[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 15, Chapter 31]
[Chapter 31. Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries]
[A. Points of Order]
[Â§ 4. Timeliness]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 12078-12127]
 
                               CHAPTER 31
 
                Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
 
                           A. POINTS OF ORDER
 
Sec. 4. Timeliness

    It is essential that a point of order be raised at the proper time 
if it is to be entertained by the Chair. Generally, a point of order 
comes too late after debate on the matter has commenced; but the 
precedents are sometimes more explicit in defining when a point of 
order is timely. For example, a point of order against a privileged 
resolution is properly raised when it is called up, before debate is 
had on the resolution.(15) Similarly, a point of order 
against ``consideration'' is timely when the measure is called 
up.(16) A point of order against a report involving the 
privileges of the House is properly raised after the report is 
read,(17) whereas points of order against conference reports 
are made after the reading of the report and before the reading of the 
statement of the managers in explanation of the report.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 4.1, infra.
16. See Sec. 4.2, infra.
17. See Sec. 4.5, infra.
18. See Sec. 4.4 and Ch. 33, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Challenging Privileged Status of a Resolution

Sec. 4.1 A point of order questioning the privilege of a resolution 
    reported by the Committee on Rules has been entertained when the 
    resolution was called up before the reading of the resolution by 
    the Clerk.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(19) before the Clerk read the text of 
a privileged

[[Page 12079]]

resolution, it was determined to be timely for a Member to raise a 
point of order against it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 20212, 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H. Res. 845, providing for the consideration 
        of H.R. 11926, which was to limit the jurisdiction of federal 
        courts in reapportionment cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution 845 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against the consideration of House Resolution 845 on the grounds 
    that the Committee on Rules is without jurisdiction to bring such 
    resolution to the floor of the House under the provisions of rule 
    16 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and I ask 
    permission to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.

    Following argument, the Speaker overruled the point of order.

Points of Order Against Consideration of Measure

Sec. 4.2 Under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, one of the 
    enforcement measures permitted a point of order against the 
    consideration of a bill providing new spending authority not 
    subject to the appropriations process.

    The House of Representatives and the Senate have sometimes reached 
different interpretations of provisions of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974. Such was the case in 1975 when the House, acting first on the 
legislation, permitted consideration of the International Development 
Act of 1975, H.R. 9005, the Speaker overruling a point of order that 
the bill could not be considered because of a provision defining 
certain loan receipts under the bill as being ``authorized to be made 
available.'' The Speaker found evidence in the bill that the receipts 
were available only through the appropriations process.
    The House proceedings of Sept. 10, 1975,(1) were as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 28270, 28271, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    9005) to authorize assistance for disaster relief and 
    rehabilitation, to provide for overseas distribution and production 
    of agricultural commodities, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 
    1961, and for other purposes.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of

[[Page 12080]]

    order against the present consideration of the bill H.R. 9005 on 
    the grounds that on page 15 of this bill, in section 302(e), lines 
    6 to 17, there is contained a provision which in essence changes 
    the law governing repayments on previous foreign assistance loans 
    making these sums available for certain purposes without 
    reappropriation by Congress. At the present time the proceeds from 
    repayments of these loans are returned to the Treasury for later 
    reappropriation by the Congress.
        Apparently this provision allows at least $200 million in loan 
    reflows, as the report refers to them, to be respent without either 
    authorization or further appropriation by the Congress each year.
        It would be my contention that this provision violates Public 
    Law 93-344, section 401(a), the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
    which in effect prohibits the consideration by the House of any 
    bill or resolution which provides any new spending authority. In 
    effect this is back-door spending without authorization and 
    appropriation each year by the Congress.
        The Speaker: (2) Does the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morgan: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order.
        Mr. Speaker, the proposed section 103 of the Foreign Assistance 
    Act of 1961 contained in section 301(a) of House Resolution 905 as 
    reported, which authorizes the repayment on prior year foreign aid 
    loans to be made available for specific purposes, does not in 
    effect appropriate funds and, therefore, is not subject to a point 
    of order under clause 5 of rule XXI. The funds referred to in 
    section 103 will not be available for reuse unless they are 
    appropriated. . . . The clear language of the bill, Mr. Speaker, 
    proposed in section 103 specifically provides that amounts repaid 
    are authorized to be available for use and authorized for 
    appropriation. It does not provide that they be available for use 
    as an appropriation.
        The Speaker: The Chair would like to address a question to the 
    gentleman from Maryland.
        Is the gentleman raising a point of order under the Budget Act 
    for the purpose of preventing the consideration of the legislation, 
    or is he attempting to make a point of order that this is an 
    appropriation on a legislative bill?
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I am making the point of order for the 
    express purpose of preventing the consideration of the bill, 
    inasmuch as the public law to which I have referred says that it 
    shall not be in order for either House to consider a bill which 
    contains such a provision.
        I would, therefore, in response to the statement of the 
    chairman of the committee, refer to the committee report on page 46 
    which says:

            The third subsection added to section 103 authorizes 
        repayments on prior year aid loans to be made available for 
        specified purposes.

        This would remove it from the appropriation process.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule. The gentleman from 
    Maryland is making the point of order that the por

[[Page 12081]]

    tion of the bill under section 302(e) constitutes new spending 
    authority and violates section 401(a) of the Budget Act, Public Law 
    93-344.
        The Chair has reviewed the language shown in the bill and in 
    the report which shows that it is subject to the appropriation 
    process because the whole intent and thrust is predicated on the 
    words ``are authorized to be made available.'' In other words, the 
    reflow funds are to be appropriated by the Committee on 
    Appropriations and by subsequent legislative actions and not as a 
    result of the passage of this bill.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

    In the Senate, a point of order against consideration was 
sustained, but then the Senate permitted the point of order to be 
withdrawn and the bill modified to pass muster under the Budget Act. 
The Senate proceedings of Nov. 3, 1975,(3) which carry a 
description of how the House resolved the parliamentary situation, are 
carried below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 34732-34, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel K.] Inouye [of Hawaii]: Mr. President, I raise a 
    point of order with reference to section 492(d), page 5, line 17) 
    and section 302(e), (page 23, line 6), authorizing funds ``to be 
    made available'' which violates section 401(a) of the Budget Act, 
    Public Law 93-344, which states:

            It shall not be in order in either the House of 
        Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or 
        resolution which provides new spending authority described in 
        subsection (c)(2) (A) or (B) (or any amendment which provides 
        such new spending authority), unless that bill, resolution, or 
        amendment also provides that such new spending authority is to 
        be effective for any fiscal year only to such extent or in such 
        amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts.

        The Presiding Officer: (4) The Chair rules the point 
    of order is well taken under section 401(a) of Public Law 93-344. 
    Therefore, the bill cannot be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        What is the pleasure of the Senate?
        Mr. [Hubert H.] Humphrey [of Minnesota]: Mr. President----
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Minnesota.
        Mr. Humphrey: Mr. President, I understand the concern that the 
    Senator from Hawaii has expressed. Might I say most respectfully 
    that in the other body, and I say this to the Parliamentarian, as 
    the Parliamentarian knows, the ruling of the Parliamentarian was 
    that the language was in order in the bill.
        This is the language from the other body, but we have our own 
    rules; I understand that.
        I suggest to the Senator from Hawaii that the report indicates 
    what has been our practice, that the use of funds for these 
    purposes, whatever the purposes as outlined were, would of course 
    be contingent upon the appropriations action. So it might be, if 
    the Senator will withhold his point of order, that we might be able 
    to reconcile our differences here, because there is no de

[[Page 12082]]

    sire to escape the appropriations process.
        For example: On line 6, the language ``after July 1, 1975, are 
    authorized to be appropriated for each of the fiscal years 1976 and 
    1977'' instead of ``authorized to be made available.''
        The Presiding Officer: The Chair would advise the Senator from 
    Minnesota that to vitiate the point of order and the rulings would 
    require unanimous consent. . . .
        Mr. Humphrey: Large sums of money, and that is why in this 
    language we are authorizing their use only on the basis of the 
    appropriations process. We authorize them for specific purposes, 
    such as for the International Fund for Agricultural Development the 
    sum of $200 million. But it is not to bypass the Appropriations 
    Committee. And I think it should be noted that when this point was 
    raised in the other body, the chairman of the House International 
    Relations Committee rose in opposition to the point of order.
        He noted some of the same points that are being made here. . . 
    .

    Senator Humphrey then quoted from the debate and the ruling by 
Speaker Albert.

        The Presiding Officer: The Chair advises, in that regard, based 
    on the point of order originally made and the ruling by the Chair, 
    that the bill is not before the Senate to be so amended, unless by 
    unanimous consent, and the point of order would be withdrawn, even 
    though that would allow the point of order to be raised again, but, 
    if by unanimous consent the point of order were withdrawn, the 
    Senate could move to consideration of such an amendment. . . .
        Mr. Inouye: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
    my point of order.
        The Presiding Officer: Does the Senator ask unanimous consent 
    that his point of order be withdrawn?
        Mr. Inouye: I do.
        The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        Mr. Humphrey: Mr. President, in light of the discussion which 
    we have had, both here and in the colloquy, as well as our private 
    discussions, I now move, on page 23, on line 6, after the words, 
    ``to be'', to strike the words ``made available'', and insert in 
    lieu thereof the word ``appropriated''. The line will then read: 
    ``and after July 1, 1975, are authorized to be appropriated'' for 
    each of the fiscal years, and so on.
        The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the 
    amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Budget Act Point of Order Against Consideration

Sec. 4.3 While the Budget Act prohibits consideration of a bill, 
    amendment or conference report which would cause the total level of 
    budget outlays for the current year to be exceeded, the point of 
    order must be made when the bill, amendment, or conference report 
    is called up and comes too late after debate.

    On Dec. 15, 1982,(5) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Appro

[[Page 12083]]

priations called up a conference report on the agricultural 
appropriation bill, fiscal 1983. The conference report was considered 
as read and then Mr. Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi, was recognized 
to debate the report. The following proceedings are pertinent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 30912, 30923, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Appropriation, 
                                    1983

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on 
    the bill (H.R. 7072) making appropriations for the agriculture, 
    rural development, and related agencies programs for the fiscal 
    year ending September 30, 1983, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) Pursuant to the rule, 
    the conference report is considered as having been read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the 
    House of December 10, 1982.)
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman 
    from Nebraska (Mrs. Smith) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten). . . .

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, 
    before I consume that 1 minute, may I have a parliamentary inquiry?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The parliamentary inquiry would be 
    made as part of your 1 minute. All time is controlled.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Then this is my request in the nature of a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        If the funding level of this conference report is $31.7 
    billion-plus, and the budget resolution passed by the House earlier 
    this year listed as a maximum amount for this area of spending 
    something a little below $23 billion, my parliamentary inquiry is: 
    If we have passed the budget resolution providing a level of 
    spending for this category or function of the Federal budget, how 
    do we have the ability now to consider a conference report that 
    proposes to spend an amount substantially in excess of that figure? 
    Where do we get that right?
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) No point of order was 
    made against the conference report when it was brought up. If one 
    had been raised, the Chair would have ruled at that time. A timely 
    point of order was not made and, therefore, there is no ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dannemeyer: Does the Speaker mean that if a Member had 
    raised this in the way of a point of order when it was first 
    brought up----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If there had been a point of order 
    raised on a timely basis, the Chair would have ruled on the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Ruled which way?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot engage in 
    speculation.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?

[[Page 12084]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Dannemeyer) has expired.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Point of Order Against Privileged Resolution Does Not Reflect Committee 
    Action

Sec. 4.4 A point of order that the text of a privileged resolution does 
    not reflect the action of the Committee on House Administration in 
    ordering it reported comes too late after there has been debate on 
    the resolution.

    On Aug. 5, 1970,(8) a privileged report was filed from 
the Committee on House Administration and immediately called up for 
consideration. Following the reading of the resolution and several 
minutes of discussion as to the merits of raising the salaries of two 
House employees, a parliamentary inquiry was made as to the timeliness 
of a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 27450, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Res. 1117, which provided additional compensation for two 
        positions created by H. Res. 543 [89th Cong.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, according 
    to the rules of the House would a point of order lie to this bill 
    inasmuch as it is not as was reported out of the committee 
    yesterday, and is not identical? Would a point of order lie at this 
    point?
        The Speaker: The resolution is already under consideration and 
    there has been debate.
        Any point of order against its consideration would come too 
    late at this time.

