[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 15, Chapter 31]
[Chapter 31. Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries]
[A. Points of Order]
[Â§ 3. Reserving Points of Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 12038-12078]
 
                               CHAPTER 31
 
                Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
 
                           A. POINTS OF ORDER
 
Sec. 3. Reserving Points of Order

    By reserving a point of order against an amendment, instead of 
making it, a Member may hear

[[Page 12039]]

the debate on the merits of a proposition or ask a preliminary 
question, and later determine whether to press or withdraw his point of 
order.(12) Such a reservation is in the discretion of the 
Chair (13) who must entertain and rule on the point of order 
immediately, if a demand for regular order is made.(14) 
Where all debate time has expired, the reservation of a point of order 
is not possible. Where there is no time for debate, a point of order 
must be immediately stated and ruled upon.(15) The 
reservation of a point of order by one Member against an amendment at 
the proper time reserves all points of order against the provision 
(16) and inures to all Members,(17) but the 
reservation of a point of order by one Member does not preclude another 
from insisting upon a point of order immediately.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 3.1, infra. Of course, if the Member pressed his point of 
        order at that time, instead of reserving it, debate on the 
        point of order, if permitted at all by the Chair, would be 
        confined to the point of order only. See Sec. 3.2, infra.
13. See Sec. Sec. 3.17, 3.18, infra.
14. See Sec. 3.15, infra.
15. See Sec. 3.30, infra.
16. See Sec. 3.11, infra.
17. See Sec. 3.10 et seq., infra.
18. See Sec. 3.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The practice of ``reserving a point of order'' applies to 
amendments and not to a paragraph in the bill text.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 3.5, infra; but see also Sec. 3.6, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In General

Sec. 3.1 A Member may reserve a point of order against a measure and 
    then, after debate on the measure, either insist upon or withdraw 
    the point of order.

        On Oct. 28, 1969,(20) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, 
    and Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, reserved points of order against an 
    amendment offered by Mr. Jeffery Cohelan, of California, but after 
    some discussion on the amendment, Mr. Mahon decided not to press 
    his point of order, while Mr. Bow determined to proceed and the 
    Chair then requested that he state it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 31886, 31888, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration were continuing appropriations for fiscal 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cohelan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cohelan: Page 4, line 22, after 
        ``lower:'', insert the following:
            ``Provided, That in the case of activities for which 
        appropriations would be available to the Office of Education 
        under the Act making appropriations for the Departments of 
        Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare for the fiscal year 
        1970, as passed by the House, the amount available for each 
        such activity shall

[[Page 12040]]

        be the amount provided therefor by the House action.''

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from Texas reserves 
    a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order also.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chair notes that a point of order is pending.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I have now had an opportunity to read 
    the gentleman's amendment, and I withdraw my point of order.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I renew the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Bow: The amendment provides for activities for which 
    appropriations would be available for the Office of Education under 
    the act making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and 
    Health, Education, and Welfare for fiscal 1970, as passed by the 
    House. Now, there is no act making appropriations for the 
    Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare. Since 
    there is no act, this becomes an action of this House in making an 
    appropriation to the Department when no act has been passed by the 
    Congress.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Cohelan: Mr. Chairman, I submit that the amendment was 
    carefully drafted, and to the very best of my knowledge, it is a 
    proper amendment. I urge that it be so recognized.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    California offered an amendment to page 4, line 22, of the bill, to 
    which the gentleman from Ohio made a point of order. The gentleman 
    from Ohio in making his point of order has not pointed out to the 
    Chair any rule of the House that the amendment violates. The point 
    raised by the gentleman from Ohio is not one for the Chair to pass 
    on, but presumably is one for the committee itself to pass on. The 
    Chair does not sustain the point of order.

Effect of Reservation

Sec. 3.2 Where points of order are reserved, debate may be had on the 
    merits of the proposition under consideration, but where points of 
    order are made, discussion is confined to the question of order 
    presented.

    On Apr. 2, 1937,(2) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, 
explained the effect of reserving a point of order to Mr. Jack Nichols, 
of Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 3096-98, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        an appropriation bill for the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Nichols: Will the Chair explain the effect of reserving a 
    point of order instead of making it? . . .
        The Chairman: It is within the right of the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma ei

[[Page 12041]]

    ther to make his point of order or to reserve his point of order. 
    If the gentleman makes the point of order, discussion would be 
    confined to the point of order. If he reserves the point of order 
    it would permit debate on the provision of the bill against which 
    the point of order is reserved.
        Mr. Nichols: Then, Mr. Chairman, I decline to reserve the point 
    of order, but make it.

Yielding for Amendment While Reservation of Point of Order Is Pending

Sec. 3.3 A Member who has offered an amendment against which a point of 
    order has been reserved may not during his time for debate yield to 
    another Member to offer an amendment to the amendment.

        During consideration of a bill under the five-minute rule, in 
    Committee of the Whole, on Mar. 21, 1979,(3) an 
    amendment was offered by Mr. Theodore S. Weiss, of New York, 
    against which a point of order was reserved. The proceedings are 
    carried below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 5779-81, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weiss: Page 3, insert after line 5 
        the following:

        Sec. 5. (a) Section 3(b) of the Council on Wage and Price 
    Stability Act is amended by striking out ``Nothing in this Act'' 
    and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as provided in section 8, 
    nothing in this Act''.

            (b) Such Act is amended by adding after section 7 the 
        following new section:

                            ``presidential authority

            ``Sec. 8. (a) The President is authorized to issue such 
        orders and regulations as he may deem appropriate to stabilize 
        prices, rents, wages, and salaries at levels not less than 
        those prevailing on January 1, 1979, and to stabilize interest 
        rates and corporate dividends and similar transfers at levels 
        consistent with orderly economic growth. Such orders and 
        regulations may provide for the making of such adjustments as 
        may be necessary to prevent gross inequities. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Moorhead) will be protected on his reservation of the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Butler Derrick (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the amendment. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Marc L.] Marks [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Weiss: I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Marks: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
        The Chairman: The Chair will remind the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Marks) that his amendment is not in order at this 
    point.

[[Page 12042]]

        Mr. Marks: May I ask the Chair a question?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead) 
    has reserved a point of order against the pending amendment.
        Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I would now like to 
    insist on my point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
        The Chairman: The Chair will point out that the time is under 
    the control of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Marks) had asked if I would yield to him, and I am pleased to yield 
    to him at this point.
        Mr. Marks: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, it was my purpose to offer an amendment to the 
    suggestion or the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Weiss), seeking to give the President the authority to impose 
    mandatory wage and price controls, whereby we would give the 
    Congress the authority to nullify the controls imposed by the 
    President by the passage of a concurrent resolution.
        It is my purpose, if it is in order, to ask the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Weiss) if he would accept such an amendment.
        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to accept that 
    language and make it part of my amendment, if that is satisfactory 
    to the Chair.
        Mr. Marks: I would ask the opportunity in that case, Mr. 
    Chairman, on my own time, if I may, to speak to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that a point of order has 
    been reserved, and the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Weiss) has not expired. It would be improper for the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Marks) to offer his amendment to the amendment at 
    this time.
        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair would allow me to 
    proceed, I understood that what we had was a reservation of the 
    point of order, and pending that, it is my understanding that the 
    debate could proceed as if in fact there had been no intervention. 
    I would ask if that is accurate.
        The Chairman: But the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Weiss) is the amendment that is pending before the 
    Committee, and that is the subject at this moment.
        Mr. Weiss: That is right, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: When the Chair disposes of the point of order, 
    then the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marks) may offer his 
    amendment to the amendment, if it remains pending. . . .

    After further argument, the Chair sustained the point of order.

A Member Reserving a Point of Order Does Not Thereby Get Five Minutes 
    of Debate Time

Sec. 3.4 A Member who reserves a point of order against an amendment is 
    not entitled to debate time at that point, for the proponent has 
    the right to explain his amendment

[[Page 12043]]

    under the five-minute rule when the point of order is reserved.

