.
        Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I wish 
    to be heard on the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, the rule did in fact 
    allow certain amendments to be brought forward on the floor. . . .
        On the other hand, the committee did say, I think the language 
    was ``amendments 1 and 9.'' Some could put an interpretation on 
    that, that that meant the entire scope of the amendments that were 
    listed in the bill, of amendments 1 through 9. I think that of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] is one of those amendments, 
    and therefore does deserve the protection that was accorded by the 
    rule, and it should be allowed to be made in order. . . .
        As I say, there are two interpretations. One interpretation is 
    that it means only amendment 1 and amendment 9. However, when the 
    staff of the Committee on Rules on our side originally read that 
    rule, they believed, based upon what they had heard in the 
    Committee on Rules, that it meant all nine of the amendments. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond. The Chair is constrained 
    by the language of the resolution adopted by the House, line 25, 
    ``All points of order under clause 2 of rule XXI against amendments 
    in the report numbered 1 and 9 are waived.''
        The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order of the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]. . . .
        The Chair would again respond that the Chair is constrained by 
    the adoption of the rule earlier today by the House on which only 
    certain points of order against amendments 1 and 9 were waived.
        Mr. Gekas: As a point of parliamentary inquiry, is the Chair 
    saying to me that the rule as fashioned overrules any further 
    consideration of the content of the rule?
        The Chairman: The Chair has earlier ruled twice during 
    consideration of amendments in the Committee of the Whole that two 
    other amendments which were offered by a different gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania were in fact legislation on an appropriation bill in 
    violation of the rules of the House, and were not given waivers by 
    the rule that was adopted by the House.
        The Chair is restrained by the rule that was adopted by the 
    House.

[[Page 12357]]

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] 
    insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Fazio: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I certainly do.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California makes the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    violates clause 2 of rule XXI by proposing legislation on a general 
    appropriation bill.
        The gentleman's amendment simply and directly amends the 
    Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. As such it proposes 
    legislation and does not merely perfect provisions in the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

``Hereby'' Resolutions and Points of Order

Sec. 10.19 The Committee on Rules may recommend a special order of 
    business providing that a Senate amendment pending at the Speaker's 
    table is ``hereby'' adopted, and a point of order does not lie 
    against the resolution on the basis that the Senate amendment 
    requires consideration in the Committee of the Whole.

    The proceedings on Feb. 4, 1993,(10) when H. Res. 71, 
reported from the Committee on Rules, was called up for consideration 
were not unique. So-called ``hereby'' resolutions have been challenged 
by points of order on other occasions.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 139 Cong. Rec. 2499, 2500, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
11. A clear precedent for this ruling can be found in 6 Deschler's 
        Precedents, Ch. 21, Sec. 16.11. It should be noted that the 
        Committee on Rules could have recommended a resolution 
        providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment but 
        waiving the applicability of Rule XX clause 1. See also House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 728 (1997) for related parliamentary 
        situations where specific rules were indirectly waived by the 
        use of ``hereby'' resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While assuming that the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1, the 
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, would indeed by subject to 
consideration in Committee of the Whole if called up for consideration, 
the Chair in this instance ruled that vulnerable amendment was not in 
fact before the House. Proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [Bart] Gordon [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 71 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 71

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the 
        bill (H.R. 1) to grant family and temporary medical leave under 
        certain circumstances be, and the same is hereby, taken from 
        the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendment 
        thereto

[[Page 12358]]

        be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman from 
    Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. David E. Skaggs (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               point of order

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House rule XX, I make the 
    point of order that House Resolution 71, the rule that we are 
    taking up, should be considered in the Committee of the Whole, and 
    I ask to be heard on my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, House rule XX provides that, and I 
    quote:

            Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill--

        And I repeat:

            An amendment of the Senate * * * shall be subject to a 
        point of order that it shall first be considered in the 
        Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, if, 
        originating in the House, it would be subject to that point.

        And the rule goes on to provide just one exception to this 
    requirement is possible, and that is if a motion to disagree to the 
    Senate amendment and request a conference is made.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Again, rule XX which the gentleman has 
    cited applies only if the Senate amendment itself is before the 
    House, which is not the parliamentary status that we are now in.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, where is the Senate amendment if it is 
    not in this language? It has to be before the House as a part of 
    this language because once this language is adopted, and the Chair 
    has ruled that the Senate amendment will not come up separately, 
    and so therefore, it has to be contained in this resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: What will be adopted will be the rule.
        Mr. Walker: But the rule enacts the bill, so the bill is a part 
    of the rule.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Again, the bill is not before the 
    House. The Senate amendment is not before the House. The resolution 
    of the Rules Committee is before the House. The Chair has ruled on 
    the point of order.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].

