[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 15, Chapter 31]
[Chapter 31. Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries]
[A. Points of Order]
[Â§ 11. As Related to Other Business]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 12364-12369]
 
                               CHAPTER 31
 
                Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
 
                           A. POINTS OF ORDER
 
Sec. 11. As Related to Other Business

    Certain points of order may interrupt business or 
debate.(2) A timely point of order may be made while another 
Member has the floor, and his consent is not required.(3) A 
point of order may even interrupt a Member stating a question of 
privilege.(4) A timely

[[Page 12365]]

point of order takes precedence of a parliamentary 
inquiry.(5) There are motions which supersede a point of 
order, however. One such motion is a motion that the Committee of the 
Whole rise(6) or that the House adjourn. It may be 
entertained by the Chair pending a decision on a point of 
order.(7) The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
entertain a unanimous-consent request to withdraw or modify an 
amendment even though a point of order is pending against 
it.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The special case of the point of order that a quorum is not present 
        is discussed in detail in Ch. 20, Calls of the House; Quorums.
 3. See Sec.  11.1, infra.
 4. See Sec.  11.2, infra.
 5. See Sec.  11.4, infra.
 6. See Sec.  11.3, infra.
 7. See Sec.  11.3, infra.
 8. See Sec.  11.5, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interrupting Members in Debate

Sec. 11.1 Points of order may be made while a Member has the floor, and 
    the consent of such Member is not required.

    On Mar. 13, 1942,(9) a Member was permitted to interrupt 
another to make a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 2439, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6709, an agricultural appropriation bill for 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [Mr. May, of Kentucky, was proceeding to debate a motion that 
    the Committee rise and report the bill under consideration back to 
    the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken out.]
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Missouri will 
    state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Robert Ramspeck (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I have not 
    yielded for a point of order.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that under the unanimous-consent agreement all time for debate has 
    expired and the gentleman cannot be recognized on a motion to 
    strike out the enacting clause offered to secure time for debate, 
    and not offered merely to secure time for debate.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. May: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman briefly.
        Mr. May: In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I did not yield to 
    the gentleman from Missouri for the purpose of his making a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri did not have to ask 
    the gentleman from Kentucky to yield in order to submit a point of 
    order.

Sec. 11.2 A point of order may interrupt a Member stating a question of 
    privilege.

        On June 30, 1939,(11) Speaker William B. Bankhead, 
    of Alabama, per

[[Page 12366]]

    mitted several Members to raise points of order while Mr. Clare E. 
    Hoffman, of Michigan, stated a question of personal privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 8468, 8469, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] will 
    state his question of personal privilege.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker . . . .
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point 
    of order that the gentleman is not stating a question of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: The Chair will allow the gentleman some latitude 
    in stating his question, but the gentleman must state a question of 
    privilege.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: I insist that the 
    gentleman be allowed only a small amount of latitude.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the remarks made by 
    the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
        The Speaker: The Chair is interested in hearing the gentleman 
    state his question of personal privilege.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the right of free 
    speech, and when the gentleman interrupts to make a remark I am 
    entitled to hear it. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Nichols: I make the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that the 
    gentleman is not stating a question of personal privilege.
        Mr. Hoffman: I do not yield for that, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Nichols: In order to state a question of privilege the 
    gentleman must state something that somebody said about him. The 
    gentleman is quoting statements he himself made.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, have I the floor or not?
        The Speaker: The gentleman has the floor, but unless the 
    gentleman proceeds to state his point of privilege he will not 
    occupy the floor very much longer.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, I am endeavoring to state the point 
    as concisely as I may, and I trust that the Speaker will bear with 
    me in my ignorance and my inexperience and let me state it. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, may I be free from such interruptions as occurred 
    then when a Member of the House [Mr. Hook] said, ``I agree''? 
    Otherwise, I will have to demand that the words be taken down.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.

        Mr. Hoffman: I do not yield for a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi will state his 
    point of order.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    statement that the gentleman from Michigan is making does not in 
    any way constitute a question of high constitutional privilege. . . 
    .
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, it is a strange situation when I 
    cannot state a question of personal privilege without interruption.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi had a perfect right 
    to make the point of order. The Chair is entitled to hear the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi.

Motions Interrupting Point of Order

Sec. 11.3 In the Committee of the Whole, a motion that the

[[Page 12367]]

    Committee rise may be entertained pending a decision of the Chair 
    or further argument on a point of order.