    On Oct. 7, 1985,(5) Mr. John D. Dingell, Jr., of 
Michigan, reserved a point of order and attempted to control the debate 
on an amendment offered as a substitute to an amendment to H.R. 2100, 
the Food Security Act of 1985. Of course, if the point of order is made 
against the amendment, rather than reserved, the Member making the 
point of order is immediately recognized for argument thereon, prior to 
debate on the merits of the amendment. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 131 Cong. Rec. 26444, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Tauke as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Page 509, after 
        line 13, insert:

                          lead additives in farm fuel

            Sec. 1896. (a) Except as provided in subsection (f), any 
        regulation issued under any provision of law before or after 
        the date of enactment of this section regarding the control or 
        prohibition of lead additives in gasoline shall be amended to 
        provide that the average lead content per gallon of gasoline 
        distributed and sold for use on a farm for farming purposes 
        shall not be less than 0.5 grams per gallon. The purpose of 
        such amendment shall be to ensure that adequate supplies of 
        gasoline containing sufficient lead additives to protect and 
        maintain farm machinery will be available in all States for use 
        on farms for farming purposes. Nothing in this section shall 
        affect the control of lead or lead additives in gasoline 
        distributed and sold for other uses. For purposes of this 
        section, the term ``gasoline used on a farm for farming 
        purposes'' has the same meaning as when used in section 6420 of 
        the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Tauke [of Iowa] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
    as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan reserves a point of 
    order on the amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any reason to believe 
    it will be necessary for me to insist on the point of order. I make 
    the reservation of objection for purposes of a colloquy with my 
    three distinguished friends, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Madigan], the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Tauke], and of course my 
    dear friend from Texas, the chairman of the Committee on 
    Agriculture, Mr. de la Garza.
        I understand when this matter reaches the conference stage that 
    you have agreed to keep the Committee on Energy and Commerce----
        The Chairman: The gentleman, Mr. Dingell, will suspend for 1 
    second, please.
        The Chair would respectfully advise the gentleman that he 
    cannot proceed

[[Page 12044]]

    with the debate on a reservation of a point of order. If the 
    gentleman from Iowa wishes to yield to the gentleman for that 
    purpose, he has the time.
        The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Tauke] is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

Sec. 3.5 It is not the practice to permit the reservation of a point of 
    order against part of a bill and then consider amendments.

    On Apr. 13, 1949,(7) following the reading of an 
amendment by the Clerk, Mr. Frederic R. Coudert, Jr., of New York, 
threatened to press his reserved point of order if the amounts 
authorized in the military appropriation bill under consideration were 
increased by the amendment. Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, 
prevented the Member from reserving the point of order, however, by 
requiring it be disposed of before any amendments be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 95 Cong. Rec. 4521, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1146, the national military establishment appropriation 
        bill of 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. Coudert: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Coudert: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order with 
    respect to the last three lines of that paragraph . . . as 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. If the total amount specified 
    in the bill is not increased, I shall not insist upon the point of 
    order. If it is increased by amendment, I shall be compelled to 
    insist upon the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the point of 
    order should be disposed of before any amendment is considered.
        Mr. Coudert: In that event, Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against that language.
        Mr. Chairman, may I state a parliamentary inquiry?
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Coudert: Mr. Chairman, is it the final decision of the 
    Chairman that I may not reserve the point of order until the 
    amendment is disposed of?
        The Chairman: The Chair is informed that it has not been the 
    practice to reserve points of order and then consider amendments. 
    The Chair will entertain the gentleman's point of order if the 
    gentleman presses it. . . .
        Mr. Coudert: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I must insist upon the 
    point of order to the entire paragraph, including the amount.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rationale behind disposing of points of 
order against paragraphs in a general appropriation bill, before 
entertaining amendments thereto, is that points of order, if sustained, 
might result in the striking of the paragraph, in which event 
amendments to such paragraph would be precluded.

[[Page 12045]]

Instance Where a Reservation of Point of Order Against Paragraph in 
    Bill Was Permitted

Sec. 3.6 Although it is contrary to established practice, in one 
    instance the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole permitted a 
    Member to reserve a point of order against a paragraph in a general 
    appropriation bill, allowed limited debate thereon, and then 
    recognized the Member who had made the reservation.

    On Sept. 19, 1983,(8) during the reading of H.R. 3222, 
the Commerce, State, Justice, and the Judiciary and related agencies 
appropriations, fiscal 1984, one Member sought recognition to debate 
the pending paragraph by a pro forma amendment while another reserved a 
point of order pending that debate. Chairman George E. Brown, Jr., of 
California, permitted this to happen to avoid a point of order being 
immediately pressed against the paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 24638, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                       international trade administration

                         operations and administration

            For necessary expenses for international trade activities 
        of the Department of Commerce, including trade promotional 
        activities abroad without regard to the provisions of law set 
        forth in 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for 
        dependent members of immediate families of employees stationed 
        overseas; employment of Americans and aliens by contract for 
        services abroad; rental of space abroad for periods not 
        exceeding five years, and expenses of alteration, repair, or 
        improvement; purchase or construction of temporary demountable 
        exhibition structures for use abroad; payment of tort claims, 
        in the manner authorized in the first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 
        2673 when such claims arise in foreign countries; not to exceed 
        $165,200 for official representation expenses abroad; awards of 
        compensation to informers under the Export Administration Act 
        of 1979, and authorized by 22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of 
        passenger motor vehicles for official use abroad and motor 
        vehicles for law enforcement use; $183,831,000, to remain 
        available until expended: Provided, That the provisions of the 
        first sentence of section 105(f) and all of section 108(c) of 
        the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 
        U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these 
        activities. During fiscal year 1984 and within the resources 
        and authority available, gross obligations for the principal 
        amount of direct loans shall not exceed $15,000,000. During 
        fiscal year 1984, total commitments to guarantee loans shall 
        not exceed $30,000,000 of contingent liability for loan 
        principal.

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Frenzel: I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

[[Page 12046]]

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 
    this section of the bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) 
    reserves a point of order against this section of the bill.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, I take this time simply to indicate 
    that this is an unauthorized section, as was noted in the general 
    debate. But, after discussing this matter with the distinguished 
    chairman and the distinguished ranking member, I think that it will 
    not be necessary to make a point of order.
        The House authorization bill, which was only passed last week, 
    contained about $27\1/2\ million for this total range of programs. 
    This authorization bill contains $40 million plus $30 million in 
    loan guarantee authority. The chairman and ranking member have 
    indicated that they would like to follow the House authorization as 
    closely as possible when the bill moves into conference.
        This is a section of the law which has not been terribly 
    effective, but on the other hand, in light of our present 
    difficulties in this trade area, it is considered important to many 
    Members. I would hope that the Committee of the Whole would stand 
    easy on this one and trust the Appropriations Committee to carry it 
    through in conference.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania insist upon 
    his point of order?
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, in light of the remarks of the 
    distinguished ranking member of the committee that handles this 
    legislation, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman withdraws his reservation of a 
    point of order.

Reservation of Points of Order

Sec. 3.7 A point of order may not be reserved against a paragraph in a 
    general appropriation bill but must be made immediately after the 
    portion of the bill is read or considered as read, before 
    amendments are offered.

    During the reading of a general appropriation bill in Committee of 
the Whole, a point of order against an amendment may be ``reserved'' so 
that the text of the amendment may be examined before a point of order 
has to be stated. However, this rationale for permitting a reservation 
of a point of order does not exist with respect to the bill text, since 
Rule XXI clause 7, requires the report to be available for three days 
before the bill is called up and the reported text has been before the 
Members during the general debate on the bill.
    Often the manager of the bill will ask unanimous consent that a 
portion of the bill encompassing many paragraphs be ``considered as 
read.'' When this happens, points of order against the bill text must 
be made immediately after the request is agreed to and

[[Page 12047]]

come too late after amendments have been offered to the pending text. 
The proceedings of Sept. 16, 1980,(9) are illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 126 Cong. Rec. 25604, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 736. No part of the funds appropriated under this Act 
        shall be used to pay salaries of any Federal employee who is 
        convicted in any Federal, State, or local court of competent 
        jurisdiction, of inciting, promoting, or carrying on a riot, or 
        any group activity resulting in material damage to property or 
        injury to persons, found to be in violation of Federal, State, 
        or local laws designed to protect persons or property in the 
        community concerned.

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be 
    considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I ask simply to propound a parliamentary 
    inquiry. I will have a point of order to raise against one of the 
    sections in this title. Under the unanimous-consent request that 
    has been asked for, would that point of order be in order at any 
    time during consideration of title VII?
        The Chairman: Immediately after the unanimous-consent request 
    is agreed to.
        Mr. Weiss: I thank the Chair, and I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order against title VII?
        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order on section 761.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman making the point of order now?
        Mr. Addabbo: Mr. Chairman, it will be my intention, after 
    unanimous consent has been agreed to, to move to strike section 
    761.
        Mr. Levitas: I thank the gentleman.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order at this time?

                               point of order

        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, I object to section 736 and rise to 
    make a point of order against section 736.
        This provision violates rule XXI, clause 2, of the rules of the 
    House of Representatives, which forbids legislation in an 
    appropriations bill.
        By permitting the Department of Defense to impose funding 
    sanctions against its employees who are convicted of ``inciting, 
    promoting, or carrying on a riot, or any group activity resulting 
    in material damage to property or injury to persons,'' section 736 
    is legislation as to the qualifications of the recipients of these 
    appropriations. This cannot be done under the House rules--see 
    Deschler's chapter 26, sections 11.36 and 11.26.

