[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 15, Chapter 31]
[Chapter 31. Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries]
[A. Points of Order]
[Â§ 5. Timeliness as Against Bills or Provisions Therein]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 12128-12162]
 
                               CHAPTER 31
 
                Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
 
                           A. POINTS OF ORDER
 
Sec. 5. Timeliness as Against Bills or Provisions Therein

    The principles governing the timeliness of points of order against 
bills or provisions therein and amendments are similar. Points of order 
against a bill are considered by the Chair prior to recognition of 
Members to offer amendments; (2) and a point of order 
against a section of a bill must be made immediately after the section 
is read and comes too late after an amendment to that section has been 
considered.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 5.1-5.8, infra.
 3. See Sec. 5.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, it is not too late to make a point of order 
against a paragraph merely because there has been argument on a point 
of order against a proviso within the paragraph.(4) A point 
of order against a part of a paragraph or section, if sustained, 
results in the elimination of the whole,(5) unless it is the 
desire of the offeror of the point of order to limit his point to only 
part of the paragraph.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 5.13, infra.
 5. See Sec. Sec. 1.16-1.18, supra.
 6. See Sec. 1.19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The time for making points of order against unauthorized items or 
legislation in an appropriation bill is after the House has resolved 
itself into the Committee of the Whole and after the paragraph 
containing such items has been read for amendment.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. Sec. 5.12-5.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But points of order against appropriations in legislative bills, 
under Rule XXI clause 5, can be raised ``at any time,'' which has been 
held to mean during consideration of that portion of the bill, or of 
the amendment, under the five-minute rule.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. Sec. 5.28, 5.29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order against a paragraph in a general appropriation 
bill comes too late after the sponsor of an amendment to it is 
recognized to debate his amendment,(9) or after the 
amendment has been read and agreed to.(10) It is too late to 
make such points after the Clerk has begun reading the next 
paragraph.(11) The Chair often displays some leniency, 
however, to Members who missed their opportunity to raise a point of 
order, when such Members were on their feet seeking recognition at the 
appropriate time.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 5.18, infra.
10. See Sec. 5.20, infra.
11. See Sec. 5.21, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 5.23, 5.24, infra.

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

[[Page 12129]]

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

Prior to Recognition for Amendments

Sec. 5.1 Points of order against a paragraph of a bill are considered 
    by the Chairman before Members are recognized to offer amendments 
    to that paragraph.

        On June 4, 1970,(13) the Committee of the Whole had 
    under consideration H.R. 17867, the foreign assistance 
    appropriation for fiscal 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 18395, 18396, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              economic assistance

            Technical assistance: For necessary expenses as authorized 
        by law $310,000,000, distributed as follows:
            (1) World-wide, $150,000,000 (section 212);
            (2) Alliance for Progress, $75,000,000 (section 252(a)); 
        and
            (3) Multilateral organizations, $85,000,000 (section 
        302(a)), of which not less than $13,000,000 shall be available 
        only for the United Nations Children's Fund: Provided That no 
        part of this appropriation shall be used to initiate any 
        project or activity which has not been justified to the 
        Congress, except projects or activities relating to the 
        reduction of population growth: Provided further, That the 
        President shall seek to assure that no contribution to the 
        United Nations Development Program authorized by the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, shall be used for projects 
        for economic or technical assistance to the Government of Cuba, 
        so long as Cuba is governed by the Castro regime.

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Zablocki: If a Member desired to raise a point of order to 
    paragraph (3) on page 2, would he have to wait until the Clerk has 
    read the entire title?
        The Chairman: No, he would have to wait only until the Clerk 
    had read the paragraph carrying the language to which the gentleman 
    wishes to make his point of order.
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order to language 
    appearing on page 2. The gentleman from Wisconsin was on his feet.
        The Chairman: The Clerk has read the section to which the 
    gentleman wishes to make his point of order.
        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ichord: I wish to offer an amendment affecting lines 9, 10, 
    11, 12, 13 and 14 on page 2. Is the amendment in order at this 
    time?
        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Passman: It is my understanding that the Clerk has already 
    read that section and has even gone into a reading of the third 
    page of the bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin was on his feet 
    seeking rec

[[Page 12130]]

    ognition, and the Chair will protect his rights.
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will defer offering 
    his amendment. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Wisconsin on 
    his point of order.
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    entire proviso beginning on line 20 and ending on line 25 of page 2 
    is legislation in an appropriation. I am for its objectives, but in 
    effect it simply says that the President should try to enforce 
    existing law. The provisions in existing law, section 620 of the 
    Foreign Assistance Act are stronger and there is no sense in this 
    useless repetition in an appropriation.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Louisiana wish to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Passman: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The proviso was added by 
    the Committee on Appropriations for the foreign assistance 
    appropriation bill for fiscal year 1971 in order to insure that no 
    U.S. contribution to the UNDP would be used to give any type of 
    economical or technical assistance to Cuba as long as Cuba is 
    governed by the Castro regime.
        I would like to interpret this as a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and ask for a ruling.
        The Chairman: The language in question is as follows: Line 20, 
    page 2:

            Provided further, That the President shall seek to assure . 
        . .