Point of Order Against Report Relating to Privilege of House

Sec. 4.5 A point of order against a report involving the privileges of 
    the House is properly raised after the report is read.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(10) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, responded to an inquiry as to when was the proper time 
to raise a point of order against a privileged report filed by the 
Committee on Un-American Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 112 Cong. Rec. 27439, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H. Rept. No. 89-2302, which related to H. Res. 1060, involving 
        the refusal of a witness to testify before the Committee on Un-
        American Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a 
    question of the privilege of the House, and by direction of the 
    Committee on Un-American Activities I submit a privileged report--
    House Report No. 2302.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 12085]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: At what point is it in order for me to present a 
    point of order to the resolution?
        The Speaker: After the report is read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                   Proceedings Against Milton Mitchell Cohen

            The Committee on Un-American Activities, as created and 
        authorized by the House of Representatives, through the 
        enactment of Public Law 601 of the 79th Congress, section 121, 
        subsection (q)(2), under House Resolution 8 of the 89th 
        Congress, duly authorized and issued a subpena to Milton 
        Mitchell Cohen. . . .
            Pursuant to resolution of the Committee on Un-American 
        Activities duly adopted at a meeting held January 13, 1966, the 
        facts relating to the aforesaid failures of Milton Mitchell 
        Cohen are hereby reported to the House of Representatives, to 
        the end that the said Milton Mitchell Cohen may be proceeded 
        against for contempt of the House of Representatives in the 
        manner and form provided by law.

    After the reading of the voluminous report was dispensed with by 
unanimous consent, the Chair entertained the point of order by Mr. 
Yates.
    The Speaker overruled the point of order after extensive argument 
on the proper interpretation of Rule XI clause 26(m).(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 735 (1965). For the current rule, see 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 712 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A privileged resolution, certifying the report to the United States 
Attorney, was then offered, debated, and agreed to.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Res. 1060, 112 Cong. Rec. 27448-85, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Order Falls When Motion at Which It Is Directed Is Withdrawn

Sec. 4.6 A motion that the House resolve into the Committee of the 
    Whole for consideration of a bill may be withdrawn pending a point 
    of order against consideration of the bill (for failure of the 
    report to comply with the ``Ramseyer'' rule), and if withdrawn, the 
    Chair is not obligated to rule on the point of order.

    On Dec. 3, 1979,(13) Mr. Henry A. Waxman, of California, 
moved that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole to 
consider the Child Health Assurance Act of 1979. Before the question 
was put by the Speaker Pro Tempore, a point of order was raised against 
consideration. The proceedings are carried herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 34385, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waxman: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole House on the

[[Page 12086]]

    State of the Union for the considera-tion of the bill (H.R. 4962) 
    to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to strengthen and 
    improve medicaid services to low-income children and pregnant 
    women, and for other purposes.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman from 
    Maryland will state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    present consideration of the bill, H.R. 4962, on the grounds that 
    the committee report fails to comply with the provisions of clause 
    3 of rule XIII, the so-called Ramseyer rule.
        The relevant provision of clause 3 of rule XIII requires that--

            Whenever a committee reports a bill or a joint resolution 
        repealing or amending any statute or part thereof it shall 
        include in its report or in an accompanying document--a 
        comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution 
        making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof 
        proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and 
        italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
        devices the omissions and insertions proposed to be made.

        Section 4 of the bill amends subparagraph (B) of section 
    1905(a)(4) of title XIX of the Social Security Act. This amendment 
    is properly shown in italic type on page 111 of the report (H. 
    Rept. 96-568). Section 4 further amends section 1905(a)(4) by 
    adding a new subparagraph (D). This amendment is also properly 
    shown in italic type. Subparagraph (C) of this section of the 
    Social Security Act is not amended, but the committee report also 
    has this provision shown in italic type indicating that it is a 
    change in existing law, and is, therefore, in violation of the 
    House rule. Subparagraph (C) is not an amendment nor is it amended 
    by the bill and, therefore, the committee report is in violation of 
    the provisions of clause 3 of rule XIII, which has the purpose of 
    clearly showing existing law and proposed amendments to that law.
        The purpose of the rule is to make it readily apparent what 
    change in existing law is intended. I cite volume 8, chapter 236, 
    section 2236 of ``Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
    Representatives'' in support of this. On Monday, February 3, 1930, 
    the House was considering bills on the Consent Calendar, when the 
    bill--H.R. 8156--to change the limit of cost for the construction 
    of the Coast Guard Academy was reached.
        Mr. Fiorello H. La Guardia, of New York, made the point of 
    order that the change proposed in the law was not properly 
    indicated in the report.
        The Speaker, the great Mr. Longworth of Ohio, sustained the 
    point of order and said:

            It is perfectly apparent to anyone reading the bill that 
        its language is not exactly in the form prescribed by the 
        Ramseyer rule, which provides that--
            ``Whenever a committee reports a bill or joint resolution 
        repealing or amending any statute or part thereof it shall 
        include in its report or in an accompanying document--
            ``(1) the text of the statute or part thereof which is 
        proposed to be repealed; and

[[Page 12087]]

            ``(2) a comparative print of that part of the bill or joint 
        resolution making the amendment and of the statute or part 
        thereof proposed to be amended showing by stricken-through type 
        and italics, parallel columns or other appropriate 
        typographical devices, the omissions and insertions proposed to 
        be made.''
            The Chair does not think that the rule has been complied 
        with. What is required under the second part has not been done. 
        Of course the rule is intended to make it evident just what 
        change in a bill or resolution is intended. It is to make this 
        change apparent to anybody without consulting the statute which 
        it is intended to amend.

        Mr. Speaker, the report on H.R. 4962 does not make it evident 
    just what change is intended. The report does not make it apparent 
    what is being amended without consulting the statute. In fact, the 
    report clearly and erroneously indicates a section of existing law 
    is amended when it is not.
        Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I note that the report has not even 
    ``substantially'' complied with the rule. The precedents 
    demonstrate that substantial compliance is achieved even though the 
    report may contain errors of punctuation, capitalization, or 
    abbreviations which are at variance with the bill. The report error 
    here goes far beyond these minor problems and causes difficulty in 
    clearly discerning what this amends and what is now statutory law. 
    The fact that this appears in italic type signifies it as an 
    amendment, which it is not. The report causes confusion rather than 
    clarification and is, therefore, clearly in violation of the rule.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Waxman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do desire to be heard on the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Speaker, there are over 20 pages in the proposed bill. The 
    gentleman is referring to one paragraph, in which I am informed has 
    a typographical error; but the point that I would make in 
    opposition to the point of order that is made is that the Ramsayer 
    is in substantial compliance with the rule and that on that basis 
    the point of order ought to be overruled.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would ask the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Waxman) to withhold his motion until the Chair can 
    ascertain whether the Ramsayer rule was violated by the committee 
    or whether a typographical error by the Government Printing Office 
    exists in the report.
        Will the gentleman withdraw his motion?
        Mr. Waxman: Mr. Speaker, I will withhold my motion.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, if I may be heard further, for the 
    Chair's deliberations I would only indicate that the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Waxman) has offered as his only rebuttal that this 
    is substantial compliance and not anything more than an error.
        The fact of the matter that the section is involved I 
    discovered only because of the substantive nature of that section 
    in my own desire to possibly offer amendments. Now, if this 
    gentleman was misled, I am sure other Members may have been misled, 
    and I think the purpose of this rule is to prevent that.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The motion to go into committee has 
    been withdrawn, so the Chair will at the present time withhold its 
    ruling.

[[Page 12088]]

Against Ramseyer Rule Violations

Sec. 4.7 A point of order that a report fails to comply with the 
    requirement that proposed changes in law be indicated 
    typographically, as required by the Ramseyer rule, is properly made 
    when the bill is called up in the House and before the House 
    resolves into the Committee of the Whole.

    On July 13, 1959,(15) immediately after Mr. Thomas G. 
Abernethy, of Mississippi, moved that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill, Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, inquired of the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 13226, 13227, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6893, a bill to amend the District of 
        Columbia Stadium Act of 1957 with respect to motor vehicle 
        parking areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order 
    against the consideration of the bill and the report. When is the 
    proper time to seek recognition for this purpose?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) This is the proper 
    time for the gentleman to make his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereupon, Mr. Gross made a point of order against language found 
in the bill which, under the Ramseyer rule, was not stated in the 
accompanying report in italicized or other distinctive print. Mr. 
Abernethy then obtained unanimous consent that the motion be withdrawn 
and that the bill be recommitted to the committee.

Sec. 4.8 The proper time to raise a point of order that a committee 
    report fails to comply with the Ramseyer rule is when the motion is 
    made to go into the Committee of the Whole to consider the bill.

    On July 30, 1968,(17) during debate on House Resolution 
1218, which provided that it should be in order to move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
a bill to amend the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965, Mr. Paul Findley, 
of Illinois, unsuccessfully attempted to raise a point of order against 
further consideration of the resolution on the ground that the 
committee report accompanying the bill did not comply with the 
provisions of the Ramseyer rule. Speaker Pro Tempore John J. Rooney, of 
New York,

[[Page 12089]]

then ruled that a point of order on that ground was not appropriate at 
that time. Mr. Findley then inquired as to when the point would be in 
order. The Speaker Pro Tempore then stated that it could be raised when 
the motion was made to go into the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 24245, 24252, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 17126, the extension of the 1965 Food 
        and Agriculture Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the previous question was ordered on the resolution and the 
resolution was agreed to, Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, moved that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of the bill. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
then heard Mr. Findley on his point of order.

Sec. 4.9 Where, pending a motion to consider a bill in Committee of the 
    Whole, a point of order was made against a bill on the ground that 
    the report did not comply with the Ramseyer rule, and the 
    contention was made that the point of order came too late, the 
    House having already adopted a resolution making consideration of 
    the bill in order, the Chair overruled the point of order, but by 
    so doing indicated that the point of order was timely.

    On Oct. 1, 1963,(18) Mr. Armistead I. Selden, Jr., of 
Alabama, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of a bill and Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, immediately put the question on the motion. Mr. Frank T. 
Bow, of Ohio, then stated a point of order against the bill on the 
basis that the report accompanying the bill did not comply with the 
Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 18412, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7044, a bill to amend Pub. L. No. 193 [83d Cong.], 
        relating to the Corregidor-Bataan Memorial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In debate on the point of order, Mr. Selden contended that the 
point of order was too late because a resolution had been adopted to 
provide for the consideration and that the provision questioned by Mr. 
Bow did not make a specific change in the provisions of the law as Mr. 
Bow had argued. To this Mr. Bow responded that under the rules of the 
House, even though a resolution had been adopted, the point of order 
under the Ramseyer rule had to come immediately before the House went 
into the Committee of the Whole. Consequently, argued Mr. Bow, the 
point of order did not come too late.

[[Page 12090]]

    The Chair overruled the point of order, holding that there had been 
an adequate compliance with the Ramseyer rule, and, thus, by 
implication, indicating that the point of order was timely.

Time for Making Point of Order Against Conference Report

Sec. 4.10 A point of order against a conference report must be made 
    after the reading of the report and before the reading of the joint 
    statement.

    A Member wishing to make a point of order against a portion of a 
conference report on a bill carrying a Senate number, on the basis that 
one of the provisions proposed by the Senate and included in the 
conference agreement would not have been germane if offered to the 
House version when the bill was under consideration in the House, has a 
narrow window of opportunity. The proceedings of Dec. 15, 
1975,(19) illustrate one of the first applications of the 
new rule adopted in the 93d Congress.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 40671, 40675-77, 40680, 40681, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. The original concept of permitting points of order to address 
        ``non-germane'' provisions in conference agreements was 
        included in amendments to the rules adopted in the 92d 
        Congress. See H. Res. 11532, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36023. The 
        pertinent rule, Rule XXVIII clause 4(a), was further amended in 
        the 93d Congress to bring within the application of the rule 
        provisions in a Senate bill sent to conference if they would 
        not have been considered germane if offered to the House 
        version. See H. Res. 998, Apr. 9, 1974, which added the last 
        sentence to clause 4(a). See House Rules and Manual Sec. 913(b) 
        (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      conference report on s. 622, energy policy and conservation act

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 622) to 
    increase domestic energy supplies and availability; to restrain 
    energy demand; to prepare for energy emergencies; and for other 
    purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report.
        Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order.
        The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from California will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Goldwater: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
    title V, part B.
        The Speaker: The Chair would request that the gentleman 
    withhold his point of order until we have had the title of the bill 
    read by the Clerk.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia?