[[Page 12048]]

        In addition, the section requires a State-by-State analysis of 
    differing criminal statutes, and a review of personnel activities 
    at all levels of the military. This creation of a new affirmative 
    duty on the part of a Federal official is legislation and thus 
    impermissible in an appropriations bill--see Deschler's chapter 26, 
    sections 10.7, 11.38, and 8.9.
        The precedents of the House clearly state that legislative 
    changes may not be made on an appropriations bill. I urge the 
    Chairman to uphold the rules of this body and rule this provision 
    out of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Addabbo) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Addabbo: I do, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, this is strictly a limitation on the funds in 
    this bill. They pertain only to the Federal employees as the 
    language is contained in the bill, and, therefore, it is strictly a 
    limitation and not legislation.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule, based on the 
    precedents suggesting that when a Federal official is called upon 
    to subjectively evaluate the propriety of individual conduct; such 
    language constitutes legislation.
        For example:

            An amendment providing that no part of the funds carried in 
        a general appropriations bill may be used for financial 
        assistance for students who have engaged in conduct of a 
        serious nature contributing to a substantial campus disruption 
        and who have used force or the threat thereof to prevent the 
        pursuit of academic aims was held to be imposing new duties and 
        exercise of judgment on the part of Federal officials and was 
        ruled out as legislation--Deschler's; chapter 26, section 16, 
        12.

        Based on this precedent and because the section would require 
    the determinations of material damage and the purpose of local 
    governments in enacting laws, the Chair sustains the point of 
    order, and section 736 is stricken from the bill.

Sec. 3.8 The reservation of a point of order against an amendment at 
    the proper time reserves all points of order against the amendment.

    On July 19, 1973,(11) Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, upheld the right of Mr. Thomas S. Foley, of Washington, to 
make a point of order that he had reserved earlier, although at the 
time of his reservation, he had indicated another basis for a point of 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 24950, 24951, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8860, to amend and extend the 
        Agricultural Act of 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William L.] Armstrong [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Foley: Mr. Chairman, I suggest a point of order would lie 
    against this amendment. I believe we have gone past this section of 
    the bill, and I reserve a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Colorado has 
    expired.
        The Chair would ask the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) 
    whether

[[Page 12049]]

    the gentleman insists upon his point of order?
        Mr. Foley: Mr. Chairman, I do.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Foley: Mr. Chairman, I must insist upon my point of order, 
    because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado is not 
    germane to the bill.
        H.R. 8860 is an agriculture and farm program and deals only 
    with a program specified under the jurisdiction of the Department 
    of Agriculture. This amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Colorado, which amends the Economic Stabilization Act, was not be- 
    fore the Committee on Agriculture for its consideration and 
    jurisdiction. Accordingly I suggest the amendment is not germane to 
    the bill.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Colorado desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, I do. I would respectfully point 
    out that this is not the point of order which the gentleman from 
    Washington earlier reserved, and I would, therefore, inquire of the 
    Chair at this point if such a point of order is timely.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman from 
    Colorado that the gentleman from Washington was heard [to reserve] 
    a point of order, and at that time he did not have to state the 
    basis for his reservation. His point of order is now in order.

Sec. 3.9 The reservation of a point of order by one Member does not 
    preclude another from pressing the same point of order.

    On July 19, 1967,(12) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, insisted 
on making his point of order immediately, although Mr. Edwin E. Willis, 
of Louisiana, had expressed his desire to reserve the same point of 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 19412, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 421, prescribing penalties for travel in interstate 
        commerce to incite riots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Willis: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 
    the amendment.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    amendment on the grounds that the amendment is not germane to the 
    pending legislation.
        Mr. Willis: That is the reservation that I had in mind.
        Mr. Gross: I have no reservation. I am making the point of 
    order.

Reservation of Point of Order Inures to All Members

Sec. 3.10 A timely reservation of a point of order by one Member inures 
    to all, and Members other than the one lodging the reservation may 
    later press a point of order.

    A point of order may be reserved against a motion to recom

[[Page 12050]]

mit with instructions to report back forthwith, with an amendment, 
since such a motion may be debated for 10 minutes under Rule XVI clause 
4.
    On July 18, 1990,(14) during consideration of the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1990, a point of order was reserved by Mr. John 
Conyers, Jr., of Michigan, against an amendment offered by Mr. Willis 
D. Gradison, Jr., of Ohio. The point of order was first pressed by 
another Member and then, after argument, renewed by Mr. Conyers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 136 Cong. Rec. 17920, 17930, 17931, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Balanced Budget Act of 1990

        Mr. [Butler] Derrick [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the bill (H.R. 5258) to require that the President transmit to 
    Congress, that the congressional Budget Committees report, and that 
    the Congress consider a balanced budget for each fiscal year, and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The text of H.R. 5258 is as follows:

                                   H.R. 5258

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

               title i--amendment to title 31, united states code

           sec. 101. submission of balanced budget by the president.

            Section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
        inserting at the end the following new subsection:
            ``(g)(1) Except as provided by paragraph (2), any budget 
        submitted to Congress pursuant to subsection (a) for the 
        ensuing fiscal year shall not be in deficit.
            ``(2) For any fiscal year with respect to which the 
        President determines that it is infeasible to submit a budget 
        in compliance with paragraph (1), the President shall submit on 
        the same day two budgets, one of which shall be in compliance 
        with paragraph (1), together with written reasons in support of 
        that determination.''. . . .

                 motion to recommit offered by mr. gradison

        Mr. Gradison: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) Is the gentleman 
    opposed to the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. David E. Skaggs (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gradison: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gradison moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 5258) to the 
        Committee on Rules and the Committee on Government Operations 
        with instructions to report the same to the House forthwith 
        with the following amendment:
            Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
        following:

           SEC. 101. AMENDMENTS CHANGING ``CONCURRENT'' TO ``JOINT'' 
                                  RESOLUTIONS.

            (a) The table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the 
        Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is 
        amended by striking ``concurrent'' in the items relating to

[[Page 12051]]

        sections 301, 303, and 304 and inserting ``joint''. . . .

        Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object on a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the language that has 
    been presented.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Conyers] reserves a point of order.
        The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gradison] is recognized for 5 
    minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Conyers] reserving the right to object on the question of the 
    reading of the motion, or is he reserving simply a point of order? 
    I understood he was reserving the right to object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair understood the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] to reserve a point of order against the 
    motion.
        Mr. Gradison: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. . . .
        Mr. Derrick: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Derrick: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. Gradison] is out of order. It goes beyond the scope of the 
    Budget Act. It is entirely out of the scope of what we are dealing 
    with. It requires a complete revision of the Budget Act in that we 
    ask the President to sign it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Conyers] reserved the point of order. Is it in order for the 
    gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick] to make the point of 
    order that was reserved by the gentleman from Michigan?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules of the House, a timely 
    reservation of a point of order by one Member inures to any other 
    Member that wishes to press it, and so the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. Derrick] is sentitled to press that point of order. . 
    . .
        Mr. Conyers: Mr. Speaker, if I may be heard on my point of 
    order, I believe that the motion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    Gradison] is not germane because it amends the table of contents to 
    make it a joint resolution. This is the only way it can be done, 
    and in effect it affects all budget resolutions, not just the 
    Balanced Budget Act, H.R. 5258.
        So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge that the point of order be 
    sustained because it is not germane. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will apply the fundamental 
    purpose test of germaneness to this motion. The underlying 
    legislation is described primarily in the second paragraph of page 
    2 of the Rules Committee report filed with the bill. . . .
        For that reason it fails the test of germaneness, and the point 
    of order is sustained.

[[Page 12052]]

Sec. 3.11 Because the reservation of a point of order by one Member 
    inures to all Members, where one Member reserves a point of order 
    against an amendment and the point of order is thereafter overruled 
    or withdrawn, another Member may immediately make another point of 
    order before further debate is had on the amendment.

    On June 22, 1972,(16) upon the overruling of a point of 
order raised by Mr. Thomas J. Steed, of Oklahoma, to an amendment 
proposed by Mr. Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, Mr. Howard W. Robison, of 
New York, immediately raised another point of order before any debate 
could intervene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 118 Cong. Rec. 22098, 22099, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 15585, dealing with Treasury, Postal Service, and 
        general government appropriations for fiscal 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman from Oklahoma 
    reserves a point of order against the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John S. Monagan (Conn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) is recognized. . . .
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of 
    order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: At what point does the reservation expire, 
    and at what point must the Chair decide the point of order?
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman state his point of order.
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the grounds that it is legislation on a general 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        . . . [I]t is the opinion of the Chair that these are 
    legitimate limitations. They do not constitute legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and the point of order is overruled.
        Mr. Robison of New York: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman. . . .
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on a point of 
    order; in the first place, my esteemed friend from New York (Mr. 
    Robison) did not reserve a point of order. He is either making the 
    same one my friend from Oklahoma made, or he is making a different 
    one, and the gentleman from Oklahoma's point of order has been 
    ruled upon.

[[Page 12053]]

        He has no right to make a point of order, since he did not 
    reserve one, and debate had intervened.
        On the second ground, I think the Chairman has already covered 
    in his earlier ruling the precise point the gentleman has raised.
        Mr. Steed: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further?
        The Chairman: Yes, the gentleman is recognized.

    Mr. Steed here discussed the point of order.