Sec. 10.20 A special order reported from the Committee on Rules may 
    provide for the ``self-execution'' of a Senate amendment, providing 
    that it be agreed to, even though if the amendment were before the 
    House it might be challenged by a variety of points of order (under 
    Rule XVI cl. 7, (germaneness); Rule XXI cl. 5(a) (an appropriation 
    in a legislative bill), or certain Budget Act infractions).

[[Page 12359]]

    By the use of ``hereby'' or ``self- executing'' resolutions the 
House can sometimes reduce the parliamentary steps required to achieve 
a legislative goal.
    On Feb. 24, 1993,(13) a rule was called up which 
provided for consideration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation 
Act, 1993. Because the rule provided that certain amendments be 
``considered as adopted,'' the number of votes necessary to perfect the 
text of the bill in the desired manner were consolidated in the vote on 
the rule. The points of order against the rule and the various 
responses of the Chair are carried herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 139 Cong. Rec. 3542, 3543, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993

        Mr. [David E.] Bonior [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 103 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 103

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 920) 
        to extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, and 
        for other purposes. The amendment recommended by the Committee 
        on Ways and Means printed in the bill and the amendment printed 
        in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
        resolution shall be considered as adopted. All points of order 
        against the bill, as amended, and against its consideration are 
        waived. Debate on the bill shall not exceed two hours equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous 
        question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
        amended, to final passage without intervening motion except one 
        motion to recommit.

                              points of order

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    point of order against the resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against House 
    Resolution 103 on the ground that two amendments self-executed by 
    the resolution are in violation of two different House rules, and I 
    ask to be heard on my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania wishes 
    to be heard, and the gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, first, House Resolution 103 is in 
    violation of clause 5(a) of rule XXI because it proposes to adopt 
    the Ways and Means Committee amendment printed as section 4 in H.R. 
    920 as reported. That section deals with financing provisions and 
    in effect reappropriates advance account funds to make payments to 
    the States to provide these additional benefits. Clause 5(a) of 
    rule XXI prohibits appropriations provisions in a bill not

[[Page 12360]]

    reported by the appropriations committee.
        Second, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 103 attempts to adopt an 
    amendment contained in the report to accompany the resolution 
    extending coverage of the bill to railroad employees. That 
    amendment is in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI which prohibits 
    the consideration of germane amendments. The amendment contained in 
    the Rules Committee report is under the jurisdiction of the Energy 
    and Commerce Committee and is therefore not germane to this bill 
    from the Ways and Means Committee.
        Mr. Speaker, since both of those amendments will be considered 
    to be adopted when this rule is adopted, they are currently before 
    us and must be subject to points of order. It is clear from the 
    rule that once the rule is adopted, the bill as amended by them is 
    not subject to points of order. But, prior to the adoption of this 
    resolution, those two amendments are obviously a part of this 
    resolution and subject to the two points of order I have raised.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does any Member wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The fact that amendments which if offered separately would be 
    violative of the rules does not prevent the Rules Committee from 
    self-executing the adoption of those amendments together in the 
    rule itself, by providing for their adoption upon the adoption of 
    the rule. The amendments are thus not separately before the House 
    at this time.

``Hereby'' Resolutions and Budget Act Relationships

Sec. 10.21 The requirement of section 308(a) of the Budget Act--that 
    any reported bill or resolution or committee amendment thereto 
    providing new budget authority shall contain in the accompanying 
    report a statement of the estimated costs--does not apply to a 
    resolution reported from the Committee on Rules which ``self-
    executes'' into a bill an amendment providing new budget authority, 
    since the resolution itself does not finally enact new budget 
    authority.

    Neither the consideration nor the adoption of a resolution reported 
from the Committee on Rules which self-executes an amendment carrying 
new budget authority is susceptible to a point of order under section 
308(a) of the Budget Act.(15) On Feb. 24, 
1993,(16) the Chair pointed out that the amendment was not 
before the House during consideration of the resolution and the 
resolution itself did not enact new budget authority. The point of 
order and the debate thereon are carried below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See also Sec. 10.20, supra.
16. 139 Cong. Rec. 3542, 3543, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) . . . Does the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania have another point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).