    On June 4, 1957,(12) a proponent of a bill, Mr. Harold 
D. Cooley, of North Carolina, forestalled a ruling by Chairman Brooks 
Hays, of Arkansas, on a point of order, by moving that the Committee of 
the Whole rise.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 8318, 8319, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6974, to extend the Agricultural Trade Development and 
        Assistance Act of 1954.
13. Parliamentarian's Note: In this case the language of the bill was 
        in violation of the provisions of Rule XXI clause 4, and the 
        Member in charge of the bill moved that the Committee rise so 
        application could be made to the Committee on Rules for a 
        resolution waiving points of order against the bill. See H. 
        Res. 274, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. (1957).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order against the entire bill, H.R. 6974, on the ground 
    that it is a bill from a committee not having authority to report 
    an appropriation. . . .
        Mr. Cooley: . . . I am a little bit apprehensive that the point 
    of order may be sustained, if the Chair is called upon to rule on 
    it. But, I think it would be very unfortunate for us to delay final 
    action on the bill, and in the circumstances we have no other 
    alternative other than to move that the Committee do now rise, and 
    so, Mr. Chairman, I make that motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order, but the motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina 
    that the Committee do now rise is in order, and the Chair will put 
    the question.

Precedence of Point of Order Over Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 11.4 A timely point of order takes precedence over a parliamentary 
    inquiry, and the reservation of a parliamentary inquiry gives no 
    priority for that purpose, since recognition is in the discretion 
    of the Chair.

    On June 7, 1977,(14) the Committee of the Whole, chaired 
by Mr. James R. Mann, of South Carolina, was operating under the five-
minute rule. The following proceedings are related to the topic of this 
section:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 17713, 17714, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments, and I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry with respect 
    thereto.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, may I reserve my parliamentary 
    inquiry and make it after the reading of the amendments?
        The Chairman: Certainly, the gentleman may do that.

[[Page 12368]]

        The Clerk will report the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Kindness: Page 28, line 12, 
        strike out ``but does not include a member of the uniformed 
        services'' and insert ``including any member of the uniformed 
        services''.
            Page 30, line 12, strike out ``and''.
            Page 32, line 3, strike out the period and insert ``; 
        and''.
            Page 32, after line 3, insert:
            ``(10) `Secretary concerned' has the same meaning as given 
        such term in section 101(5) of title 37.
            Page 35, line 2, strike out ``or a member of a uniformed 
        service.''.
            Page 38, line 14, immediately before the period insert ``or 
        by reason of being a member of the uniformed services''.
            Page 45, before line 8, insert the following:
            ``(j) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of a uniformed 
        service. Procedures with respect to any such violation shall, 
        under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be the 
        same as those applicable with respect to violations of section 
        892 of title 10.''. . .

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. Clay: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order on the 
    grounds that the matter contained in the amendment is in violation 
    of the germaneness rule stated in clause 7 of House rule XVI.
        The instant amendment proposes to make the bill applicable to 
    an entirely new class of individuals other than what is covered 
    under the bill.
        The reported bill applies only to civilian employees in 
    executive branch agencies, including the Postal Service and the 
    District of Columbia government, who are presently under the Hatch 
    Act.
        The amendment seeks to add a totally different class of 
    individuals to the bill; namely, military personnel who are not now 
    covered by the Hatch Act. Accordingly the amendment is not germane 
    to the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) wish 
    to speak to the point of order?
        Mr. Kindness: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I understood that I was recognized prior to the 
    reading of the amendment for the purpose of stating a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman chose to 
    defer his inquiry.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the gentleman's 
    point of order is out of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that a point of order is now 
    in order and has preference.

Sec. 11.5 Although a point of order is pending against a substitute for 
    an amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may en-
    tertain a unanimous-consent request to withdraw or modify the 
    substitute.

    On June 18, 1958,(15) it was ruled in order in the 
Committee of

[[Page 12369]]

the Whole to make a unanimous-consent request although a point of order 
was pending at the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 104 Cong. Rec. 11641-43, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 12858, making appropriations for civil functions 
        administered by the Departments of the Army, Interior, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Robert] Hale [of Maine]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: (16) The Clerk will read the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment because it provides for items that are 
    not authorized by law. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, can a unanimous-
    consent request be propounded while a point of order is pending 
    before the committee?
        The Chairman: The Chair would entertain such a unanimous-
    consent request. Any Member can object if he so desires. Does the 
    gentleman from Maine care to make such a request?
        Mr. Hale: Mr. Chairman, I want to be heard on the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman can be heard and he is recognized. 
    The Chair is interested in disposing of the point he raised a 
    moment ago.
        Mr. Hale: I will be happy to have any solution of the 
    parliamentary situation.
        The Chairman: The gentleman can ask unanimous consent to 
    withdraw the substitute and offer an amendment.