        The Chairman: The point made by the gentleman from New York is 
    essentially that already made by the gentleman from Oklahoma. This 
    bill does contain appropriations for the Executive Office of the 
    President and the Chair reads the amendment as being a limitation 
    upon those appropriations. And, as pointed out before, the specific 
    provision is that no part of the appropriations made by this act 
    shall be expended for certain purposes--detailed in the first four 
    paragraphs of the amendment. The Chair is constrained, therefore, 
    to overrule the point of order.

Sec. 3.12 The reservation of a point of order by one Member inures to 
    all, and any Member may raise other points of order if the 
    reservation is withdrawn or the point of order is disposed of.

    At the conclusion of the consideration of the Labor, Health and 
Human Services appropriation bill, fiscal 1994, a motion to rise and 
report was defeated, thus permitting an amendment in the nature of a 
limitation to be offered. On this occasion, the so-called Hyde 
amendment relating to abortion services was offered. No point of order 
was actually pressed against this ``made-known'' amendment, but a point 
of order was reserved and several inquiries addressed to the Chair. The 
pertinent proceedings of June 30, 1993,(18) are carried 
herewith:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 139 Cong. Rec. 14891-93, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) All time for debate has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read the remaining sentence of the bill.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Labor, Health 
        and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
        Appropriations Act, 1994''.

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the 
    House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the 
    amendments be agreed to, and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion to rise and report 
    offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Natcher].
        The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 12054]]

                               recorded vote

        Mr. [Henry J.] Hyde [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
    recorded vote.

        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 
    190, noes 244, not voting 6, as follows: . . .
        So the motion to rise and report was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, after the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] is offered, I ask unanimous consent that 
    the time to be consumed on the amendment be limited to 30 minutes, 
    equally divided, with 15 minutes controlled by the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Porter] and 15 minutes by myself.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Kentucky?
        Ms. [Corrine] Brown of Florida: I object, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.

                       amendment offered by mr. hyde

        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: Let the Chair remind Members of the status of our 
    procedural situation. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] has 
    offered his amendment. It will be read by the Clerk. At that point 
    we will turn to a vote in the absence of a unanimous-consent 
    request for time to debate. No time is allocated at this point in 
    the proceedings. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from 
    Illinois to offer the amendment and will ask the Clerk to read. In 
    the absence of a point of order or otherwise, the Chair must have 
    the Clerk read at this point.
        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] 
    reserves a point of order on the amendment.
        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde of 
    Illinois: On page 62, after line 10, add the following new section:

            Sec. 507. None of the funds appropriated under this Act 
        shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made known 
        to the federal entity or official to which funds are 
        appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary to 
        save the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is the result 
        of an act of rape or incest. . . .

        Mr. [John] Linder [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, is it correct that this is a nondebatable motion 
    unless it is debated in the unanimous-consent request?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct, there will be no debate 
    on this amendment unless this or another unanimous-consent request 
    is agreed to.
        Mr. Linder: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: The gentleman objects to the unanimous-consent 
    request. Objection is heard.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr.

[[Page 12055]]

    Yates], a member of the Appropriations Committee for a 
    parliamentary inquiry, but would state first that still pending is 
    the reservation of the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], who 
    has reserved a point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, that is the basis for my parliamentary 
    inquiry. Is the point of order still pending?
        The Chairman: The point of order has not been made. The 
    gentleman reserved a point of order, and we will have to proceed to 
    that in the absence of other procedures here.
        Mr. Yates: I should like to reserve a point of order as well, 
    Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: Regular order. Regular order at this point is the 
    reservation of the point of order. Does the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Waxman] or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] 
    wish to pursue the point of order against the amendment of the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]?
        Mr. Waxman: Mr. Chairman, I will not pursue my point of order.
        Mr. Yates: I will pursue my point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair could not hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I will pursue my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman indicates that he will pursue the 
    point of order. The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, point 
    of order is not timely.
        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate that a reservation by one 
    Member of a point of order [protects] that right for all Members 
    until a point of order is disposed of.
        Therefore, as long as Mr. Waxman held a point of order in 
    reservation, any other Member could ride on that reservation. That 
    is what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] has done.
        Does the gentleman wish to pursue his point of order?
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. . . .
        So the amendment was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, 
    with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that 
    the bill, as amended, do pass.
        The motion was agreed to.

Reservation of Point of Order Protects All Members Who Wish To Make a 
    Point of Order

Sec. 3.13 One Member's reservation of a point of order against an 
    amendment protects the rights of all Members to insist on a point 
    of order if the reservation is later withdrawn.

    During the consideration of agricultural appropriations for fiscal

[[Page 12056]]

1985,(20) Mr. David R. Obey, of Wisconsin, offered a 
substitute for the pending Walker amendment. Mr. Robert S. Walker, of 
Pennsylvania, reserved a point of order which he later withdrew. Mr. 
Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, then pressed a point of order. The 
proceedings are included herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 15120-22, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., June 6, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: On page 60, after line 18, 
        insert the following new section:
            Sec. 629. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
        each amount appropriated or otherwise made available in this 
        Act is hereby reduced by one percent. . . .
            Amendment offered by Mr. Obey as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Walker:
            Sec. 629. All amounts appropriated by this Act not required 
        to be appropriated by previously enacted law shall be reduced 
        by 64 percent.

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 
    the [Obey] amendment. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (1) Does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania wish to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

                               point of order

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the grounds that it would constitute legislation on an 
    appropriations bill.
        The Chairman: Against the substitute, Mr. Obey's?
        Mr. Whitten: Against the substitute.
        Mr. Obey: I do not recall the chairman reserving a point of 
    order at the time, and I would think his point comes too late.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Wisconsin would repeat 
    himself for the Chair, please.
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Chairman, it is my impression that the chairman 
    did not reserve a point of order at the time that I offered my 
    amendment, and, under those circumstances, I would think that his 
    objection comes too late.
        The Chairman: The reservation by any Member protects all 
    Members. So the gentleman from Mississippi's point of order is 
    timely and in order.
        Mr. Obey: But my understanding is that Mr. Walker withdrew his 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: That is correct, but the reservation still 
    prevails.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, the facts are that I was on my feet 
    when Mr. Walker was recognized. He made the point of order; I did 
    not. I relied on the point of order he made. I asked him if he was 
    going to push his point of order; when he said no, I asked to be 
    recognized on a point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be 
    heard against the point of order?
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair is entertaining comments 
    on the point of order being lodged, I would simply submit that all 
    the amendment

[[Page 12057]]

    does is to reduce by a specified amount every account in the bill 
    which is not required to be appropriated at a specific level by 
    previous law. I would think, under the circumstances, that it would 
    be in order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi wish to be 
    heard?
        Mr. Whitten: I insist, Mr. Chairman.
        May I say I still have not seen a copy of the amendment. I 
    listened as best I could when it was read, but my colleague has not 
    given me a copy of the amendment. I was trying to get a copy.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have before me, all amounts 
    appropriated by this act shall not be required to be appropriated 
    by previously enacted law shall be reduced by ``blank'' percent.
        The Chairman: Sixty-four percent.
        Mr. Whitten: That is the copy that I have; ``blank'' percent.
        The Chairman: The copy at the desk says 64 percent.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, we have a little fun here from time 
    to time, but if this were to be adopted, and goodness knows I hope 
    not, it would require how much work on the part of the executive 
    branch? It certainly would require additional duties by the 
    executive branch, the amount of which would be almost limitless.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to be 
    heard further?
        Mr. Obey: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this does not 
    impose any duties on the executive branch; it is a direct reduction 
    in the accounts affected.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule that this is not 
    legislation on an appropriation bill. It provides for a specific 
    percentage reduction in discretionary accounts in the base bill 
    accounts identifiable as a matter of law. The point of order is 
    overruled.

Reservation of Point of Order, Renewal Must Be Timely

Sec. 3.14 While the reservation of a point of order by one Member 
    inures to all, the point of order, if withdrawn by the Member who 
    made the reservation, must be renewed by another in a timely 
    fashion and comes too late after debate on the amendment.

    Chairman Don Fuqua, of Florida, presiding during deliberation on 
the International Security Assistance Act, fiscal 1979, on Aug. 2, 
1978,(2) declined to recognize a Member to press a point of 
order after the proponent of the amendment had been recognized for 
debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 124 Cong. Rec. 23921, 23922, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin: Page 19, immediately after 
        line 14, insert the following new section 21:
            Termination of Deliveries of Defense Articles to Chile.