[[Page 12091]]

        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve a right 
    to object.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague) reserves a 
    right to object.

        The Chair states that the right of the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Goldwater) will be protected. . . .
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers)?
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: I address the Chair with the 
    following parliamentary inquiry: At which point would it be in 
    order to offer or make a point of order against section 102 of the 
    conference report?
        The Speaker: If objection to the reading of the statement is 
    not made, or at any time prior to reading the statement. The Chair 
    has promised he is going to recognize the gentleman from California 
    first on that issue, either now or at that point.
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, if I still have the 
    floor, I make a point of order against section 102 of the 
    conference report.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will not be recognized because there 
    is a unanimous-consent request pending.
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: May I reserve a point of order 
    against that section?
        The Speaker: The gentleman's rights will be protected, but the 
    Chair has already promised the gentleman from California that he 
    would recognize him first on his point of order. . . .
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Goldwater).
        Mr. Goldwater: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Goldwater: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order to that 
    part of section 301 which adds to the new motor vehicle 
    improvements and cost saving account a new title V, part B, 
    entitled ``Application Advanced Automotive Technology.''
        My point of order is that it is nongermane, pursuant to clause 
    4, rule XXVIII.
        Part B of title V was not in the House bill, as passed in H.R. 
    7014, but it was in the Senate version and it is in the conference 
    report.
        If the section had been offered as an amendment on the House 
    floor, it would have been subject to a point of order as 
    nongermane. Hence, it is subject to a nongermaneness point of order 
    now under rule XXVIII, clause 4.
        May I point out to the Speaker that the automotive R & D part 
    of title V is wholly unrelated to the oil pricing and conservation 
    thrust of the bill. Besides, the Science and Technology Committee 
    has jurisdiction of all nonnuclear energy R. & D. matters, and this 
    is an R. & D. incentive program which clearly falls in that 
    jurisdiction.
        The original Senate version of section 546 was contained in 
    title II of the

[[Page 12092]]

    Senate bill (S. 1883). H.R. 9174 was introduced on July 31, 1975, 
    by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McCormack) and was referred 
    to the Committee on Science and Technology. H.R. 9174 basically 
    included all of title II of the Senate bill (S. 1883), specifically 
    the loan guarantee provision. The committee jurisdiction was 
    positively established by that referral.
        Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is that I 
    had asked unanimous consent that the statement on the part of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report.
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to go through with that before any 
    other unanimous-consent requests or any other points of order are 
    made against the bill. It does not jeopardize any point of order 
    and then I would be glad to answer any questions.
        The Speaker: The Chair had asked whether there was any 
    objection to the request and there was no objection. It was so 
    ordered.
        Mr. Staggers: So, Mr. Speaker, it is now considered as read?
        The Speaker: The request that the statement be read in lieu of 
    the report has been granted. It does not jeopardize any point of 
    order.
        Mr. Goldwater: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Teague).
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman wish to be heard further on the 
    point of order?
        Mr. Teague: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point 
    of order.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
    to be heard on the point of order at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Goldwater: Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time. I have made 
    my point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is not a good point 
    of order, but out of grace and in order to give the House a chance 
    to vote on this as an orderly procedure--I protested the disorderly 
    procedure with the ERDA bill which was before us--but in order to 
    have orderly procedure I will not contest the point of order, and I 
    do not think my good friend from West Virginia, the chairman of the 
    committee (Mr. Staggers) will contest it. Under those 
    circumstances, I think it is appropriate for the Chair to rule on 
    the point of order with regard to germaneness in order that we may 
    proceed.
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, I would say that we have a separate 
    vote on the point of order and then under those circumstances we 
    would be able to proceed.
        The Speaker: The point of order is conceded and sustained.
        Mr. Staggers: I would say to the gentleman from California that 
    it is without prejudice----
        Mr. Teague: Whether he concedes it or not, I would like to be 
    heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to sustain the point of order.
        Mr. Teague: Mr. Speaker, may I reserve the right to make a 
    point of order? I am going to make a point of order against the 
    whole conference report.

[[Page 12093]]

        The Speaker: That would come later.
        Mr. Teague: But the Speaker will reserve my right?
        The Speaker: Could the Chair make himself clear to the 
    gentleman? That might depend upon the outcome of the motion the 
    gentleman from California will make.
        Mr. Dingell: I think the gentleman wants to be heard; he 
    desires to be heard.
        I ask unanimous consent that he be heard at this time on the 
    point of order which, by concession, without waiving questions of 
    jurisdiction----
        The Speaker: The Chair has no authority to hear arguments on 
    matters not related to the point of order made by the gentleman. If 
    the gentleman from California makes a motion, the business which 
    transpires after the motion made by the gentleman will determine 
    whether certain other points of order will be in order.
        Mr. Goldwater: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Goldwater: Has the Chair ruled on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair sustained the point of order.
        Mr. Goldwater: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Goldwater moves that part B, title V in section 301 of 
        S. 622 be rejected.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater) is 
    recognized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers) is recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Goldwater).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that he was 
    in doubt.
        Mr. Goldwater: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    300, nays 103, not voting 31, as follows. . . .

Sec. 4.11 Rule XXVIII clause 4(a), was amended in the 96th Congress to 
    provide that if a conference report is considered read, then a 
    point of order should be made immediately when consideration of the 
    report begins.

    Rule XXVIII, dealing with conference reports and amendments in 
disagreement, now provides that if the report or amendments reported in 
disagreement have been available for three calendar days (excluding any 
Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday) after filing and if printed in the 
Record, can be considered as read when called up for consideration. 
Clause 4(a) now reflects this reality, and so points of order on the 
germaneness of amendments included in the conference agreement or 
reported in disagreement must be made immediately at the inception of 
consideration.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See the current provisions of Rule XXVIII clause 4(a) House Rules 
        and Manual (1997), particularly the annotations thereto in 
        Sec. 913, wherein it is stated ``The clause was . . . amended 
        in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16) to 
        provide that if the conference report is considered read under 
        clause 2(c) of this rule, a point of order under this clause 
        must be made immediately upon consideration of the conference 
        report.''

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

[[Page 12094]]

Sec. 4.12 A point of order against a conference report can only be 
    raised after the reading of the report has been completed or has 
    been dispensed with by unanimous consent.

    Until the addition of clause 2(c) of rule XXVIII, which provides 
that a conference report which has been available in accordance with 
clause 2(a) shall be ``considered as having been read when called up 
for consideration,'' a point of order could be raised against a 
conference report only after the reading of the report had been 
completed or waived. The proceedings of Sept. 30, 1976,(3) 
show the application of this earlier practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 34224, 34225, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     conference report on h.r. 12572, u.s. grain standards act of 1976

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the bill (H.R. 12572) to amend the U.S. 
    Grain Standards Act to improve the grain inspection and weighing 
    system, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [W. Hensen] Moore [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against consideration of this conference report.
        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, the conference report, in particular 
    section 8, subparagraph (5), violates clause 3 of rule XXVIII of 
    the rules of the House.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman withhold his point of order, 
    because the gentleman is premature. We have to read the report 
    before the point of order would lie.
        Mr. Moore: My rights will be protected to raise the point of 
    order, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The gentleman's rights will be protected. . . .
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Washington?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my point of order on the 
    conference report.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Moore) reserves 
    a point of order on the conference report.
        Does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) request that 
    this matter be put over and be made the first order of business 
    tomorrow?
        Mr. Foley: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    further consideration of this conference report be

[[Page 12095]]

    postponed, and that it be made the first order of business 
    tomorrow.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Washington?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 4.13 A point of order against a conference report (which has not 
    been printed in the Record for three days and is therefore not 
    ``considered as read'' when called up) must be made or reserved 
    before the reading of the joint statement where by unanimous 
    consent the statement is read in lieu of the report.

    Rule XXVIII, ``Conference Reports,'' was amended in 1979 by the 
addition of clause 2(c),(5) which specifies that any 
conference report or a Senate amendment in disagreement which has been 
filed and printed in the Record for three days is ``considered as 
having been read when called up for consideration.'' However, if a 
conference report is called up before the three-day requirement is met, 
it must still be read. The following sequence of events on Oct. 1, 
1980,(6) illustrate how a point of order against a 
conference report has to be made in a timely fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 912d (1997).
 6. 126 Cong. Rec. 28637-40, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference 
    report on the bill (H.R. 5612) to amend section 8(a) of the Small 
    Business Act, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against this conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman will be 
    protected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?
        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        The Clerk will read the report.
        The Clerk proceeded to read the report.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
    lieu of the report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Iowa?
        Mr. Danielson: Mr. Speaker, a while ago I raised a point of 
    order against the conference report. I understood the Speaker to 
    say that my point of order will be protected.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Danielson: If I am not waiving any rights, I will withdraw 
    my reservation of objection.

[[Page 12096]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the statement of 
    the managers will be read in lieu of the report.
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the statement.
        (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the 
    House of September 30, 1980.)

Points of Order Against Conference Reports

Sec. 4.14 The Chair entertains and rules upon points of order against 
    conference reports which, if sustained, will vitiate the entire 
    conference report (as under the Congressional Budget Act) before 
    entertaining points of order against portions of the report (under 
    Rule XXVIII clause 4, e.g.) which, if sustained, merely permit a 
    motion to reject the nongermane portion of the report.

    On Sept. 23, 1976,(8) Mr. Joseph P. Vigorito, of 
Pennsylvania, called up a conference report on the bill H.R. 10339, the 
Farmer to Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976. Mr. John H. Rousselot, 
of California, raised two points of order against the report, one under 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which if sustained, would have 
prevented consideration of the report. The second point of order was 
against a nongermane portion of the conference agreement. Speaker Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled on only the first point of order for the 
reasons which he stated at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 32099, 32100, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        conference report on h.r. 10339, farmer to consumer direct 
                           marketing act of 1976

        Mr. Vigorito: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on 
    the bill (H.R. 10339) to encourage the direct marketing of 
    agricultural commodities from farmers to consumers, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
    lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I have two points of order to raise 
    against the conference report on H.R. 10339 (H. Rept. 94-1516).
        The first is under the Budget Control Act. The second is under 
    House Rule XXVIII.
        Section 401(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
    Control Act (Public Law 93-344) provides as follows:

            (b) Legislation Providing Entitlement Authority.--

[[Page 12097]]

            (1) It shall not be in order in either the House of 
        Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or 
        resolution which provides new spending authority described in 
        subsection (c)(2)(C) (or any amendment which provides such new 
        spending authority) which is to become effective before the 
        first day of the fiscal year which begins during the calendar 
        year in which such bill or resolution is reported.

        The text of the conference agreement as set forth in the 
    amendment adding a new section 8 is as follows:

                             emergency hay program

            Sec. 8. In carrying out any emergency hay program for 
        farmers or ranchers in any area of the United States under 
        section 305 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 because of an 
        emergency or major disaster in such area, the President shall 
        direct the Secretary of Agriculture to pay 80 percent of the 
        cost of transporting hay (not to exceed $50 per ton) from areas 
        in which hay is in plentiful supply to the area in which such 
        farmers or ranchers are located. The provisions of this section 
        shall expire on October 1, 1977.

