[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 15, Chapter 31]
[Chapter 31. Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries]
[A. Points of Order]
[Â§ 2. Manner of Making Point of Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 12035-12038]
 
                               CHAPTER 31
 
                Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
 
                           A. POINTS OF ORDER
 
Sec. 2. Manner of Making Point of Order

    The formalities followed in making a point of order are relatively 
simple. Members making points of order must address the Chair and be 
recognized before proceeding,(6) the Member should be 
specific as to the language to which he objects,(7) and the 
Member should make clear that he is making a point of 
order.(8) The Chair controls debate on a point of order, and 
a Member recognized on a point of order may not yield to another Member 
for debate thereon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
 7. See Sec. 2.2, infra.
 8. See Sec. 2.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addressing the Chair

Sec. 2.1 Members making points of order must address the Speaker and be 
    recognized before proceeding.

[[Page 12036]]

    On Oct. 24, 1945,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
asserted himself when the discussion on the floor grew particularly 
acrimonious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 10033, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1834, proscribing procedures of investigative committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, we have 
    just witnessed one of the most ridiculous performances that has 
    taken place in this House since I have been in Congress. These 
    unjustified attacks on the Committee on Un-American Activities, 
    these smear attacks on the Daughters of the American Revolution by 
    the Jewish gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler], have been shocking 
    indeed, to say the least of it.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman is out of order when he refers to 
    me as ``the Jewish gentleman from New York.'' I ask that the words 
    be taken down.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman will allow the Chair, there is 
    one way to refer to a Member of the House of Representatives and 
    that is, ``the gentleman from'' the State from which he comes. Any 
    other appellation is a violation of the rules.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, if he objects to being called a 
    ``Jewish gentleman'' I withdraw it.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the words be taken down.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: I ask that those words be 
    taken down.
        Mr. Rankin: I am withdrawing the words. I have not the time to 
    argue such matters.
        Mr. Marcantonio: I object to his withdrawing the words. I 
    request that the words be taken down.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already stated the rule with 
    reference to the language of the gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. Marcantonio: But he repeated it, sir.
        Mr. Rankin: But I withdrew it. I have something else to talk 
    about.
        Mr. Marcantonio: But I object to his withdrawing it.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already ruled on the matter and that 
    is the end of it.
        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] will proceed in 
    order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: He repeated it despite the Speaker's ruling.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, it is exceedingly strange that a man 
    presuming to arrogate to himself the prerogative of speaking for a 
    minority group will rise on this floor and denounce the Daughters 
    of the American Revolution, in the manner the Member from New York 
    [Mr. Celler] did and then raise a protest when he is even referred 
    to as a gentleman of his race.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: The gentleman by inference and innuendo has simply 
    repeated what he said at the inception of his remarks when he 
    attempted to state that I was a Jewish gentleman. That is the 
    second time he did it by indirection. I think the gentleman should

[[Page 12037]]

    be called to order and cautioned not to repeat that kind of 
    language.
        The Speaker: The gentleman refers to the gentleman, if he 
    referred to him at all, as the member of a minority race. The Chair 
    does not think that is a violation of the rule.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. I wish to 
    proceed in order. Does the Member from New York [Mr. Celler] object 
    to being called a Jew or does he object to being called a 
    gentleman? What is he kicking about?
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair desires to make a little statement.
        The Chair trusts that points of order may be properly points of 
    order hereafter, and that a Member before he makes a point of order 
    secures the recognition of the Chair.
        The gentleman from Mississippi will proceed in order, and the 
    Chair trusts that the gentleman from Mississippi understands what 
    the Chair means.

Sec. 2.2 In making a point of order, a Member should be specific as to 
    the objectionable language.

        On Feb. 7, 1940,(10) Chairman Harry P. Beam, of 
    Illinois, instructed that a point of order should be specific.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 1194, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 8319, a State, Justice, Commerce, and Judiciary 
        appropriations bill for fiscal 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I send to 
    the desk a further amendment. This takes the place of the language 
    stricken on the point of order made by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Taber].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Caldwell: On page 18, line 2, 
        after the figures and the semicolon insert the following: 
        ``Bureau of Interparliamentary Union for Promotion of 
        International Arbitration, $20,000, including not to exceed 
        $10,000 for the expenses of the American group of the 
        Interparliamentary Union, including personal services in the 
        District of Columbia and elsewhere, traveling expenses, 
        purchase of necessary books, documents, newspapers, 
        periodicals, maps, stationery, official cards, printing and 
        binding, entertainment, and other necessary expenses to be 
        disbursed on vouchers approved by the president and ex-ecutive 
        secretary of the American group.''

        Mr. [John] Taber: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 
    the language is still beyond the authorization of the law.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman be specific and point out the 
    language he objects to in the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Florida?
        Mr. Taber: The words ``and other necessary expenses to be 
    disbursed on vouchers approved by the president and executive 
    secretary of the American group.''
        Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Chairman, I believe it proper, in view of the 
    scope of the act which authorizes our participation in the 
    Interparliamentary Union, that it be held that all of the purposes 
    now included in the amendment are authorized. Even the word 
    ``entertainment,'' which was complained of in the point of order 
    previously considered, must of necessity be included here.

[[Page 12038]]

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The act of June 28, 1935, among other things, in the second 
    paragraph has the following language:
        Such appropriation to be disbursed on vouchers to be approved 
    by the president and the executive secretary of the American group.
        Considering this language in connection with the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Florida, the Chair is constrained to 
    overrule the point of order.

Sec. 2.3 A point of order should be stated explicitly, so that it is 
    clearly understood to be a point of order and not a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

    On June 28, 1967,(11) after a teller vote had commenced, 
Chairman John J. Flynt, Jr., of Georgia, ignored ``points of order'' 
which were stated as questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 17748, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10340, authorizing appropriations for the National 
        Aeronautics and Space Administration. See also 118 Cong. Rec. 
        13114, 13115, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 18, 1972. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 45, establishing an institute for 
        continuing studies of juvenile justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald] Rumsfeld [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Rumsfeld: Is it not correct that there should be a teller 
    in favor of the amendment and a teller in opposition?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois has asked a question 
    rather than making a point of order.
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: I am here. I am against 
    the amendment.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Waggonner: Is it not necessary, under the rules of the 
    House, in the instance of a teller vote, that the Chair name one 
    Member as a teller who supports the amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Louisiana has not made a point of order, but rather has asked a 
    question. The Chair designated as tellers the gentleman from 
    Indiana [Mr. Roudebush], the author of the amendment, and the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. No point was raised until 
    the vote had begun to be taken.
        The vote will proceed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to Rule I clause 5, the Chair is 
required to name tellers ``on each side of the question,'' and a timely 
point of order, before the vote had commenced, would have been 
entertained.