[[Page 12058]]

            Sec. 21. Section 406(a)(2) of the International Security 
        Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 is amended by 
        adding at the end thereof the following new sentence:
            ``After the date of enactment of the International Security 
        Assistance Act of 1978, no deliveries of defense articles or 
        services may be made to Chile pursuant to any sale made before 
        the date of enactment of this section, until the Government of 
        Chile has turned over to U.S. custody those Chileans indicted 
        for the murder of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt.
            Redesignate existing section 21 of the bill as section 22 
        and correct any cross references thereto.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Zablocki: I do not insist on my point of order, to save 
    time.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I think the substantive part of 
    this amendment is identical to the amendment introduced earlier by 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). The Committee has voiced 
    its opinion and I urge and expect the same fate for this amendment. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Zablocki: I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        I would like to ask the Chair, since the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin reserved a point of order, and the gentleman from 
    Maryland who was also on his feet did not reserve a point of order 
    because he thought the gentleman from Wisconsin was going to make a 
    point of order, whether or not it would be in order for the 
    gentleman from Maryland to make a point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) for 5 minutes, so the point of order could 
    not be made at this time.
        Mr. Bauman: Can the gentleman from Wisconsin still make his 
    point of order at this time?
        The Chairman: No, he cannot.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chair.

Discretion of Chair

Sec. 3.15 Reservation of a point of order against an amendment is 
    within the discretion of the Chair; and if the regular order is 
    called for, the Chair hears and rules on the point of order as 
    expeditiously as possible.

    On Apr. 10, 1963,(3) following the Clerk's reading in 
the Committee of the Whole, of an amendment offered by Mr. Edward P. 
Boland, of Massachusetts, Mr.

[[Page 12059]]

Melvin R. Laird, of Wisconsin, reserved a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 109 Cong. Rec. 6130-32, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 5517, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal 
        1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After debate on the amendment, the following proceedings took 
place:

        The Chairman: (4) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    [Mr. Laird] desire to withdraw his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Laird: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve the point of 
    order until we study [the amendment].
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that this matter should be 
    disposed of before we proceed further.
        Mr. Laird: Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, the only option I 
    have is to insist upon the point of order at this point. I would 
    like to study the point, but if the Chair insists that I make the 
    point of order now, I will.
        The Chairman: The Chair thinks that this is the proper 
    parliamentary procedure.
        Mr. Laird: I make the point of order against the amendment on 
    the basis that you are legislating in an appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chairman has had an opportunity to examine 
    the amendment and feels that the matter discussed is a limitation 
    on the appropriation. Therefore the Chair overrules the point of 
    order.

Chair's Discretion Regarding Reservation of Point of Order

Sec. 3.16 The Chair has the discretion whether to permit a point of 
    order to be reserved against an amendment or whether to dispose of 
    the point of order before debate.

    On Oct. 14, 1981,(5) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole allowed a point of order to be reserved against an amendment 
although the proponent of the amendment argued for immediate 
disposition of the point of order as the more orderly method of 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 127 Cong. Rec. 23882, 23884, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Findley: Page 1, Section 101 of 
        Title I as amended is amended by striking the punctuation marks 
        and the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1) and inserting 
        in lieu thereof the following: ``; Provided That, 
        notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if the 
        Secretary estimates as of September 29, 1982, or any date 
        thereafter through September 30, 1985, that net government 
        purchases of dairy products, for any such fiscal year, will 
        equal or exceed four billion pounds of milk equivalent, the 
        support price for such fiscal year shall not be in excess of 
        that which was in effect at the end of the previous fiscal 
        year.''.

        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
    order against this amendment.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Iowa reserves a 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Does the gentleman make a 
    point of order against the amendment?
        Mr. Harkin: The gentleman wants to hear some of the 
    explanation. The

[[Page 12060]]

    gentleman is about to raise a point of order.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I think it would facilitate our 
    proceedings if the gentleman would just make the point of order and 
    get the question settled.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may reserve his point of order at 
    the Chair's discretion.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve the point of 
    order until I hear the gentleman's explanation. At that point I 
    would like to decide whether or not to raise that point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will exercise discretion. The gentleman 
    reserves a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will inquire of the gentleman from Iowa 
    whether he continues to insist upon his reservation.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

Chair's Discretion in Permitting Reservation of Point of Order

Sec. 3.17 The Chair has the discretion to permit the reservation of a 
    point of order against an amendment to permit debate on the merits 
    or he may choose to dispose of the points of order to conserve 
    debate time.

    On Mar. 16, 1995,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
continuing the consideration of the emergency supplemental 
appropriation bill, fiscal 1995. The rule providing for the 
consideration of the bill required amendments to be pre-printed, so 
they could not be redrafted to accommodate the changing amendment 
situation. Mr. Christopher Shays, of Connecticut, offered an amendment 
which, in part, amended a figure already changed in the amendment 
process. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       in the committee of the whole

        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 1158) making emergency supplemental 
    appropriations for additional disaster assistance and making 
    rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for 
    other purposes, with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: (8) . . . Two hours and 3 minutes 
    remain for consideration of amendments under the 5-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Douglas Bereuter (Nebr.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there further amendments to the bill? . . .

                       amendment offered by mr. shays

        Mr. Shays: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment listed in the 
    March 13 Congressional Record as amendment No. 70.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page 12061]]

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Shays: Page 50, beginning on line 
        6, strike ``$186,000,000 shall be from amounts earmarked for 
        housing opportunities for persons with AIDS;''.
            Conform the aggregate amount set forth on page 49, line 14, 
        accordingly.
            Page 54, line 18, strike ``$38,000,-000'' and insert 
        ``$224,000,000''.

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] reserves 
    a point of order.
        Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment as well?
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
    amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I claim the time in opposition.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] will 
    be recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
    Obey] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
    Shays].
        Mr. [Tom] Delay [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a 
    point of order on this amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] wish 
    to press or withdraw his reservation of a point of order?
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation. I would also 
    withdraw my request to manage time against the amendment. I thought 
    the gentleman was offering a different amendment, and I do not have 
    an objection to this amendment.
        The Chairman: Does any other Member insist on a point of order 
    at this time?
        Mr. [Robert] Livingston [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is 
    recognized on his point of order.
        Mr. Livingston: Mr. Chairman, I will not make a point of order, 
    but I would like to address a colloquy to the gentleman from 
    Connecticut.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Louisiana requesting time 
    in opposition to the amendment?
        Mr. Livingston: I am asking for the time, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: Does any Member insist on a point of order?
        Mr. DeLay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve my point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair would ask the gentlemen to insist upon 
    or withdraw their points of order at this time in order to conserve 
    debate time.

        Mr. Livingston: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] 
    withdraws his point of order.
        Mr. Shays: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to ask of the Chair, 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The Chair would recognize the gentleman from 
    Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent 
    to withdraw his amendment?
        Mr. Shays: No, I do not ask that. I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry before I make that decision.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Shays: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 12062]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Shays: Mr. Chairman, I want to be up front with every 
    Member on both sides, even if I do not happen to agree with them.
        I want the opportunity to use my 15 minutes to state the case 
    on this issue. If the gentleman withdraws his point of order, is he 
    allowed to bring it up in the future?
        The Chairman: The Chair will not insist upon the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. DeLay] insisting upon or withdrawing his point of order 
    at this time. He may continue his reservation if he wishes.
        With that ruling, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Connecticut [Mr. Shays] on the remainder of his 15 minutes.
        Mr. Shays: I thank the Chair.
        My understanding is that I have 9 minutes remaining. Is that 
    correct? . . .
        Mr. Chairman, based on the dialog that has taken place in this 
    instance with the chairman, and based on the courtesy of this House 
    for allowing me to proceed on an amendment that could have been 
    declared out of order, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Connecticut?
        Mr. [Gerry E.] Studds [of Massachusetts]: . . . Mr. Chairman, 
    in Boston this means 244 people sick and homeless. That is 
    unacceptable, and I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.

                               point of order

        Mr. DeLay: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. DeLay: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to 
    amend a paragraph previously amended, and the procedures in the 
    U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, states the 
    following:
        It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an amendment 
    previously agreed to. Thus the text of a bill perfected by 
    amendment cannot thereafter be amended.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend text previously 
    amended, and is, therefore, not in order. I respectfully ask the 
    Chair to sustain my point of order. . . .
        Ms. [Nancy] Pelosi [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be 
    heard on the point of order. I wish to state that if the point of 
    order of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is in order, that 
    just points to the ultra-restrictiveness of the rule under which 
    this bill was brought to the floor because we did abide by----
        Mr. DeLay: Regular order, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        Mrs. [Nita M.] Lowey [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be 
    heard on the gentleman's point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman will state her point. . . .
        Mr. DeLay: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Under the precedents recorded in section 31 in chapter 27 of 
    Deschler's Procedure, the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. DeLay] is sustained. It is consistent with the

[[Page 12063]]

    Chair's ruling yesterday on the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Sec. 3.18 A point of order may not be reserved against an amendment 
    upon a demand for the regular order by any Member; but the Chair 
    may in his discretion permit the continued reservation of the point 
    of order until the regular order is demanded.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(9) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, explained the nature of the 
reservation of a point of order to Mr. Craig Hosmer, of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 41738, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan insist on his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        It is my understanding that when a point of order is made that 
    the rules require that the ruling be made thereon, and that when a 
    Member reserves the point of order it is in the nature only of a 
    unanimous-consent request and, therefore, when that request is 
    objected to, that thereafter he can no longer pursue the point of 
    order which he has reserved.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the Chair 
    has already ruled on this.
        The Chairman: The Chair needs no assistance in this matter.
        The gentleman is in error. It is entirely at the discretion of 
    the Chair as to whether the point of order will be reserved unless 
    another Member demands the regular order. A reservation of a point 
    of order is not in the nature of a unanimous-consent request.
        Regular order was not demanded. Therefore it is in order for 
    the gentleman to persist in his point of order.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

Right of Members

Sec. 3.19 Reservation of a point of order against an amendment or the 
    continuation of such a reservation may be permitted by leave of the 
    Committee of the Whole, but any Member may demand that the point of 
    order be disposed of.