        And so forth.
        That is obviously a directive to the President of the United 
    States, it is not limited in application to the funds appropriated 
    in this bill or any section thereof, and the Chair sustains the 
    point of order.

    The Chair then recognized Mr. Ichord to offer an amendment.

Sec. 5.2 Points of order reserved against a proposition must be 
    disposed of before amendments thereto are in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(15) it was ruled that one could not 
reserve a point of order and offer an amendment simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 4596, 4597, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6958, the Interior Department appropriation for 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    the point of order against the proviso. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) The time of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin has expired. Without objection the pro-forma amendment 
    will be withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boileau: I do not withdraw my reservation to the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman, but I have an amendment that I desire to 
    offer.
        The Chairman: The point of order will have to be disposed of 
    before an amendment is in order.
        Mr. Boileau: I reserve the point of order, if that reservation 
    does not continue.

[[Page 12131]]

        The Chairman: The reservation does not continue if the 
    gentleman wants to offer an amendment.
        Mr. Boileau: It can continue by unanimous consent, can it not?
        The Chairman: The Chair thinks it is his duty to protect the 
    bill to that extent.
        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.

Before Amendments Are Offered

Sec. 5.3 Where, by unanimous consent, an authorization bill is 
    considered read and open to amendment at any point, points of order 
    against possible appropriations therein, though in order ``at any 
    time,'' should be stated before amendments are offered.

    On Oct. 3, 1962,(17) the principle was expressed that 
points of order should be raised before taking up amendments to a bill, 
although in actuality the principle was waived by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 21883, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13273, concerning omnibus river and harbors authorizations 
        for 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Blatnik  [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that titles I and II be considered as read.
        The Chairman: (18) And open for amendment at any 
    point?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Francis E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blatnik: Open at any point for amendment.
        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, that does not preclude the right to raise 
    points of order at any time, does it?
        The Chairman: Of course not.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Minnesota [Mr. Blatnik], that the first two titles will be 
    considered as read?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John F.] Baldwin [of California]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, do points of order have to be 
    brought up before any amendments are offered?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that they should be, but 
    they may be raised.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that points of order be in order at any time.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Iowa?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since, under rules in effect in the 87th 
Congress, no other points of order would have been in order against a 
provision in a legislative bill except one directed at an appropriation 
in violation of Rule XXI clause 5(a), which would have been in order at 
any time, whether or not debate or amendments

[[Page 12132]]

had intervened, this unanimous-consent request was unnecessary. Had the 
bill under consideration been a general appropriation bill, or a 
highway bill providing for a specific road in violation of present Rule 
X clause 1(p), then Mr. Gross' unanimous-consent request would have 
been relevant.

Permitting Points of Order Against Portion of Bill Not Yet Read

Sec. 5.4 Where the Committee of the Whole had agreed by unanimous 
    consent to consider points of order directed to paragraphs not yet 
    read, the Chair directed the Clerk to report each such provision 
    and entertained points of order as they were presented.

    The special order reported from the Committee on Rules which 
protected legislative provisions in the dire emergency supplemental 
appropriation bill, funding expenses of the Desert Storm military 
operation against Iraq, waived all points of order against three 
provisions, which the Committee on Public Works and Transportation had 
argued should remain vulnerable to points of order. The special order, 
adopted Mar. 7, 1991,(19) read, in pertinent part, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 137 Cong. Rec. 5478, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                  H. Res. 103

            Resolved, That all points of order for failure to comply 
        with the provisions of sections 302(f) and 311(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with clause 2(l)(6) of 
        rule XI and clause 7 of rule XXI are hereby waived against 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 1281) making dire emergency 
        supplemental appropriations for the consequences of Operation 
        Desert Storm/Desert Shield, food stamps, unemployment 
        compensation administration, veterans compensation and 
        pensions, and other urgent needs for the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1991, and for other purposes. During 
        consideration of the bill, all points of order against 
        provisions in the bill for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clauses 2 and 6 of rule XXI are hereby waived, 
        except against the provisions beginning on page 24, line 17 
        through page 25, line 10; beginning on page 28, lines 14 
        through 21; and beginning on page 32, lines 15 through 22. . . 
        .

    During the consideration of the bill H.R. 1281 in Committee of the 
Whole on Mar. 7, 1991,(20) the chairman of the legislative 
committee wished to address the un

[[Page 12133]]

protected paragraphs as soon as consideration under the five-minute 
rule began.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at pp. 5496-98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) All time for general debate on 
    this bill has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 1281

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide dire emergency 
        supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1991, and for other purposes, namely: . . .