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

[[Page 12361]]

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    another point of order against House Resolution 103 on the ground 
    that it is in violation of section 308(a) of the Congressional 
    Budget Act of 1974, and I ask to be heard on my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, section 308(a) of the Congressional 
    Budget Act provides that, and I quote, ``Whenever a committee of 
    either House reports to its House a bill or resolution, or 
    committee amendment thereto, providing new budget authority * * * 
    new spending authority described in section 401(c)(2), or new 
    credit authority * * * the report accompanying that bill or 
    resolution shall contain a statement, the report accompanying that 
    bill or resolution shall contain a statement, or the committee 
    shall make available such a statement * * * prepared after 
    consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget Office'' 
    detailing the costs of that provision.
        Mr. Speaker, the amendment contained in the Rules Committee 
    report, which would be adopted upon the adoption of this 
    resolution, extends coverage of this bill to railroad workers. It 
    is my understanding that this may entail a cost of $20 million, but 
    the Rules Committee has not provided a cost estimate from CBO in 
    its report on this amendment as required by section 308 of the 
    Budget Act. This is an amendment reported by the Rules Committee 
    and therefore is subject to the CBO cost estimate requirements. I 
    therefore urge that my point of order be sustained.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does any Member wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania raises an objection based on 
    section 308(a) of the Budget Act on the basis that the report 
    accompanying this resolution coming from the Rules Committee would 
    have to have a CBO estimate of the potential cost involved by 
    virtue of adoption of the amendment. However, the Chair, after 
    consulting precedents and the rules of the House, rules that the 
    cost estimate does not have to be made a part of the report 
    accompanying the rule being brought from the Rules Committee, but 
    rather the point of order might lie against the underlying bill. 
    The resolution itself does not enact budget authority and, 
    therefore, the resolution coming from the Rules Committee does not 
    itself have to have the cost estimate in the accompanying report.
        Therefore, the Chair now would overrule the gentleman's point 
    of order. . . .
        The Chair would state that the Budget Act, section 308(a) of 
    the Budget Act, does not require budget estimates to be included in 
    the report since the amendments are not adopted until such time as 
    the rule is adopted. At that time, then, the amendments which are 
    contained and which would be self-actuated under the rule would 
    then be subject to section 308(a) of the Budget Act.
        Prior to the adoption by the House of Representatives of this 
    resolution, that underlying budget estimate is not required to be a 
    part of the report on the resolution itself.

Sec. 10.22 The adoption of a special order for the consider

[[Page 12362]]

    ation of a bill that ``self-executes'' the adoption of an amendment 
    providing new budget authority to a bill to be subsequently called 
    up does not, itself, provide new budget authority within the 
    meaning and application of section 308 of the Budget Act.

    House Resolution 103, called up in the House on Feb. 24, 
1993,(18) attracted several points of order at various times 
during its consideration. As indicated in Sec. 10.20, supra, points of 
order when the resolution was first called up by the Rules Committee 
were overruled. The point of order carried in this section was raised 
after the ordering of the previous question on the special order. Mr. 
Robert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, was trying to show that the Budget 
Act requirement that a report contain a Congressional Budget Office 
estimate of the budget authority was being completely obliterated by 
the type of special order being utilized here. A point of order was not 
entertained by the Chair at any stage of the proceeding. The waivers 
were all-encompassing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 139 Cong. Rec. 3554, 3555, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jim] Slattery [of Kansas] changed his vote from ``nay'' to 
    ``yea.''
        So the previous question was ordered.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                               point of order

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, which I understand 
    is now before us, based upon the Chair's previous ruling.
        I make my point of order on the ground that the report in this 
    resolution violates section 308(a) of the Budget Act requiring a 
    cost estimate.
        Section 308(a) of the Budget Act, which requires the CBO cost 
    estimate in the report on any committee bill, resolution or 
    amendment, contains no exemption for the report of the Committee on 
    Rules.
        I quote from the section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget 
    Act:

            Whenever a committee of either house reports to its house a 
        bill or resolution or committee amendment thereto providing new 
        budget authority, new spending authority described in section 
        402(c)(2) or new credit authority, the report accompanying that 
        bill or resolution shall contain a statement or the committee 
        shall make available such a statement prepared after 
        consultation with the director of the Congressional Budget 
        Office. . . .