    On Apr. 4, 1973,(10) on demand for regular order by Mr. 
H. R. Gross, of Iowa, Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, was compelled to 
either make or withdraw his reserved point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 10935, 10936, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 5683, which was to amend the Rural 
        Electrification Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John R.] Rarick [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rarick: Page 15, after line 11 
        insert:
            ``Sec. 10. No funds provided under the Rural 
        Electrification Act of 1936,

[[Page 12064]]

        as amended, shall be used outside the United States or any of 
        its possessions. (And renumber the remaining paragraphs.)''

        The Chairman: (11) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Gerald R. Ford) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
    the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Rarick) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the 
    gentleman from Texas several questions before I either renew or 
    withdraw my reservation.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has permission to reserve his point 
    of order.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that he must 
    institute his reservation.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman wish to withdraw his point of 
    order and seek recognition?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: No. I want to make the point of order. I do 
    not think the amendment is germane to the general purposes of the 
    bill.
        I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa giving me an opportunity 
    to ask the gentleman from Texas a question or two.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is a 
    restriction on the use of funds authorized under the REA program 
    and is germane to the bill.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Effect of Demanding Regular Order Where a Point of Order Has Been 
    Reserved Against an Amendment

Sec. 3.20 Where the proponent of an amendment against which a point of 
    order has been reserved has been recognized to debate the 
    amendment, he cannot during his five minutes be taken from the 
    floor by a ``demand for the regular order.''

    On Aug. 1, 1975,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975. 
During the reading of the bill for amendment under the five-minute 
rule, an amendment was offered by Mr. Clarence J. Brown, of Ohio, 
against which two Members reserved points of order. The proponent of 
the amendment was then recognized for his five minutes, during which 
time, he was asked to yield for a parliamentary inquiry. The 
proceedings are carried below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945, 26946, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 12065]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out Title 
        III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as 
        amended.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a 
    point of order.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment 
    is to strike from the bill the provisions of the Staggers pricing 
    amendment, section 301, by revising title III to strike the whole 
    title and to reinsert all in the title, except section 301.
        Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the amendment?
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman has been recognized 
    for 5 minutes, so the gentleman may proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, may I reserve 2 minutes of my 
    time to speak on the points of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman to speak 
    on the points of order at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet made the point of 
    order. I reserved it.
        The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Ohio 
    to speak on the gentleman's amendment for 5 minutes. Then the 
    gentlemen who reserved the points of order may press them or they 
    may not.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment, 
    as I said, is to strike section 301, the pricing section, from the 
    bill.
        The reason for striking the pricing section from the bill is an 
    effort to improve the bill so that we can proceed from the point at 
    which we find ourselves to a bill which could be improved to the 
    extent that perhaps it can be signed into law, which ought to be 
    our objective, I think, as Members of Congress. . . .
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, if the regular order 
    were demanded, would the point of order have to be stated?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that it is 
    proper for a Member to reserve a point of order.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: I thank the Chairman.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. . . .
        We were very close to agreement a few days ago, and that 
    agreement fell apart. I think there is a chance for us to get an 
    energy bill. But there is no chance with this provision in it. My 
    objective is only to try to get a bill, get this part out of it 
    that will prevent us from getting a bill and will give us an 
    opportunity to proceed in a rational manner.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against 
    the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it. . . .
        Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) desire to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it would be 
    appropriate to

[[Page 12066]]

    hear both points of order. Or does the Chair desire me to respond 
    to each point of order as it is raised?
        The Chairman: The gentleman may proceed as he wishes in 
    response to the points of order.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, let me say, in response to the 
    first ground for the point of order that the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Eckhardt) raised, stating that this amendment comes too late, 
    it is appropriate to offer the amendment because the title is open 
    now at any point for amendment, and this is an amendment to title 
    III.

Effect of Withdrawal of Reservation

Sec. 3.21 The reservation of a point of order being withdrawn, another 
    Member may immediately renew it.

    On July 28, 1959,(14) Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, had occasion to address the propriety of a point of order 
raised after another point had been withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 105 Cong. Rec. 14524, 14525, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 8385, making appropriations for certain 
        programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment, and will reserve the point of 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that this is legislation on an appropriation bill. . . .
        Mr. Bennett of Florida: Mr. Chairman, does not the point of 
    order come too late? The gentleman from New York did not reserve a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: It did not.

Sec. 3.22 Where a point of order is reserved against an amendment and 
    later withdrawn, another Member may press another point of order.

    On Mar. 27, 1962,(15) during debate on an amendment 
offered by Mr. William Fitts Ryan, of New York, to an appropriations 
bill, Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode Island, first reserved a point of 
order, then withdrew it before Mr. James C. Davis, of Georgia, was 
recognized to make his point of order. The Chairman ruled the point of 
order by Mr. Davis did not come too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 5164, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 10904, involving appropriations for the Department of 
        Health, Education, and Welfare for fiscal 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order. . . .
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, is it in order for me at this 
    time to make a point of order against the amendment?
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Rhode Island 
    has reserved his

[[Page 12067]]

    point of order. Does the gentleman from Rhode Island insist on the 
    point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Omar T. Burleson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I waive the point of order. I have 
    stated my reasons as to why the amendment should be defeated and I 
    ask the committee to vote down the amendment.
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, is it in order for me to make 
    a point of order against the amendment? . . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, has not the 
    point of order been waived by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
    speaking to the question?
        The Chairman: The Chair understood that the gentleman from 
    Rhode Island was speaking to his point of order and insisted then 
    on the defeat of the amendment.
        Mr. Yates: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, and, therefore, no 
    point of order is proper at this time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. James C. Davis] 
    now states he was on his feet attempting to press a point of order 
    against the amendment, but the Chair had understood that the 
    gentleman from Rhode Island did insist on his point of order. 
    However, the Chair was in error as to that and the gentleman from 
    Georgia is now recognized to make his point of order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, one final parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, does not the point of order by the 
    gentleman from Georgia come too late?
        The Chairman: Not under the circumstances. The Chair would 
    assume there is a possibility of more than one point of order being 
    made and for more than one reason.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Similarly, on Feb. 28, 1939,(17) Mr. Abe Murdock, of 
    Utah, was allowed to make a point of order after Mr. Louis Ludlow, 
    of Indiana, withdrew a point of order that he had earlier reserved:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 2021-23, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4492, involving the Treasury and printing office 
        appropriation for fiscal 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ludlow: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against 
    the amendment.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Why not make the point of 
    order?
        Mr. Ludlow: My attention was diverted from the reading of the 
    amendment, and I should like to know more about the amendment 
    before making the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
        Mr. Murdock of Utah: Mr. Chairman, on the question of the point 
    of order----
        The Chairman: (18) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Utah rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. Boehne, Jr. (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Murdock of Utah: On the question of the point of order to 
    the amendment of the gentleman from New York, and may I propound 
    this parliamentary inquiry?

[[Page 12068]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Murdock of Utah: As I understood the gentleman from Indiana 
    [Mr. Ludlow], he reserved all points of order against the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Murdock of Utah: Then, as I understand the rules, the 
    gentleman cannot deprive me, after making that reservation, in the 
    event he does not want to make the point of order, of making a 
    point of order myself against the amendment at this time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has the right to make the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Murdock of Utah: Then I make the point of order at this 
    time, Mr. Chairman.

Sec. 3.23 Where a Member reserves a point of order against an amendment 
    and then, after debate on the amendment, withdraws the point of 
    order, the point of order may yet be renewed and pressed by another 
    Member.

    On Oct. 28, 1969,(19) after the withdrawal of a point of 
order reserved by Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, the point of order was 
renewed by another Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 115 Cong. Rec. 31886, 31888, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.J. Res. 966, dealing with continuing 
        appropriations for fiscal 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jeffrey] Cohelan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman from Texas reserves 
    a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order also.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of 
    order. . . .
        The Chair notes that a point of order is pending.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Chairman, I have now had an opportunity to read 
    the gentleman's amendment, and I withdraw my point of order.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I renew the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.

Withdrawal of Reserved Point of Order

Sec. 3.24 While the reservation of a point of order by one Member 
    inures to all, withdrawal of a reservation by the Member requires 
    other Members to either make or continue to reserve the point of 
    order at that point, and a further reservation comes too late after 
    there has been debate.