        It is clear from a literal reading of this proposed language 
    that certain livestock owners will be entitled to a hay subsidy 
    immediately upon enactment of this bill.
        This bill is effective during the so-called transition period 
    of July 1-September 30, 1976.
        In any event it is a new spending authority effective before 
    October 1, 1976, which marks the beginning of fiscal year 1977 but 
    occurs in the calendar year in which the conference report is being 
    called up in the House.
        ``New spending authority'' is defined in section 401(c)(2)(C) 
    to include ``payments . . . the budget authority for which is not 
    provided for in advance by appropriation Acts, to any person . . . 
    if . . . the United States is obligated to make such payments to 
    persons . . . who meet the requirements established by such law.''
        In the instance at hand, hay payments are mandated by the 
    language directing that the President shall direct the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to pay 80 percent of hay transportation costs--up to 
    $50 per ton.
        The second point of order is that section 8 of the conference 
    report is not in compliance with rule XXVIII, clause 4, and if such 
    language were offered to H.R. 10339 during its consideration in the 
    House it would not be deemed to be germane under rule XI, clause 7.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Vigorito) desire to be heard on the points of order?
        Mr. Vigorito: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the 
    two points of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
        Mr. Vigorito: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that if this 
    program is an entitlement program under section 401 of the Budget 
    Act, the funding could not be given an authorization in this bill 
    until the beginning of the next fiscal year, or, in this case, 
    October 1, 1976. If that is the case, I would think that we could 
    develop legislative intent here in that none of the funding would 
    begin in this bill until fiscal year 1977. As a practical matter, 
    the bill will probably not have cleared the President prior to that 
    time, anyway, and consequently we will not be delaying the impact 
    of the bill for any substan

[[Page 12098]]

    tial length of time. We have less than a week before October 1 
    comes about. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is having difficulty with the argument 
    made by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, because, as 
    the Chair understands it, theoretically and legally it would be 
    possible to begin the payments before October 1, 1976, which would 
    be in violation of the Budget Impoundment and Control Act, as the 
    entitlement to those payments might vest prior to October 1. If, as 
    the Chair understands it, the entitlement to payments only vested 
    after October 1, 1976, there would be no violation of the Budget 
    Control Act.
        What is the gentleman's answer to that?
        Mr. Vigorito: The intent is only to begin after October 1, 
    1976.
        The Speaker: Of course, the Chair sees before him language 
    which it seems to the Chair--and the Chair is sympathetic with what 
    the gentleman is trying to do--indicates that:

            In carrying out any emergency hay program for farmers or 
        ranchers in any area of the United States under section 305 of 
        the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 because of an emergency or 
        major disaster in such area, the President shall direct the 
        Secretary of Agriculture to pay 80 percent of the cost of 
        transporting hay (not to exceed $50 per ton) from areas in 
        which hay is in plentiful supply to the area in which such 
        farmers or ranchers are located. The provisions of this section 
        shall expire on October 1, 1977.

        This language does not say when the entitlement to payments 
    vests and does not imply when the payments begin. It does say when 
    the payments end. But the point is that the payments cannot begin 
    before October 31, 1976, without violating the Congressional Budget 
    Act. . . .
        The Chair thinks that under the present circumstances he should 
    insist that the gentleman consider another procedure, because he 
    thinks it can be worked out. Therefore, the Chair must sustain the 
    point of order.
        The Chair will not rule on the second point of order, on 
    germaneness grounds, because one point of order against the entire 
    conference report has been sustained.
        Will the gentleman undertake to work that out within the next 
    day or two?
        Mr. Vigorito: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to pull this 
    off so that we can work this out.
        The Speaker: The conference report is no longer before the 
    House. The gentleman can dispose of the Senate amendments under 
    another procedure.

Sec. 4.15 Where a conference report is considered as having been read 
    and then further proceedings are postponed by unanimous consent, 
    points of order against the report may still be raised when the 
    report is again before the House as unfinished business.

    On Sept. 23, 1976,(9) the chairman of the Select 
Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf called

[[Page 12099]]

up the conference report on the measure S. 521, a bill which had been 
reported by the ad hoc committee. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 32102, 32103, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1976

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the Senate bill (S. 521) to increase the 
    supply of energy in the United States from the Outer Continental 
    Shelf; to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; and for 
    other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Speaker: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, I should like to ask the chairman of the ad 
    hoc select committee at this time if he will withdraw this report 
    from consideration or seek to postpone further consideration of the 
    report. If not, those on this side will be constrained to object to 
    the request of the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Speaker, the House should not squander its precious 
    remaining hours on a bill that is clearly destined, if not 
    designed, to be vetoed.
        Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to 
    withdraw the conference report.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, then I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard. The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        (For Conference Report and statement see proceedings of the 
    House of September 20, 1976.) . . .

            Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1976

        Mr. Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
    dispense with further reading of the report, and that consideration 
    thereof be the unfinished business when the House convenes on 
    Tuesday next.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
        Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object--and I shall not 
    object--I wish to be sure that I understand the request of the 
    gentleman from New York. The gentleman is asking that: First, the 
    rest of the report be considered as read; second, that further 
    consideration today be dispensed with; and, third, that it not be 
    considered until next Tuesday at the earliest.
        Also, Mr. Speaker, I reserve several points of order against 
    the conference report, and would ask, is this the understanding 
    with my reservation of these points of order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The points of order will still be in 
    order.
        Mr. Fish: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Murphy of New York: I would clarify for my colleague that 
    the unanimous-consent request specifically stated that this would 
    be the first order of business on Tuesday next.

[[Page 12100]]

        Mr. Fish: On Tuesday next?
        Mr. Murphy of New York: Tuesday next.
        Mr. Fish: Not before that?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The first order of unfinished business 
    on Tuesday next.
        Mr. Murphy of New York: That is correct.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, 
    is the Chairman also of the opinion that the several points of 
    order which I have so reserved will be protected when we take this 
    matter up?
        Mr. Murphy of New York: If the gentleman will yield, the Chair 
    always protects the points of order of the minority.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

Consideration of Conference Report, Precedence Over Point of Order

Sec. 4.16 Where further consideration of a conference report (which had 
    been considered as read by unanimous consent) has been postponed to 
    a date certain, it is in order to raise the question of 
    consideration when the report is again called up as unfinished 
    business, and the question of consideration is disposed of before 
    the Chair entertains points of order against the report.

    The question of consideration of a conference report is in order 
immediately after its reading and before debate begins, and, as the 
proceedings of Sept. 28, 1976,(12) illustrate, where the 
reading of a report is, by unanimous consent, dispensed with and then 
consideration postponed, the question of consideration remains 
available when the conference report is called up as unfinished 
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 122 Cong. Rec. 33018, 33019, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Conference Report on S. 521, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
                             Amendments of 1976

        The Speaker: (13) The unfinished business is the 
    further consideration of the conference report on the Senate bill 
    S. 521, which the Clerk will report by title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the question of consideration.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider the 
    conference report on the Senate bill S. 521.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    236, nays 150, not voting 44, as follows: . . .

[[Page 12101]]

        So consideration of the conference report was ordered.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is as to 
    whether my reserved points of order are in order at this time?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that they are.

Point of Order Against Failure To Have ``Open Conference''

Sec. 4.17 Where the minutes of a conference meeting indicate that an 
    open meeting of the House and Senate managers had been held and 
    that a motion was adopted which finally disposed of all matters in 
    disagreement, as reflected by the signatures of a majority of the 
    conferees from each House, a Member must show that there was a 
    subsequent meeting of the conferees in violation of the rule 
    requiring open conference meetings for a point of order to lie.

    Until clause 6 was added to Rule XXVIII on Jan. 14, 1975, conferees 
often met behind closed doors. But with the adoption of clause 
6,(14) all conference meetings had to be open to the public 
unless, by roll call vote in the conference, a majority of the managers 
of both Houses voted to close the meeting. This clause was further 
amended on Jan. 4, 1977,(15) to require a roll call vote in 
the House to permit the managers to exercise their discretion to close 
a meeting. Another amendment to the rule occurred in the 96th 
Congress,(16) to provide that if the conference report is 
considered as read because it has been printed and is available under 
clause 2(c), a point of order under this ``open conference'' rule must 
be made immediately when the conference report is called up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 5, 121 Cong. Rec. 20-33, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53-70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H. Res. 5, 125 Cong. Rec. 7-16, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The discussion which occurred on the House floor on Sept. 28, 
1976,(17) illustrates the application of the current rule 
and the importance of having a final meeting of the conferees which 
complies with this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 122 Cong. Rec. 33019, 33020, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conference report on S. 521, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
Act, had been called up and read on Sept. 23, 1976.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 4.13, supra.

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

[[Page 12102]]

    On Sept. 28, 1976, it was before the House as unfinished business. 
The question of consideration having been decided in the affirmative, 
points of order were entertained.

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the conference report on grounds that it has 
    been reported in violation of Rule XXVIII, clause 6, which requires 
    that conference meetings be open to the public except when ordered 
    closed by rollcall vote in open session.
        Mr. Speaker, on the first day of this Congress, as one of its 
    first moves toward reform, the House voted to amend its rules and 
    open up conferences to public scrutiny. The Senate soon passed a 
    similar measure, and the rule took effect.
        At the first open meeting of the conference committee, one of 
    the managers on the part of the Senate moved that the Senate recede 
    from its disagreement to the House amendment with several 
    amendments which he had caused to be printed as part of a 
    conference document. Additional linear amendments were proposed by 
    other Senate managers in the form of amendments to the motion, and 
    in due course a majority of the Senators voted for the motion as 
    amended.
        The chairman of the conference committee, the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Murphy) then moved that the House agree to the 
    amendments of the Senate. This motion was presumably amendable, 
    although the chairman refused to allow any amendments to be 
    offered. If he had, they would have been restricted to germane 
    modifications of the various Senate amendments which would have 
    been the only items in disagreement at that time. The motion was 
    rushed to a vote and agreed to by the House managers, and the 
    conference meeting was adjourned.
        Mr. Speaker, the conference committee must have met again. It 
    must have met without any notice to the minority and far from 
    public view. It must have met in closed session without first 
    having voted to do so in open session. I must assume that there was 
    a closed session of the conference committee, because instead of 
    reporting linear Senate amendments, as had been agreed to in open 
    session, the committee reported a Senate amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute. . . .
        There must have been one more meeting--a closed meeting--in 
    which a majority of the Senate conferees and a majority of the 
    House conferees agreed to switch from linear amendments to an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute without giving minority 
    House managers a chance to offer amendments and without being open 
    to the public. . . .
        The Speaker: (19) Does the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Murphy) desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would refer to the 
    recorded minutes of the conference on page 2 of the opening day of 
    the conference. Senator Jackson moved that the conference be open 
    to the public. The motion was sec

[[Page 12103]]

    onded by Senator Jackson and adopted by the conference without 
    objection. If my colleague, the gentleman from New York, had been 
    present at all sessions of the conference, I doubt if he would make 
    this point of order. The motion made by Senator Jackson at the 
    conference and on page 8 of the first day's minutes of the 
    conference is as follows:

            Mr. Chairman, I therefore move the Senate recede from its 
        disagreement with the House and accept the House amendment with 
        the amendment set forth in the September 13 conference print, 
        except the technical amendments that occur on page 123 of the 
        print.

        Mr. Speaker, if I understand the gentleman's argument, he is 
    asserting that the Chair is to find an implied or ``constructive'' 
    secret meeting of the majority of the conferees because the 
    conference report is not consistent with the gentleman's 
    interpretation of the procedures of the conference committee.
        In the first place, there was no secret meeting and thus the 
    rule relied upon by the gentleman was not violated.
        In addition, I would point out that the conference report is 
    consistent with the actions of the conference. Senator Jackson 
    moved that the Senate recede from its disagreement and agree to the 
    amendment of the House with an amendment. During the course of the 
    deliberations, the Senate conferees agreed to modify Senator 
    Jackson's proposed amendments. The Senate conferees then approved 
    the Jackson motion.
        The House conferees then agreed to adopt the language agreed to 
    by the Senate conferees, to be inserted in lieu of the House 
    amendment.