        Section 308(a) clearly applies to the committee amendment, and 
    the amendment contained in the Rules Committee or report is a Rules 
    Committee amendment. It was not reported by the Ways and Means 
    Committee, it was not reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee 
    and so therefore is exclusively in the jurisdiction of the Rules 
    Committee.

[[Page 12363]]

        The amendment contained in the Rules Committee report on this 
    resolution will be considered to have been adopted when this 
    resolution is adopted. So there is no question who should provide 
    the CBO cost estimate. It is the Rules Committee. They are not 
    above the rules.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask that my point of order be sustained. . . .
        Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard further on the point of 
    order. . . .
        When it comes to a question in the bill itself, the point of 
    order with regard to the Budget Act will not be in order because 
    that point of order has been waived. The only time we can get at 
    this particular item is in the self-enacting amendment which is a 
    part of the rule.
        The gentleman has not referred to the self-enacting amendment. 
    That is the question to which this particular point of order 
    pertains and it is up to the Chair, I think, to sustain the point 
    of order based upon the fact that the self-enacting amendment 
    within this rule does in fact add costs. It is new budget authority 
    and is therefore in violation of the Congressional Budget Act. . . 
    .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Chair is prepared 
    to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment printed in the bill and the amendment printed in 
    House Report 103-18 will be considered as adopted by the operation 
    of House Resolution 103, which is the special order now pending 
    before the House. . . .

        As the Chair indicated previously, the new budget authority at 
    issue would be provided not by the resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules, but rather by the bill as amended.
        At this point, the point of order does not lie. That all points 
    of order against the bill as amended will be waived by House 
    Resolution 103, if adopted, does not cause such points of order to 
    lie at some earlier stage.
        The rules of the House authorize the Committee on Rules to 
    report a resolution providing a special order of business, and a 
    point of order under Section 308 of the Budget Act does not lie 
    against such a resolution on the ground that its adoption would 
    have the effect of abrogating clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI, which 
    incorporates the requirement of section 308 in the standing rules.
        Accordingly, the point of order is overruled.

Use of Special Order To Avoid Budget Act Points of Order

Sec. 10.23 Where the Congressional Budget Act provides for points of 
    order against reported measures which do not meet certain Budget 
    Act criteria, the Committee on Rules can recommend, in a special 
    order for consideration of a bill, that the text of an unreported 
    measure be considered in lieu of that reported. The Chair has in-
    dicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that points of 
    order under sections 302, 303, 311, 401, and

[[Page 12364]]

    402 apply only to reported measures.

    Following the adoption of a special order which made in order the 
text of an unreported bill in lieu of the reported version of a bill 
providing for welfare reform, the Chair entertained a parliamentary 
inquiry which explored the relationship of the Congressional Budget Act 
to the bill which would be considered under the provisions of the 
special order. While the Chair does not normally give anticipatory 
rulings, he did in this instance clarify the parliamentary situation. 
The proceedings of Mar. 21, 1995,  follow:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____x-8 3/81/81/162/62/3 
        5/322/51/51/3x-0 3/81/62/6 
        77/21/61/6x-0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Jim] McDermott [of Washington]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John T. Doolittle (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDermott: Mr. Speaker, does the rule we have just adopted 
    make in order general debate on H.R. 4 or H.R. 1214?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The rule makes in order debate on H.R. 
    4.
        Mr. McDermott: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the committees 
    of jurisdiction reported out three other bills, none of which is 
    before the House today. Am I correct that H.R. 4 has not been 
    reported out by any committee of jurisdiction?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. McDermott: Mr. Speaker, continuing that inquiry, is it true 
    that the Budget Act points of order which are designed to assure 
    that the budget rules we established for ourselves are adhered to 
    apply only to measures that have been reported by the committee of 
    jurisdiction?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair observes that sections 302, 
    303, 311, 401, and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 all 
    establish points of order against the consideration of bills or 
    joint resolutions as reported. That is, in each case the point of 
    order against consideration operates with respect to the bill or 
    joint resolution in its reported state. Thus, in the case of an 
    unreported bill or joint resolution, such a point of order against 
    consideration is inoperative.