    On Dec. 15, 1982,(1) a point of order had been reserved 
against an amendment offered in the

[[Page 12069]]

Committee of the Whole. When the reservation was withdrawn, the 
amendment was debated and then another Member attempted to reserve a 
point of order. The proceedings are carried below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 128 Cong. Rec. 30938, 30939, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
    as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        (Mr. Brown of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) will be 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
        The Chair will inquire, does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Ottinger) continue to reserve his point of order on the amendment?

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: No, Mr. Chairman, I 
    will drop my reservation of a point of order.
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I yield to the distinguished Speaker.
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
    and I would just like to make the following statement: . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
    Speaker.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair understands that the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) reserves a point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I think the point of order is 
    too late, is it not?
        The Chairman: It is a reservation of a point of order.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, may I ask, can a reservation 
    of a point of order come at any time? I had yielded to the Speaker, 
    and the debate had begun on the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. A point of order was 
    reserved and then withdrawn, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Brown) was recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment and had 
    yielded. The point of order cannot be reserved at this time.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

Reserving Points of Order Against General Appropriation Bills

Sec. 3.25 Points of order against general appropriation bills are now 
    ``considered as reserved'' when the bill is reported.

    Before clause 8 was added to Rule XXI in the 104th Congress, points 
of order against general appropriation bills had to be reserved, on the 
floor of the House, when the bill was reported and referred to the 
Union Calendar. If this window of opportunity was

[[Page 12070]]

missed, points of order could thereafter be reserved only by unanimous 
consent.
    The rationale for reserving points of order had its basis in the 
requirement that the consideration of an appropriation bill had to 
occur in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. It 
followed that the enforcement of Rule XXI clause 2 prohibiting 
legislative provisions in a general appropriation bill, either in the 
measure as reported or introduced by amendment, had to occur in that 
Committee. While offending provisions could be stricken by amendment, 
they could be eliminated from the bill as the result of a ruling on a 
point of order only if the House gave such permission.

        An instance where points of order were not reserved when the 
    report was filed, but were subsequently reserved, occurred on Aug. 
    23, 1976.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 27141, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Permission To Reserve All Points of Order on H.R. 15194, Public 
                  Works Employment Appropriation Act, 1977

        Mr. [Clarence E.] Miller of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that I may reserve all points of order on the bill H.R. 
    15194 making appropriations for public works employment for the 
    period ending September 30, 1977, and for other purposes, on which 
    a report was filed by the Committee on Appropriations on August 12, 
    1976, pursuant to permission granted on August 10, 1976.
        The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Reservation of Points of Order, General Appropriation Bills

Sec. 3.26 Under Rule XXI clause 8, adopted in the 104th Congress, 
    points of order on general appropriation bills are ``considered as 
    reserved'' when the report is filed.

    The proceedings of Feb. 10, 1995,(5) demonstrate that 
when a general appropriation bill is filed from the floor as 
privileged, the Speaker indicates that points of order are reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Report on H.R. 889, Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental 
                            Appropriations, 1995

        Mr. [Robert] Livingston [of Louisiana], from the Committee on 
    Appropriations, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 104-29) on 
    the bill (H.R. 889) making emergency supplemental appropriations 
    and rescissions to preserve and enhance the military readiness of 
    the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
    1995, and for other purposes, which

[[Page 12071]]

    was referred to the Union Calendar and ordered to be printed.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) All points of order are 
    reserved on the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserving Points of Order

Sec. 3.27 A point of order against a paragraph in a general 
    appropriation bill must be raised (and may not be reserved) 
    immediately after the paragraph is read.

    In the practice of the House, points of order may be reserved 
against amendments but not against provisions in a bill being read for 
amendment. Permitting a point of order to be reserved when an amendment 
is offered does not unduly interfere with the consideration of the 
matter before the House or Committee of the Whole, so long as the point 
of order is disposed of, or the reservation withdrawn, before an 
amendment in the second degree is offered or before the question is put 
on the amendment. The reservation of a point of order against an 
amendment is at the Chair's discretion and he, or any Member, may press 
for the ``regular order'' which causes the point of order to be 
withdrawn or stated and decided.
    On Apr. 16, 1975,(7) the bill making annual 
appropriations for the Department of Education, for fiscal 1976, was 
under consideration in Committee of the Whole. One of the ``general 
provisions'' of the bill was read by the Clerk and Mr. Fortney H. 
(Pete) Stark, of California, attempted to reserve a point of order so 
that debate on the provision could proceed. Chairman James C. Wright, 
Jr., of Texas, stated that the point of order had to be made, not 
reserved. Proceedings were as indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 10375, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 805. No part of the funds appropriated under this Act 
        shall be used to provide a loan, guarantee of a loan, a grant, 
        the salary of or any remuneration whatever to any individual 
        applying for admission, attending, employed by, teaching at, or 
        doing research at an institution of higher education who has 
        engaged in conduct on or after August 1, 1969, which involves 
        the use of (or the assistance to others in the use of) force or 
        the threat of force or the seizure of property under the 
        control of an institution of higher education, to require or 
        prevent the availability of certain curriculum, or to prevent 
        the faculty, administrative officials, or students in such 
        institution from engaging in their duties or pursuing their 
        studies at such institution.

        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve a point of 
    order against section 305.
        The Chairman: The Chair advises that this is the time to make a 
    point of order against section 305. The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from California for a point of order.

[[Page 12072]]

        Mr. Stark: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order 
    against section 305 on the grounds that it imposes additional 
    burdens and duties on Government executives and is legislation on 
    an appropriations bill, and is in violation of clause 2 of rule 
    XXI. . . .
        So I submit this is legislation on an appropriations act and 
    should be ruled out of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, this language has been in this bill for many, 
    many years, since 1969 anyhow. We have always considered this to be 
    a limitation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I refer the Chair to ``Deschler's Procedure,'' 
    chapter 25, page 280, section 15.4, where I find this language:

            An amendment providing that no part of the funds carried in 
        a pending general appropriation bill may be used for financial 
        assistance for students who have engaged in force or have used 
        the threat of force to prevent faculty or students from 
        carrying out their duties or studies, was held in order as a 
        limitation. 115 Cong. Rec. 21636, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        31, 1969 (H.R. 13111).

        That was sustained in the 91st Congress, 1st session. I 
    remember that very well, indeed. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order. . . .
        In the case cited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman 
    Holifield on July 31, 1969, while presiding over the Committee of 
    the Whole House, in considering an appropriation bill for 
    education, was confronted with the same point of order.
        The Chair finds that the provision under contest in the 
    precedent, cited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, was for all 
    purposes identical to the provision contained in the present bill. 
    It was held on that occasion that it was a legitimate limitation on 
    an appropriation bill. Consistent with that precedent, and because 
    the precedents cited by the gentleman from California are clearly 
    distinguishable, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 3.28 Where a point of order was reserved against a paragraph in a 
    general appropriation bill, the manager of the bill then ``modified 
    the paragraph'' and the point of order was subsequently not 
    pressed.

    On Mar. 7, 1991,(8) during consideration of the dire 
emergency supplementary bill, a point of order was reserved against a 
paragraph containing legislative provisions. The following colloquy 
then took place, the paragraph was modified to satisfy a jurisdictional 
concern, and the point of order withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 137 Cong. Rec. 5497, 5498, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (9) . . . The Clerk will report the 
    next paragraph in dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio).

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

[[Page 12073]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 28, beginning on line 13,

                                   Chapter X

                        General Services Administration

            None of the funds made available by this or any other Act 
        with respect to any fiscal year may be used by the General 
        Services Administration to obligate or expend any funds for the 
        award of contracts for the construction of the Northern 
        Virginia Naval Systems Command Headquarters project without 
        advance approval in writing of the House Committee on 
        Appropriations.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Roe] wish 
    to be heard on his point of order?
        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the provision of title II, chapter 
    X, entitled ``General Services Administration'' beginning on page 
    28, lines 14 through 21. That provision violates clause 2 of rule 
    XXI because it again is recommending legislation in an 
    appropriations bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia 
    [Mr. Wolf].
        Mr. [Frank R.] Wolf [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the provision entitled ``General Services 
    Administration'' be modified by inserting in line 21, after the 
    word ``the,'' the words, ``House Committee on Public Works and 
    Transportation and the''. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] seeks 
    unanimous consent to modify the language subject to the reservation 
    of the point of order of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Roe].
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Virginia?
        There was no objection.
        The text of chapter X, as modified, is as follows:

                                   Chapter X

                        General Services Administration

            None of the funds made available by this or any other Act 
        with respect to any fiscal year may be used by the General 
        Services Administration to obligate or expend any funds for the 
        award of contracts for the construction of the Northern 
        Virginia Naval Systems Command Headquarters project without 
        advance approval in writing of the House Committee on Public 
        Works and Transportation and the House Committee on 
        Appropriations.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Roe] 
    insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Roe: No, I do not, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my point of 
    order.