        The conference report properly reflects these actions.
        Moreover, rules of the House make it clear that once a 
    conference report is filed by the required number of conferees 
    there is a conclusive presumption as to the validity of the 
    conference.
        The Speaker will not look behind the signatures as to the 
    procedures in conference.
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's point of order should not be 
    sustained. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York has made a point of order directed 
    against conference procedure alleging a violation of clause 6, rule 
    XXVIII.
        The gentleman's point of order is that the form of the 
    conference report does not conform to his understanding as to which 
    motion was agreed to by the House conferees. The gentleman contends 
    that there was a further constructive meeting of the conferees 
    which was closed and unannounced.
        The chief manager of the conference report has reported that in 
    a meeting of the conferees which was open to the public, pursuant 
    to the provisions of clause 6, rule XXVIII, a proper motion was 
    made to agree to an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    House amendment to the Senate bill, and the signatures of a 
    majority of the conferees of both Houses reflecting this agreement 
    appear on the conference report.
        The Chair does not feel that a violation of conference rules 
    has been shown, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 12104]]

Where Multiple Points of Order Directed Against Conference Report

Sec. 4.18 The Chair may in his discretion require all points of order 
    against a conference report for alleged violation of a particular 
    House rule to be stated before he rules on any, to allow the Chair 
    to determine the order in which he will decide the questions of 
    order.

    When the voluminous conference report on the Outer Continental 
Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1976 (S. 521, 94th Cong.) was called up 
on Sept. 28, 1976,(20) the Speaker was informed that several 
points of order would be lodged against the report. He first heard 
argument on and ruled on a point of order brought under the ``open 
conference rule.'' (1) After overruling this point of order, 
the Chair then turned to arguments based on the ``scope of conference'' 
rule.(2) The proceedings are carried in full below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 33020, 33021, 33023, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. Rule XXVIII clause 6(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 913d (1997).
 2. Rule XXVIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 913a (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the conference report.
        The Speaker: (3) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    conference report on the grounds that in section 208 the managers 
    have exceeded their authority in several instances and in section 
    101 in one instance, and the report, therefore, is in violation of 
    clause 3 of rule XXVIII.
        Mr. Speaker, so as not to burden the House with unnecessary 
    discussion, I will ask the Chair to rule on these questions of 
    scope one at a time, because as soon as one is upheld, 
    consideration of the others will not be needed.
        The Speaker: The Chair must state that when more than one point 
    of order is going to be made under a particular House rule, it is 
    proper under the precedents for the Chair to require all such 
    points of order to be stated and for the Chair then to make his 
    decision on the separate points of order, and the Chair intends to 
    follow that procedure.
        Mr. Fish: Very good, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear all the arguments of the 
    gentleman.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, prior to 1971, managers considering a 
    bill and an amendment in the nature of a substitute were free to 
    exercise wide discretion in discarding language appearing in both 
    versions and in making germane amendments, even beyond the scope of 
    the various issues in disagreement. All this was changed by the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. Section 125(B) of that act 
    revised clause 3 of rule 28, so that each spe

[[Page 12105]]

    cific topic, question, issue, or proposition must now be looked at 
    individually, as if linear amendments had been made by one House to 
    the bill of the other. Under this rule the conferees cannot report 
    new matter not committed by either House. Also, where the two 
    Houses propose different language on a particular issue, the two 
    versions set the boundaries for conference consideration of that 
    issue. Amendments outside those boundaries may not be reported, 
    even if germane. Where one House is silent on an issue proposed by 
    the other, the silent House is deemed to be incorporating current 
    law, if any, on the subject into its version. If both versions 
    contain matter on a given issue, that issue must be reported by the 
    conference, in disagreement if necessary. Finally, since the 
    substitute is being handled as if it were several linear 
    amendments, it is not in order for the managers to modify or fail 
    to report language which is identical in both versions. . . .

    Mr. Fish then proceeded to make several specific points of order, 
all charging that the conference report violated Rule XXVIII clause 3, 
by including matters ``beyond the scope'' of the text submitted to 
conference. The Speaker heard all the points of order, all the 
refutations by the manager, Mr. Murphy, as shown, and then ruled.

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Speaker, before reviewing 
    as the specific points of order, I must review the rules and 
    procedures of the House. Rule 28, paragraph three, indicates 
    whenever a disagreement to a bill through an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute has been committed to a conference 
    committee, the conference may report a total substitute so long as 
    no additional topic, question, issue, or proposition is included 
    and so long as any modification suggested by the conference. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Fish) argues in his first 
    point of order under clause 3, rule XXVIII, that the conferees have 
    exceeded the scope of the matter committed to conference by 
    removing from the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast 
    Guard is operating concurrent responsibility for considering 
    allegations of violations of safety regulations. It is the Chair's 
    opinion that the portions of the conference report dealing with 
    safety regulations and enforcement must be read as a whole. The 
    House and Senate versions had differing provisions on the various 
    aspects of that subject and gave regulatory and enforcement 
    responsibility to differing officials. The conference report 
    compromise gives the authority to the Interior and Labor 
    Departments and makes the conforming change in the provision 
    dealing with consideration of allegations of violations. For the 
    reasons stated by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) the 
    Chair overrules the point of order.
        The gentleman's second point of order on scope deals with the 
    findings at the beginning of the conference report, wherein the 
    conferees agreed to language finding adverse impacts on the various 
    States. . . . The conference language is no broader than

[[Page 12106]]

    the House language and the Chair overrules the point of order.
        In his third point of order on scope, the gentleman from New 
    York only points to language in the statement of managers and 
    argues that a statement of intent by the conferees exceeds the 
    scope of conference. Such a point of order must lie against 
    language in the conference report itself and not in the joint 
    statement and the Chair overrules the point of order.
        The gentleman's fourth point of order on scope deals with the 
    section of the conference report relating to judicial review. . . . 
    The conference language clarifies the fact that the limitation on 
    judicial review of the Secretary's determination does not inhibit 
    seeking judicial review of the underlying activities on the Outer 
    Continental Shelf and does not exceed the scope of the matter 
    committed to conference.
        The gentleman makes several additional points of order on 
    scope. . . .
        The last argument of the gentleman from New York is that the 
    conferees have added the word ``new'' in a provision that did not 
    contain that word in either the Senate bill or the House amendment. 
    A careful reading of the Senate bill demonstrates that the two 
    provisions were not identical, as the Senate bill contained the 
    word ``re-promulgate,'' not contained in the House amendment. 
    Therefore, the issue whether the regulations were to be new 
    regulations or could be existing regulations was a matter before 
    the conferees.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules all the points of 
    order.

Point of Order Against Conference Reports Entertained Pending Request 
    That Statement Be Read in Lieu of Report

Sec. 4.19 The House rule which precludes managers on the part of the 
    House at a conference with the Senate from agreeing to Senate 
    amendments providing for appropriations in a conference agreement 
    absent specific authority, applies only to Senate amendments which 
    are sent to conference and not to appropriations contained in 
    Senate legislative bills which are before the conferees.

    On June 30, 1976,(4) when the conference report on S. 
3295, a bill extending the National Housing Act, was called up for 
consideration in the House, the Member handling the report asked 
unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in lieu of 
the report. Pending this request, a point of order was raised against 
the report on the ground that it contained a provision permitting a new 
use of previously appropriated funds. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
entertained

[[Page 12107]]

the point of order. The arguments presented and the Chair's decision 
are carried herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 21632-34, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the Senate bill (S. 3295) to extend the 
    authorization for annual contributions under the U.S. Housing Act 
    of 1937, to extend certain housing programs under the National 
    Housing Act, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that 
    the statement of the managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin?
        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Reserving the right to object, 
    Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the conference 
    report.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against the conference report on S. 3295 on the basis that the 
    House managers exceeded their authority by agreeing to two matters 
    not in the original House amendment to the Senate bill and which 
    violates clause 2, rule XX, of the House Rules and Precedents of 
    the House. Clause 2, rule XX, reads in part as follows:

            Nor any amendment of the Senate providing for an 
        appropriation upon any bill other than a general appropriation 
        bill shall be agreed to by the managers on the part of the 
        House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment 
        shall first be given by the House by a separate vote on every 
        such amendment.

        The Senate-passed bill contains section 9(a)(2) and 9(b) which 
    in effect provide for expenditures to be made from the various FHA 
    insurance funds to honor claims made eligible for payment by the 
    provisions of section 9 generally. These amendments are to section 
    518(b) of the National Housing Act and relate to sections 203 and 
    221 housing programs for which the authority of the Secretary of 
    HUD to pay claims related to certain structural defects has expired 
    if the claims were not filed by March 1976.
        Both sections 9(a)(2) and 9(b) include identical language which 
    states as follows:

            Expenditures pursuant to this subsection shall be made from 
        the insurance fund chargeable for insurance benefits on the 
        mortgage covering the structure to which the expenditures 
        relate.

        The words ``Expenditures pursuant to this subsection shall be 
    made from the insurance fund'' constitute an appropriation within 
    the meaning of clause 2, rule XX. Based on precedents under clause 
    5, rule XXI, it is clear that payments out of funds such as the FHA 
    insurance fund are within the meaning of the term ``appropriation'' 
    and that the action taken by the House managers is violative of 
    clause 2, rule XX.
        In support of this point of order, I cite the ruling of the 
    Chair on a point of order raised by H. R. Gross on October 1, 1962, 
    to the conference report on H.R. 7927. A Senate provision agreed to 
    in that report provided that--

            The benefits made payable . . . by reason of enactment of 
        this part shall be paid from the civil service retirement and 
        disability fund.

[[Page 12108]]

        Inasmuch as when the House agreed to go to conference, it did 
    not give specific authority to agree to such an amendment. I 
    therefore submit that it is not in order for such language to be 
    included in the conference report.
        The FHA insurance funds are designed to provide the reserves 
    for payments on defaulted mortgages and for the operation of HUD 
    related to the various insurance programs and any diversion of the 
    use of such funds such as for payment for defects in the structure 
    would violate clause 5 of rule XXI. In further support of this 
    point of order, and specifically on the point that the provisions 
    constitute a diversion of funds for a separate purpose not within 
    the intention of the legislation establishing the fund, I cite the 
    ruling of the Chair on October 5, 1972, which holds that an 
    amendment allowing for the use of highway trust fund moneys to 
    purchase buses, would seem to violate clause 4 of rule XXI in that 
    it would divert or actually reappropriate for a new purpose funds 
    which have been appropriated and allocated and are in the pipeline 
    for purposes specified by the law under the original 1956 act.

        I say, Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    conference report on this basis.
        I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman from Oklahoma is 
    the one who sustained the point of order raised by Mr. Gross in the 
    case which I have referred to.
        Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to anticipate a ruling against my 
    point of order, but if that should be the case, Mr. Speaker, I 
    suggest we are making a mockery of the rules of the House.
        Since some of my comrades may not be aware of it, the rules of 
    the House in clause 5, rule XXI, provide:

            No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall 
        be reported by any committee not having jurisdiction to report 
        appropriations, nor shall an amendment proposing an 
        appropriation be in order during the consideration of a bill or 
        joint resolution reported by a committee not having that 
        jurisdiction. A question of order on an appropriation in any 
        such bill, joint resolution, or amendments thereto may be 
        raised at any time.

        Mr. Speaker, that is a rule of the House. Now, since the House 
    in its rules cannot have extraterritorial effect or extra body 
    effect, in order to protect the House from having its rules 
    violated by the Senate, we adopted clause 2 of rule XX which 
    related to action that the Senate might take that would be 
    violative of the House rules. But the very fact that this is not a 
    Senate amendment on a House bill is insignificant if the rules of 
    the House are going to have any real meaning because what we are 
    saying is any time we want to violate the House rules, we can have 
    the rule provide that after consideration of the bill it shall be 
    in order for the such-and-such Senate bill to be taken from the 
    Speaker's desk and everything after the enacting clause stricken 
    and apply the House language, or we can, when the bill is under 
    consideration before the House get consent to strike everything 
    after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and substitute the 
    House language. In either of those cases that for all intents and 
    purposes precludes a Member of this House from saying that the 
    rules of this House are violated with respect to action by the 
    Senate.

[[Page 12109]]

        I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time when 
    we are having some questions raised about the integrity of the 
    House rules and House administration, this is not the time to 
    render a decision on a point of order that gives in effect further 
    credence to the fact that we do not intend to maintain integrity in 
    this House with respect to the rules of the House if the procedure 
    is carried out in a circuitous way.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Ohio care to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, clause 2 of rule XX of the rules of the House 
    makes out of order any provision in a Senate amendment which 
    provides for an appropriation. However, the rule does not address 
    itself to provisions in Senate bills. The conferees accepted the 
    provision in question, without change, from a Senate bill and not 
    from a Senate amendment. Therefore, no violation of the House rules 
    is involved even if the provision is considered to be an 
    appropriation.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan has made a point of order against 
    the conference report, referring to the language of rule XX, clause 
    2, which places certain restrictions on the managers on the part of 
    the House in a conference with the Senate.
        The Chair has ruled on this matter before.
        On January 25, 1972, the Chair ruled in connection with a point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross) against the 
    conference report on a foreign military assistance authorization 
    bill (S. 2819) on the ground that the House conferees had exceeded 
    their authority by including in the conference report an 
    appropriation entirely in conflict with clause 2, rule XX. That 
    rule provides, in relevant part, that ``no amendment of the 
    Senate''--that is the important language--no amendment of the 
    Senate providing for an appropriation upon any bill other than a 
    general appropriation bill, shall be agreed to by the managers on 
    the part of the House.
        The Chair would point out that it was a Senate bill which was 
    sent to conference with a House amendment thereto. The rule is 
    restricted in its application to Senate amendments and, thus, is 
    not applicable in the present situation.
        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the ruling of 
    the Chair, I just would like to point out that in the conference 
    report the paragraph appears:

            That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the House to the text of the bill and agree to the 
        same with an amendment.

        In other words, with a Senate amendment.
        Now, I respectfully suggest that for all intents and purposes, 
    by using the circuitous route of taking up the Senate bill and 
    including the House language, we nullify totally the basic 
    directive of the House rules that this House shall not concur in 
    any appropriation in a legislation bill not a gen

[[Page 12110]]

    eral appropriations act, and for the Chair to rule that we will 
    accept a circuitous violation of the House rules, that we will not 
    accept a direct violation, I think is not in the best interests of 
    the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair just thinks there are other rules that 
    govern and that can protect the House in situations of this type. 
    The gentleman has referred to the language of the conference 
    agreement; and the Chair would point out that the managers have 
    proposed that the Senate recede and concur in the House amendment 
    with an amendment. There is no Senate amendment before the House at 
    this time.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin that the statement be read in lieu of the report?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the statement.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The procedural safeguards mentioned by the 
Speaker against the inclusion of appropriations in Senate bills 
include: (1) possible points of order under section 401 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, if the Senate provision can be construed as 
new spending authority not subject to amounts specified in advance in 
appropriations acts where budget authority has not been provided in 
advance (in this case, the money had already been appropriated and was 
in a revolving fund, so section 401 was not applicable); and (2) 
returning Senate bills which contain appropriations to the Senate by 
asserting the constitutional prerogative of the House to originate 
``revenue'' measures (construed under the precedents to include at 
least ``general appropriation bills'').

Points of Order Against Consideration of Conference Reports

Sec. 4.20 A point of order against consideration of a conference report 
    based upon the fact that the managers had affixed their signatures 
    prior to their formal appointment must be made prior to 
    consideration of the conference report in the House.

    On Mar. 25, 1980,(5) the chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Currency asked that a conference report on S. 662, a bill 
authorizing funds for International Banks, be recommitted to the 
conference. A series of inquiries followed which revealed that there 
had not been a formal, open meeting of the conference as required by 
Rule XXVIII. The conferees had been meeting informally with their 
Senate counterparts and had affixed their signatures about 30 minutes 
before their formal appointment. While this informal

[[Page 12111]]

meeting had been in an ``open'' situation, it could not qualify as an 
``open meeting'' since the managers had not been appointed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 126 Cong. Rec. 6429-31, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to recommit the Senate bill, S. 662, to 
    conference.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, could the gentleman tell me the title of the 
    bill?
        Mr. Reuss: Yes; this is the bill containing authorization for 
    the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, 
    and the African Development Fund.
        Mr. Bauman: Could the gentleman from Wisconsin explain to me 
    why the chairman is asking to recommit this bill?
        Mr. Reuss: Yes, though not without some embarrassment. 
    Technically, it turned out that the conferees had conferred and 
    done their business a few minutes before the House conferees were, 
    in fact, appointed. That was one of those slips betwixt the cup and 
    the lip which occur because of the length of our corridors. So, the 
    report as it comes back to us is technically imperfect, and it is 
    to correct that imperfection that I ask this unanimous-consent 
    request.
        Mr. Bauman: Further reserving the right to object, I assume 
    what the gentleman is saying is that the consideration of the 
    report in conference did not comply with rule XXVIII, which 
    requires an open conference meeting unless the House votes 
    otherwise?
        Mr. Reuss: I believe that is the relevant section. In any 
    event, whether it is rule XXVIII or not, and I do not have it in 
    front of me, it obviously was unintentionally improper, and we seek 
    to correct that by doing it right.
        Mr. Bauman: Further reserving the right to object, I would like 
    to make a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        If no Member made a point of order against the consideration of 
    the conference report it could be considered; could it not?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Further reserving the right to object, does the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin know of anyone who is going to make a 
    point of order?
        Mr. Reuss: No, I do not, but I realize that a valid point of 
    order would lie, and I did not want to be in the position of having 
    something on the calendar for tomorrow or the next day, knowing how 
    fragile it is. I cannot speak for 434 other Members.
        Mr. Bauman: Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, 
    I would like to make a further parliamentary inquiry.
        If this request is granted, the House is then asking the other 
    body for a conference. At that point it allows the other body to 
    act first under the rules, and that would preclude a motion to 
    recommit with instructions on the part of any Member of the House. 
    Is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This request would not change the 
    order of consideration of the new report. It

[[Page 12112]]

    merely asks for a recommital of the conference report to the same 
    conference.
        Mr. Bauman: If the motion is granted, is a motion to recommit 
    or a motion to instruct in order at this time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House would still act first on the 
    conference report.
        Mr. Bauman: Further reserving the right to object, the 
    gentleman from Maryland, knowing the outcome of the consideration 
    of the conference, would very much like to make a motion to 
    instruct but does not have one prepared at this time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that would not be in 
    order at this time in any event.

        Mr. Bauman: That was the question the gentleman put to the 
    Chair, whether a motion to instruct would be in order at this time. 
    The Chair says ``No.'' If this request is not granted and a point 
    of order is made against the consideration of the conference 
    report, as the gentleman from Wisconsin suggested, it might be that 
    no motion to instruct would be in order under rule XXVIII at that 
    time, would it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If a point of order were sustained 
    under clause 6 to rule 28 a new conference would be considered as 
    requested and conferees appointed without intervening motion and 
    the Senate would probably agree to a new conference and would 
    probably act first on the new conference report.
        Mr. Bauman: Further reserving the right to object, I would 
    inquire of the Chair, if in either case a motion to recommit with 
    instructions would be precluded by any Member of the House, whether 
    this request is granted, or whether a point of order is made, and 
    the rule automatically recommits the conference report?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Not in this case, if the request is 
    granted for recommittal to the same conference.
        Mr. Bauman: Well, I would say that the gentleman from Maryland 
    is trying to protect the rights of the minority, or actually the 
    majority who voted on this bill and who might seek a way of 
    vindicating their position in a motion to instruct the conferees, 
    or a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If this request is granted to recommit 
    the conference report, the motion to recommit would be protected 
    for the minority.
        Mr. Bauman: But if the other body acts, Mr. Speaker, that 
    precludes a motion to recommit with instructions; does it not?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If this goes back to the same 
    conference the other body, of course, does not have to agree to a 
    request for a new conference.
        Mr. Bauman: But the other body can act first, thereby 
    precluding any motion to recommit?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the papers are traded in 
    conference, that is possible, but not the normal sequence. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, 
    is it within the province of the senior conferee to return the 
    papers to this House for action first, in order to protect a motion 
    to recommit?
        Mr. Reuss: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
    absolutely right. That would be the normal course.

[[Page 12113]]

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, 
    do I have the guarantee of the gentleman from Wisconsin that that 
    will be his course of action? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin?
        There was no objection.

Procedure for Raising Point of Order Against Nongermane Provision in 
    Conference Report; Timing of Motion To Reject

Sec. 4.21 Where the Chair sustains a point of order that conferees have 
    agreed to and included in a conference report a nongermane 
    provision, a motion to reject that provision is in order under Rule 
    XXVIII clause 4(b), and is debatable for 40 minutes, equally 
    divided between the Member making the motion and a Member opposed; 
    and if the motion to reject is defeated, the debate commences on 
    the conference report itself.

    The text of the conference report on H.R. 6027,(7) the 
Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984, considered in the House on Oct. 
11, 1984,(8) the resulting point of order, and subsequent 
proceedings are carried below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 130 Cong. Rec. 31441, 98th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 10, 1984.
 8. 130 Cong. Rec. 32219, 32220, 32223, 32224, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rodino submitted the following conference report and 
    statement on the bill (H.R. 6027) to clarify the application of the 
    Federal antitrust laws to the official conduct of local 
    governments:

                    Conference Report (H. Rept. No. 98-1158)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        6027) to clarify the application of the Federal antitrust laws 
        to the official conduct of local governments, having met, after 
        full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 
        recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to 
        the same with an amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment insert the following:
        This Act may be cited as the ``Local Government Antitrust Act 
        of 1984.''.

            Sec. 2. For purposes of this Act--
            (1) the term ``local government'' means--
            (A) a city, county, parish, town, township, village, or any 
        other general function governmental unit established by State 
        law, or
            (B) a school district, sanitary district, or any other 
        special function governmental unit established by State law in 
        one or more States,
            (2) the term ``person'' has the meaning given it in 
        subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 
        U.S.C. 12(A)), but does not include any local government as 
        defined in paragraph (1) of this section, and

[[Page 12114]]

            (3) the term ``State'' has the meaning given it in section 
        4G(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15g(2)).
            Sec. 3. (a) No damages, interest on damages, costs, or 
        attorney's fees may be recovered under section 4, 4A, or 4C of 
        the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15, 15a, or 15c) from any local 
        government, or official or employee thereof acting in an 
        official capacity.
            (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to cases commenced 
        before the effective date of this Act unless the defendant 
        establishes and the court determines, in light of all the 
        circumstances, including the stage of litigation and the 
        availability of alternative relief under the Clayton Act, that 
        it would be inequitable not to apply this subsection to a 
        pending case. In consideration of this section, existence of a 
        jury verdict, district court judgment, or any stage of 
        litigation subsequent thereto, shall be deemed to be prima 
        facie evidence that subsection (a) shall not apply.
            Sec. 4. (a) No damages, interest on damages, costs or 
        attorney's fees may be recovered under section 4, 4A, or 4C of 
        the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15, 15a, or 15c) in any claim 
        against a person based on any official action directed by a 
        local government, or official or employee thereof acting in an 
        official capacity.
            (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to cases 
        commenced before the effective date of this Act.
            Sec. 5. Section 510 of the Department of Commerce, Justice, 
        and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation 
        Act, 1985 (Public Law 98-411), is repealed.
            Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect 30 days before the date 
        of the enactment of this Act.
            And the Senate agree to the same.
                    Peter W. Rodino,
                    Jack Brooks,
                    Don Edwards,
                    John F. Seiberling,
                    Bill Hughes,
                    Mike Synar,
                    Geo. W. Crockett, Jr.,
                    Charles Schumer,
                    Edward Feighan,
                    Hamilton Fish,
                    Carlos J. Moorhead,
                    Henry Hyde,
                    Daniel E. Lungren,
                                  Managers on the Part of the House.
                    Strom Thurmond,
                    Orrin Hatch,
                    Howard Metzenbaum,
                           Managers on the Part of the Senate. . . .

        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, 
    pursuant to House Resolution 616, I call up the conference report 
    on the bill (H.R. 6027) to clarify the application of the Clayton 
    Act to the official conduct of local governments, and for other 
    purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The Clerk will read the 
    conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk proceeded to read the conference report. . . .
        Mr. Rodino (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the conference report be considered as read.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Charles] Wilson [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of 
    order.
        I make the point of order that the last section of the 
    conference report contains nongermane matters within the definition 
    of clause 4 of rule XXVIII.