Reservation of Point of Order Against Bill Text Not in Order

Sec. 3.29 A point of order may not be reserved against a portion of 
    text of an appropriation bill (as opposed to an amendment) but must 
    be stated and pressed immediately after the paragraph is read and 
    before debate or amendments are offered.

    During the reading of the Treasury-Postal appropriation bill, 
fiscal 1992, a long paragraph

[[Page 12074]]

funding named projects in different states was offered. The paragraph 
had in it a long and complicated series of provisos. During the reading 
of the paragraph, Mr. James A. Traficant, Jr., of Ohio, attempted to 
reserve a point of order. The proceedings of June 18, 
1991,(10) were as indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 137 Cong. Rec. 15208, 15209, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Georgia:
            Atlanta, Center for Disease Control, $5,000,000
            Florida:
            Fort Myers, Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, $977,000
            Tallahassee, U.S. Courthouse Annex, $3,764,000. . . .

                               point of order

        Mr. Traficant: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Traficant: Mr. Chairman, I raise now a point of order 
    starting on page 31, line 1, with the word ``provided,'' and 
    continue it down to and including line 15, up to ``in other such 
    projects.''
        The Chairman: What is the point of order of the gentleman?
        Mr. Traficant: Mr. Chairman, I further reserve the right to 
    object to other elements within that section, and wait for a ruling 
    on this section.
        The Chairman: First let the Clerk read that paragraph.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Provided That each of the immediately foregoing limits of 
        costs on new construction projects may be exceeded to the 
        extent that savings are effected in other such projects, but by 
        not to exceed 10 per centum: Provided further, That all funds 
        for direct construction projects shall expire on September 30, 
        1993, and remain in the Federal Buildings Fund except funds for 
        projects as to which funds for design or other funds have been 
        obligated in whole or in part prior to such date: Provided 
        further, That claims against the Government of less than 
        $100,000 arising from direct construction projects, 
        acquisitions of buildings and purchase contract projects 
        pursuant to Public Law 92-313, be liquidated with prior 
        notification to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
        and Senate to the extent savings are effected in other such 
        projects: Provided further, That to the extent that savings can 
        be effected in other Federal Buildings Fund activities, the GSA 
        shall seek reprogramming of up to $16,200,000 to supplement 
        funds previously authorized and appropriated for the NOAA 
        laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, subject to the approval of the 
        House and Senate Committees on Appropriations according to 
        existing reprogramming procedures: Provided further, That such 
        funds will be obligated only upon the advance approval of the 
        House Committee on Public Works and Transportation; (2) not to 
        exceed $569,251,000 which shall remain available until 
        expended, for repairs and alterations: Provided further, That 
        funds in the Federal Buildings Fund for Repairs and Alterations 
        shall, for prospectus projects, be limited to the amount by 
        project as follows: except each project may be increased by an 
        amount not to exceed 10 per centum unless advance approval is 
        obtained from the Commit

[[Page 12075]]

        tees on Appropriations of the House and Senate of a greater 
        amount:

                               point of order

        The Chairman: Does the Chair understand that the point of order 
    of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] is directed solely to 
    page 31, lines 1 through 15?
        Mr. Traficant: Mr. Chairman, the first part of that is line 1 
    through line 15, including and up to ``in other such projects.''
        Then I want to reserve a point of order commencing later on on 
    that page. I am prepared to object to those other items now, if it 
    would be the will of the Chair.
        The Chairman: It would be appropriate for the gentleman to make 
    any and all points of order he may have against that paragraph at 
    this time.
        Mr. Traficant: Mr. Chairman, in addition to that, commencing on 
    line 22, with the words, ``provided further,'' and continuing on, 
    until page 32, line 8.
        The Chairman: The Chair understands the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Ohio to go to the entirety of the paragraph 
    beginning on page 31, line 1. Is that correct?
        Mr. Traficant: Mr. Chairman, all except line 15, ``provided 
    further,'' through line 22, ``provided further.'' That section, 
    with Federal building funds activities, I do not strike.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order, now 
    that he has designated it.
        Mr. Traficant: Mr. Chairman, under clause 2, rule XXI of House 
    rules, for constituting legislation in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Roybal] 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee concedes the point of order.
        The Chairman: The committee concedes the point of order, the 
    point of order is sustained, and the language in question is 
    stricken, but the proviso on lines 15 through 22 of page 31 remains 
    in the bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: All of the paragraph was stricken by the 
point of order except for the proviso shown in italics in the excerpt 
above.

Reservation of Point of Order Not Possible Where No Debate Time Remains

Sec. 3.30 Where an amendment is not subject to debate, a point of order 
    may not be reserved against it but must be stated and pressed 
    immediately following the reading of the amendment.

    On June 19, 1991,(12) during prolonged consideration of 
the International Cooperation Act under the five-minute rule, an 
amendment was offered by Mr. Lee H. Hamilton, of Indiana. The amendment 
was not subject to debate because of the terms of the

[[Page 12076]]

special rule which governed the debate on this measure. Proceedings 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 137 Cong. Rec. 15477, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amendment Offered by Mr. Hamilton to the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
    Volkmer as a Substitute for the Amendment Offered by Mr. Burton of 
                            Indiana, as Amended

        Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment, as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hamilton to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Volkmer as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Burton of Indiana, as amended: Strike out the period at the end 
        of the section proposed to be added by the Volkmer substitute 
        and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``unless the 
        President certifies to the appropriate congressional committees 
        that such assistance is in the national interest of the United 
        States.''.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) The Chair will state 
    that this amendment will have no debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Jim McDermott (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendment.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Dan] Burton of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I may be following the 
    same train of thought as my colleague, the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        No. 1, I would ask, is this amendment in order? And No. 2, 
    would it not in effect emasculate the Volkmer amendment so that aid 
    could go to Jordan?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    Hamilton amendment is drafted as an amendment to the Volkmer 
    substitute. The Chair cannot characterize the amendment.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Walker] insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair states that no debate is in 
    order on this amendment, so the point of order should be disposed 
    of now.

                               point of order

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on the 
    amendment, that the amendment is being offered in the third degree, 
    and, therefore, it is not eligible for consideration in the House.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    amendment to the substitute is not in the third degree, but is in 
    the second degree.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] as a substitute for the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], as amended.

[[Page 12077]]

Reserving a Point of Order

Sec. 3.31 A Member may reserve a point of order against an offered 
    amendment to ascertain from its author the intention or meaning of 
    the language.

    On May 4, 1994,(14) the House had under consideration 
the National Science Foundation authorization bill (H.R. 3254). During 
consideration of the bill for amendment under the five-minute rule, Mr. 
Gerald B. H. Solomon, of New York, offered an amendment and the manager 
of the bill, Mr. Rick Boucher, of Virginia, reserved a point of order. 
The resulting colloquy is carried here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      amendment offered by mr. solomon

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
            At the end of Title II, add the following new section:

             sec. 213. denial of awards of grants or contracts to 
          educational institutions which prevent military recruiting.

            (a) Denial of Funds.--The Director may not make a grant or 
        award a contract to any educational institution that has a 
        policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, any of the 
        military services of the United States from obtaining for 
        military recruiting purposes--
            (1) entry to campuses or access to students on campuses; or
            (2) access to directory information pertaining to students; 
        consistent with applicable law. . . .

        Mr. Boucher: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order with 
    respect to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Solomon].
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] 
    reserves a point of order against the amendment. The gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 5 minutes in support of 
    his amendment.
        Mr. Boucher: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Solomon: I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
        Mr. Boucher: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
    to me.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise to propound a question with respect to how 
    the gentleman interprets the recent addition that was made to the 
    base text amendment. The addition that is written in on this 
    amendment on line 7, following the phrase that is denumerated 
    paragraph number 2, says, ``consistent with applicable law.''. . .
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Virginia 
    that he knows that we had a problem in drafting the amendment to 
    make it germane. Even though I believe that it is a limitation 
    amendment, which should be allowed, I have every reason to believe 
    the Parliamentarians would rule against me and in favor of the 
    gentleman raising a point of order against it.
        Therefore, we had to modify it by adding the terms ``consistent 
    with applicable law.''

[[Page 12078]]

        It does apply to line 6 as well. In effect, it makes this a 
    sense-of-Congress resolution rather than binding. We would hope to 
    pass it over here in this forum and then have the Senate adopt it 
    in its original form where it will become law.
        Mr. Boucher: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
    yield, I thank the gentleman for his explanation. . . .
        I ask the gentleman this additional question: Does the 
    gentleman believe that he is adding any requirements that do not 
    already exist in present law through the general text of his 
    amendment? Will this amendment, if adopted, change the required 
    conduct of universities in terms of the access and information they 
    provide?
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman, it is 
    not my intention, by rendering this new modification, to create new 
    law. It is applicable law. That is my intent. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] has 
    reserved a point of order. Does the gentleman wish to press the 
    point of order?
        Mr. Boucher: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the reservation of the 
    point of order.