[[Page 12115]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New Jersey 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Rodino: The gentleman from New Jersey desires to be heard 
    on the point of order.
        Mr. Wilson: I would also like to be heard, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Texas.
        Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the objectionable section had been 
    offered to the House bill, it would have been in violation of the 
    provisions of clause 7 of rule XVI of the House rules. The 
    provision is a repeal of appropriations law.
        That provision deals with spending levels for the Federal Trade 
    Commission for this fiscal year. The legis- lation is a permanent 
    piece of legislation that amends our antitrust laws. These 
    amendments reduce monetary damages that local governments may be 
    liable for in antitrust suits.
        That has nothing to do with the provision of the last section 
    of this conference report to which my point of order is directed.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino].
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of 
    order against section 5 of the conference report. The fundamental 
    purpose of this conference report is to provide for continued 
    enforcement of the antitrust laws without severely damaging local 
    governments. This legislation before us continues to ensure that 
    antitrust violations will be prosecuted; but limits the amount of 
    damages which can be assessed in such a case against a local 
    governmental unit. It allows the aggrieved party to ensure that 
    injunctive relief will be available to terminate anticompetitive 
    activity of a local government.
        The fundamental purpose of the section against which the 
    gentleman raises a point of order is to permit the Federal Trade 
    Commission to continue to bring antitrust suits against 
    municipalities. The Federal Trade Commission is limited in the 
    remedies that it may pursue: The FTC cannot seek damages, only 
    injunctive relief. That is what this bill is all about, preventing 
    damage suits while leaving injunctive remedies in place.
        Mr. Speaker, I believe that the provisions of section 5 are 
    wholly consistent with the fundamental purpose of the rest of the 
    conference report and are therefore germane and the point of order 
    should not be sustained.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from New York on the point of order.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6027 protects local governments, as 
    well as its officials and employees, against money damages in suits 
    under our antitrust laws.
        However, it implicitly continues to allow suits for injunctive 
    relief, when no money damages are involved, to enforce these 
    antitrust laws against possible anticompetitive actions by units of 
    local governments.
        These suits for injunctive relief may be brought either by a 
    private party or

[[Page 12116]]

    by the antitrust enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice, 
    or the FTC.
        The so-called taxicab rider which would be repealed by section 
    5 of this bill currently impedes the ability of the FTC to bring 
    the very type of injunctive relief enforcement which the bill 
    before us envisions and presumes. While removing the threat of 
    money damages, we do not intend that local governments be totally 
    immune from Federal antitrust laws. Suits for injunctive relief 
    will be a safety net against potential anticompetitive activities 
    by localities.
        This repeal of section 510 of Public Law 98-411 is fully 
    consistent with the overall purposes of this bill. To remove 
    section 5 from this legislation would, ironically, prevent the FTC 
    enforcement when a locality is involved in anticompetitive conduct.
        Again, the FTC would not recover money damages under the 
    structure of H.R. 6027, but it could seek an injunction to bring 
    anticompetitive activities by localities to a halt. The fair 
    balance in this legislation would be distorted if the FTC remains 
    unable to exercise its normal statutory responsibilities to enforce 
    compliance with our antitrust laws.
        Section 5 is consistent with the fundamental purposes of this 
    legislation and should remain in this bill. It is germane in a 
    logical, substantive sense. This is an antitrust bill. The FTC is 
    an antitrust enforcement agency. H.R. 6027 is an amendment to the 
    Clayton Act. The FTC, along with the Department of Justice, 
    enforces that very same Clayton Act.
        Section 510 of Public Law 98-411 was, in reality, legislation 
    on an appropriation bill, so its repeal is germane, but the fact is 
    that its original enactment was not germane.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Wilson] wish to be heard further on his point of order?
        Mr. Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If not, the Chair has had the 
    opportunity of reviewing the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Texas that pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVIII, the conferees 
    on H.R. 6027 have agreed to a nongermane Senate provision. Section 
    5 of the conference report on H.R. 6027 contains the substance of 
    section 3 of the Senate amendment, which repealed section 510 of 
    Public Law 98-411, the State, Justice, Commerce Appropriation Act 
    for fiscal year 1985. The section proposed to be repealed prohibits 
    the expenditure of funds in that appropriation act for the Federal 
    Trade Commission to conduct antitrust actions against 
    municipalities or other units of local government.
        H.R. 6027 as passed by the House only addresses the issue of 
    antitrust remedies for claims against local governments, and merely 
    limits monetary relief for a Federal or private cause of action 
    against a local government under the Clayton Act. While the House 
    bill may limit the remedies which the FTC may obtain in such suits, 
    in the same way it limits any claimant, the House bill does not 
    address the general authority of the FTC to prosecute antitrust 
    actions, or the conditions under which the FTC may use its 
    appropriated funds for the coming fiscal year. The Chair would also 
    point out that the conference report

[[Page 12117]]

    and Senate amendment directly amend a general appropriation act not 
    addressed in the House bill.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Does the gentleman from Texas have a motion pursuant to clause 
    4 of rule XXVIII?

                        motion offered by mr. wilson

        Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to clause 4(b) of 
    rule XXVIII, to strike section 5 of the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] 
    is entitled to 20 minutes in support of his motion.
        Does the gentleman from Texas wish to use his time?
        Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back my time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
    Rodino] is entitled to 20 minutes in opposition to the motion. . . 
    .
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Wilson].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Wilson) there were--yeas 8, nays 23.
        Mr. Philip M. Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the 
    vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    36, nays 298, not voting 98. . . .
        So the motion was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The gentleman from New 
    Jersey [Mr. Rodino] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frank Harrison (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
    Rodino].

Order of Responding to Points of Order

Sec. 4.22 Where a conference report is vulnerable to several points of 
    order that sections included therein are not germane, the Speaker 
    entertains one point of order at a time, rules on whether it is 
    germane, and if he sustains the point of order entertains a motion 
    to reject that provision. After a vote on one motion to reject, he 
    then entertains the next point of order under Rule XXVIII clause 4. 
    If any motion to reject is agreed to, the conference report falls, 
    and a motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment, with an 
    amendment eliminating the rejected provisions, is entertained.

[[Page 12118]]

    The proceedings of Oct. 15, 1986,(11) when the House had 
before it the conference report on the Commodity Futures Trading Act of 
1986, provide a good illustration of the steps required by Rule XXVIII 
clause 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 132 Cong. Rec. 31498, 31499, 31502-06, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Conference Report on H.R. 4613, Futures Trading Act of 1986

        Mr. de la Garza submitted the following conference report and 
    statement on the bill (H.R. 4613) to reauthorize appropriations to 
    carry out the Commodity Exchange Act, and to make technical 
    improvements to that Act: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 132 Cong. Rec. 30824-26, 99th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 14, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Conference Report (H. Rept. 99-995)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        4613) to reauthorize appropriations to carry out the Commodity 
        Exchange Act, and to make technical improvements to that Act, 
        having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to 
        recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as 
        follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment 
        as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment, insert the following:

                 section 1. short title and table of contents.

            (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Futures 
        Trading Act of 1986''.
            (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as 
        follows:
        Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

                            TITLE I--FUTURES TRADING

                        sec. 101. fraudulent practices.

            Section 4b of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6b) is 
        amended--. . .

        Mr. [E (Kika)] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    the provisions of House Resolution 590, the rule just adopted, I 
    call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4613) to 
    reauthorize appropriations to carry out the Commodity Exchange Act, 
    and to make technical improvements to that act.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Charles O.] Whitley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    make a point of order against the nongermane amendment contained in 
    the conference report relating to the transfer of national forest 
    lands in the State of Nebraska.
        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman from North Carolina 
    (Mr. Whitley) will identify that portion of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitley: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is specifically 
    made against section 207 of title II of the conference report.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. de la Garza: Yes, Mr. Speaker, briefly.
        Mr. Speaker, the committee and the conference committee agreed 
    on the

[[Page 12119]]

    text of the legislation which is the Commodity Futures Trade 
    Commission.
        The other body then added various and sundry other bills and we 
    have to concede the point that they were not germane and they were 
    extraneous to the matter. Therefore, I find myself in the situation 
    where I could not but otherwise yield to the point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The point of order is conceded and sustained.
        Does the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Whitley) move to 
    reject that part of the conference committee report?
        Mr. Whitley: Mr. Speaker, I do.

                       motion offered by mr. whitley

        Mr. Whitley: Mr. Speaker, I move to delete section 207 from the 
    conference report.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Whitley) is 
    recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. Whitley: Mr. Speaker, section 207 of title II of the 
    conference report authorizes the conveyance of approximately 173 
    acres of land in the Nebraska National Forest to the Nebraska Game 
    and Parks Commission, to be added to the Chadron State Park in 
    Nebraska. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Whitley).
        The motion was agreed to.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the conference report to H.R. 4613 under 
    rule XXVIII, clause 4, of the House rules for the reason that it 
    contains a Senate amendment that is in violation of rule XVI, 
    clause 7, because it contains matter nongermane to H.R. 4613 as 
    passed by the House.
        H.R. 4613, as reported by the Committee on Agriculture, and 
    adopted in the House, was a bill ``to authorize appropriations to 
    carry out the Commodity Exchange Act, and to make technical 
    improvements in that act.'' . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Does the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. de la Garza) desire to be heard on this point of 
    order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John Joseph Moakley (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. de la Garza: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, the House version of the CFTC, as I have explained 
    previously, did not contain this item of legislation. The other 
    body amended the bill and added other items. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . In the opinion of the Chair, 
    section 202 of the conference report as added in the Senate would 
    not have been germane to the House-passed bill; so the point of 
    order is sustained.

                       motion offered by mr. madigan

        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Speaker, I move to reject the matter in the 
    conference report originally contained in section 504 of the Senate 
    amendment to H.R. 4613 and now contained in section 202 of the 
    conference report entitled ``Basis for Computation of Emergency 
    Compensation Under the 1986 Wheat Program'' (H. Rept. 99-995).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Madigan) is recognized for 20 minutes. . . .

[[Page 12120]]

        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Speaker, is it correct that I am entitled to 
    close the debate?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is not correct. The 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has the right to close debate.
        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in 
    the Record a letter from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
    Office relative to the item of discussion before the House this 
    morning.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Illinois?
        There was no objection.
        The text of the letter is as follows: . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Madigan).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    162, nays 239, not voting 31, as follows: . . .

        [So the motion to reject was not agreed to.]
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Are there any other points of order 
    against this bill?

    vacating proceedings by which section 207 of the conference report 
                          on h.r. 4613 was deleted

        Mrs. [Virginia] Smith of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to set aside and vacate the proceedings on the motion of 
    the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Whitley) to reject the 
    Senate amendment to section 406 of H.R. 4613 that is now section 
    207 of the conference report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentlewoman from Nebraska?
        Mr. Whitley: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want 
    to advise the Members that earlier in the proceedings today I made 
    a point of order against one of the sections of the bill. I do not 
    have the language in front of me at this moment. My point of order 
    was sustained, and I moved that that section of the bill be 
    stricken. Speaker O'Neill was in the chair at the time. He ruled 
    that the motion had carried and announced that the section was 
    stricken.
        Subsequent to that time, the gentlewoman from Nebraska 
    approached me and told me that the proceedings were somewhat hasty, 
    that she was taken by surprise and did not have an opportunity to 
    present arguments in opposition to my motion.
        Mr. Speaker, I will not object to the gentlewoman's request 
    with the clear understanding that I will have the same time to 
    argue in support of my motion that I was originally assigned if the 
    proceeding is vacated.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If there is no objection and the 
    proceeding is vacated, the Chair will resume as if nothing had 
    happened so that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Whitley) 
    will be protected and will have his time.
        Mr. Whitley: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

[[Page 12121]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentlewoman from Nebraska?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
    Whitley) is recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Whitley).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        0Mrs. Smith of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on 
    the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
    that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    274, nays 130 . . . .
        [The motion to reject was agreed to.]
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) Pursuant to clause 4, 
    rule XXVIII, the conference report is considered as rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion to recede and concur in the 
    Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of the 
    conference report without section 207. . . .

                     motion offered by mr. de la garza

        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. de la Garza moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4613 and concur 
        therein with an amendment:

        In lieu of the matter inserted by the Senate amendment, insert 
    the text of the conference report on H.R. 4613 without section 207 
    thereof.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la 
    Garza) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Madigan) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la 
    Garza).

Points of Order at Conference Stage

Sec. 4.23 A point of order against a conference report on a legislative 
    bill on the basis that it carries in its text an appropriation is 
    not valid if the appropriation was in the bill as it passed the 
    House and allowed to remain because of waiver or inaction.

        On May 1, 1975,(16) during consideration of the 
    conference report on the bill H.R. 6096, the Vietnam Humanitarian 
    and Evacuation Assistance Act of 1975, a point of order was raised 
    against the report on the ground that it carried an appropriation 
    in violation both of clause 2 of Rule XX and clause

[[Page 12122]]

    5 of Rule XXI. After debate, the Speaker overruled the point of 
    order. The discussion on the point of order and the ruling follow:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 12752, 12753, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 6096) to authorize funds 
    for humanitarian assistance and evacuation programs in Vietnam and 
    to clarify restrictions on the availability of funds for the use of 
    U.S. Armed Forces in Indochina, and for other purposes, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
    lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: (17) there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I would 
    like to make a point of order against the conference report.
        The Speaker: The gentlewoman will state it.
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Speaker, section 7 of the conference report 
    in the last sentence refers to evacuation programs authorized by 
    this act. It permits a waiver of a series of laws for the purpose 
    of allowing those evacuation programs to take place.
        In the House bill (H.R. 6096), section 3 dealt with evacuation 
    programs referred to in section 2 of the bill and waived the same 
    series of laws with respect thereto. In order for section 3 to be 
    considered, it required a rule from the Rules Committee. And a rule 
    was granted waiving points of order against section 3 of the bill. 
    But section 7 of the conference report, in speaking of evacuation 
    programs authorized by the entire act and not just by one section, 
    exceeds the scope of section 3 of the bill and exceeds the waiver 
    that was permitted under the rule. It therefore violates rule XXI, 
    clause 5, and violates rule XX, clause 2, which prohibits House 
    conferees from accepting a Senate amendment providing for an 
    appropriation on a nonappropriation bill in excess of the rules of 
    the House.
        Mr. Speaker, last week the Committee of the Whole deliberated 
    on an amendment that exceeded the limitations of the rule granted 
    by the Rules Committee. That was the Eckhardt amendment, and it was 
    ruled out of order by the Chairman. The language in section 7 of 
    the conference report in essence has the same flaw as the Eckhardt 
    amendment.
        The last sentence of section 7 of the conference report would 
    waive various provisions of law with respect to $327 million, 
    whereas the last sentence of section 3 of the House bill waived 
    these laws only with respect to $150 million. Section 7 of the 
    conference report, therefore, is broader than section 3 of the 
    House bill.
        Had the language of section 7 been offered as an amendment to 
    the House bill, it would have been subject to a point of order. 
    Since the authority of the House conferees is no broader than the 
    waiver originally granted to the bill by the Rules Committee, 
    section 7 of the conference report should be ruled out of order.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Morgan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 12123]]

        The point of order has no standing. Section 3 of the House bill 
    and section 7 of the conference report referred to use of funds of 
    the Armed Forces of the United States for the protection and 
    evacuation of certain persons from South Vietnam. The language of 
    the conference report does not increase funds available for that 
    purpose. Both the House bill and the conference report simply 
    removed limitations on the use of funds from the DOD budget. These 
    limitations were not applicable to the funds authorized in H.R. 
    6096. The scope of the waiver is the same in the conference report 
    and the House bill.
        Mr. Speaker, the changes in language are merely conforming 
    changes. Section 2 of the House bill was a section which authorized 
    the evacuation programs in the House bill. The conference version 
    contains the evacuation programs authority in several sections plus 
    reference to the entire act rather than to one specific section.

        Mr. Speaker, the point of order has no standing and I hope it 
    is overruled.
        The Speaker: Does the gentlewoman from New York desire to be 
    heard further on the point of order?
        Ms. Holtzman: No, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentlewoman from New York makes the point of order that 
    section 7 of the conference report constitutes an appropriation on 
    a legislative bill in violation of clause 5, rule XXI, to which the 
    House conferees were not authorized to agree pursuant to clause 2, 
    rule XX.
        The Chair would first point out that the provisions of clause 
    2, rule XX, preclude House conferees from agreeing to a Senate 
    amendment containing an appropriation on a legislative bill, and do 
    not restrict their authority to consider an appropriation which 
    might have been contained in the House-passed version. In this 
    instance, the conferees have recommended language which is 
    virtually identical to section 3 of the House bill, and they have 
    not agreed to a Senate amendment containing an appropriation. 
    Therefore, clause 2, rule XX, is not applicable to the present 
    conference report.
        While clause 5, rule XXI, permits a point of order to be raised 
    against an appropriation in a legislative bill ``at any time'' 
    consistent with the orderly consideration of the bill to which 
    applied--Cannon's VII, sections 2138-39--the Chair must point out 
    that H.R. 6096 was considered in the House under the terms of House 
    Resolution 409 which waived points of order against section 3 of 
    the House bill as constituting an appropriation of available funds 
    for a new purpose.
        The Chair feels that an analogous situation may be found in 
    Deschler's Procedure, chapter 25, section 23.11. There, points of 
    order had been waived against portions of a general appropriation 
    bill which were unauthorized by law, and the bill passed the House 
    containing those provisions and was sent to conference; the 
    conferees were permitted to report their agreement as to those 
    provisions, since the waiver carried over to the consideration of 
    the same provision when the conference report was before the House.
        The gentlewoman from New York also has in effect made the point 
    of order that section 7 of the conference report goes beyond the 
    issues in dif

[[Page 12124]]

    ference between the two Houses committed to conference in violation 
    of clause 3, rule XXVIII.
        In the House-passed bill, section 3 contained waivers of 
    certain provisions of law in order to make available funds already 
    appropriated to the Department of Defense to be used for the Armed 
    Forces in ``evacuation programs referred to in section 2 of the 
    act.'' The conferees have recommended that the same waivers of law 
    shall apply to ``evacuation programs authorized by this act.''
        In the opinion of the Chair, a conforming change in phraseology 
    in a conference report from language contained in the House or 
    Senate version to achieve consistency in the language thereof, 
    absent proof that the effect of that change is to broaden the scope 
    of the language beyond that contained in either version, does not 
    necessarily render the conference report subject to a point of 
    order. In this instance, it appears to the Chair that the only 
    effect of the language in the conference report was to accomplish 
    the same result that would have been reached by section 3 of the 
    House bill, namely to remove certain limitations on the use of 
    funds in the Defense budget for military evacuation programs under 
    this bill.
        The Chair therefore holds that the conferees have not exceeded 
    their authority and overrules the point of order.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the statement.
        (For conference report and statement see proceedings of the 
    House of April 28, 1975.)

Gaining Floor for Point of Order

Sec. 4.24 The Chair must recognize a Member to state a point of order 
    relative to the conduct of debate at any time, and it is not 
    necessary that the Member having the floor yield for that purpose.

    As the 2d session of the 95th Congress was drawing to a close, the 
Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978 was being considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. Time for debate on the bill and 
remaining amendments was limited to 40 minutes. An amendment was 
offered by Mr. Duncan and he and Mr. Dingell, the bill manager, were 
each recognized briefly to debate the amendment. The proceedings of 
Oct. 14, 1978,(18) were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 38153-55, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we have been 
    considering this bill now for 4 hours. It is everybody's knowledge 
    that we have to complete this bill before the session ends. We do 
    not want to take all day on it.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on all 
    amendments and on the bill close in 30 minutes.

[[Page 12125]]

        The Chairman: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate 
    on all amendments and on the bill close in 40 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, those of us who have amendments printed in the 
    Record would, of course, be protected by the rules under the 
    scenario?
        The Chairman: Let the Chair state that that is correct, 5 
    minutes on each side.
        Mr. Buchanan: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous-
    consent agreement was entered into will be recognized for 2\1/2\ 
    minutes each.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Hughes). . . .
        Mr. [Robert] Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan of Oregon: Page 24, strike 
        out line 1 and all that follows down through line 4, and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(13) The term `species' means a group of fish, wildlife, 
        or plants, consisting of physically similar organisms capable 
        of interbreeding but generally incapable of producing fertile 
        offspring through breeding with organisms outside this 
        group.'';

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    points of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    reserves points of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, without repeating the 
    significance of these amendments that I have already discussed in 
    connection with the first amendment to redefine ``critical 
    habitat,'' this one goes to the definition of ``species.'' The 
    committee bill, at the top of page 24, defines the term ``species'' 
    as including any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any 
    distinct segment of the population of any species of vertebrate 
    fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to insist 
    upon his point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: No, I do not, I wish to speak in opposition to the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan withdraws his point 
    of order and is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes. . . .
        Mr. Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Dingell: I do not yield.
        Mr. Duncan: of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of 
    order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for regular order.
        Mr. Duncan: of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for regular order. I do not 
    yield to the gentleman. He understands the rules.
        Mr. Duncan: of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, may I state a point of 
    order.

[[Page 12126]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Duncan: of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is----
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield for a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair has stated that the gentleman will 
    state his point of order.
        Mr. Duncan: of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. 
    The gentleman is addressing himself and his argument to the 
    amendment----
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield to the gentleman from 
    Oregon.
        Mr. Chairman, I demand the protection of the Chair. This is a 
    frivolous point of order. I do not yield for that purpose. I ask 
    that the gentleman be instructed to take his seat and behave 
    himself.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    please recognize that the Chair is trying to conform to the rules.
        The gentleman has made a point of order; and of course, the 
    Chair must recognize that point of order.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield for the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that it is not necessary 
    that the gentleman yield for that purpose. The Chair has a right at 
    any time to recognize a Member on a point of order.
        The gentleman from Michigan will continue to proceed in order.
        Mr. Dingell: I am proceeding in order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will proceed. . . .
        Mr. [William J.] Hughes [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Duncan).
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that he 
    already used his time under the allocation.
        Mr. Hughes: Mr. Chairman, I had two amendments at the desk.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has used his time.
        The Chair was trying to be fair in recognizing either the 
    chairman or the ranking member, if either desires to comment on the 
    amendment.

Point of Order Against Motion To Recommit

Sec. 4.25 A point of order against a motion to recommit must be made 
    immediately after the motion is read and comes too late after 
    debate thereon.

    On May 13, 1982,(20) Mr. Dan Glickman, of Kansas, 
attempted to raise a point of order against a pending motion to 
recommit. The gist of the argument he attempted to make was that the 
motion amended an amendment already adopted by the House. The motion in 
this instance was not protected by language in the special order 
providing for consideration of the bill and specifying that the motion 
to recommit could be ``with or without instructions.'' In any event, 
the point of order against the motion came too late, the pro

[[Page 12127]]

ponent having entered into the five-minute debate permitted by the 
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 128 Cong. Rec. 9838, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Under the rule, the 
    previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Gillis W. Long (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair 
    will put them en gros.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the engrossment and 
    third reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.

                   motion to recommit offered by mr. dunn

        Mr. [Jim] Dunn [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Dunn: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman qualifies.
        The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dunn moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5890 to the 
        Committee on Science and Technology with instructions to report 
        back the same forthwith with the following amendment: On page 
        2, line 22, strike ``$267,100,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$232,700,000''.

        Mr. Dunn: Mr. Speaker, the point of this is to say to this 
    body, and even though I am a member of the committee and a strong 
    supporter of our space program in its entirety, that if we cannot 
    in a $6.6 billion budget deal with between us reducing $35 million, 
    then I would have to ask the Members of this body, where are we 
    going to begin to cut?
        The proposal that came from the administration represented an 
    11-percent increase--an 11-percent increase for NASA at a time when 
    many other areas of our Government are being asked to cut back. If 
    we cannot between us find $35 million, then--

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Glickman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman yield for the 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Dunn: I yield just for an inquiry. The gentleman will state 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Glickman: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the numbers in the 
    motion to recommit are in fact the same numbers in the committee 
    bill as amended by the Winn amendment?
        Mr. Dunn: Yes, Mr. Speaker. They are the same numbers as in the 
    Winn amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will inquire, is the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) raising a point of order?
        Mr. Glickman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order.
        Mr. Dunn: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that, the 
    gentleman's point of order is not timely. It comes too late.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dunn) will proceed.

[[Page 12128]]