        Mr. [Robert A.] Roe [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I have three 
    points of order to paragraphs not protected by the rule, and I ask 
    unanimous consent that the paragraphs beginning on page 24, line 
    17, through page 25, line 10; page 28, lines 14 through 21; and 
    page 32, lines 15 through 22, be considered at this time so I can 
    exercise my rights under the rule. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the unanimous-consent order, the 
    Clerk will report the first paragraph against which the gentleman 
    from New Jersey may raise a point of order.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                            Architect of the Capitol

                            administrative provision

                              (transfer of funds)

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to 
        approval by the Joint Committee on the Library, the Architect 
        of the Capitol is authorized (1) to procure, through a rental, 
        lease, or other agreement, not more than 25,000 square feet of 
        temporary storage and warehouse space outside the Capitol 
        Grounds for use by the Library of Congress during fiscal year 
        1991, and (2) to incur incidental expenses in connection with 
        such use. Subject to approval by the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, amounts for the 
        purposes of the preceding sentence may be transferred from the 
        appropriation ``Library of Congress, Salaries and expenses'' to 
        the appropriation ``Architect of the Capitol, Library buildings 
        and grounds, Structural and mechanical care''. Amounts so 
        transferred shall be available for expenditure upon vouchers 
        approved by the Architect of the Capitol.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Roe] have 
    a point of order on this paragraph?
        Mr. Roe: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the provision in 
    title II, chapter VI, entitled ``Architect of the Capitol,'' 
    beginning on page 24, line 17 through page 25, line 10. That 
    provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it is legislation 
    in an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida 
    [Mr. Smith].
        Mr. [Lawrence J.] Smith of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I would hope 
    the gen

[[Page 12134]]

    tleman would not insist on his point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
    point of order raised by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Roe]?
        Mr. [John Paul] Hammerschmidt [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    would like to be heard. . . .
        The Chairman: Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
    point of order?
        Mr. Roe: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further? . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Based on the reasons asserted by the gentleman from New Jersey 
    [Mr. Roe], the point of order is sustained, and the paragraph is 
    stricken.
        The Clerk will report the next paragraph in dispute. The Clerk 
    read as follows:
        Page 28, beginning on line 13,

                                   Chapter X

                        General Services Administration

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

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

    The remaining unprotected paragraphs were then reported and points 
of order were entertained.

Where Bill ``Considered Read and Open to Amendment,'' the Chair Takes 
    Points of Order Before Amendments

Sec. 5.5 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to a request that 
    ``the remainder of the paragraphs of the appropriation bill be 
    considered as read and open to amendment,'' the Chair queries for

[[Page 12135]]

    points of order before entertaining amendments to or debate on the 
    paragraphs.

    During the reading for amendment of the legislative branch 
appropriation bill for fiscal 1992, Mr. Vic Fazio, of California, 
subcommittee chairman and manager of the bill, asked unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill (except the last two lines) be 
considered read and open to amendment. There being no objection, the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Brian J. Donnelly, of 
Massachusetts, solicited points of order to the portion considered 
read. The following proceedings occurred on June 5, 1991: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 137 Cong. Rec. 13567, 13571, 13572, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fazio: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    remainder of the bill, except for lines 22 and 23 on page 40, be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.
        The text of the remainder of the bill, through line 21 on page 
    40 is as follows:

                            salaries, officers and 
                                employees . . .

            Sec. 310. (a) The Clerk of the House of Representatives 
        shall maintain and operate a child care center (to be known as 
        the ``House of Representatives Child Care Center'') to furnish 
        pre-school child care--
            (1) for children of individuals whose pay is disbursed by 
        the Clerk of the House of Representatives or the Sergeant at 
        Arms of the House of Representatives and children of support 
        personnel of the House of Representatives; and . . .

        The Chairman: Are there any points of order against that 
    section of the bill?

                               point of order

        Mr. [Joel] Hefley  [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order against section 310 on the ground that it violates clause 
    2(b) of rule XXI of the House of Representatives by changing 
    existing law. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Fazio: Mr. Chairman, I thought that the Chair had passed 
    the point in the bill where this was appropriate to be offered. 
    That is my understanding, that the gentleman has passed that point, 
    and the gentleman no longer has the right to offer that.
        Mr. Chairman: The bill is open for amendment at any point. The 
    Chair then queries whether there be any points of order. The Chair 
    has requested whether there be any points of order against that 
    section of the bill that was open, and that is when the gentleman 
    arose and made his point of order.
        Does the gentleman from California wish to speak on that point?
        Mr. Fazio: Not at the moment.
        The Chairman: Are there any other Members requesting to speak 
    on the gentleman's point of order?

[[Page 12136]]

        If not, the Chair is then prepared to rule. For the reasons 
    stated by the gentleman from Colorado, the point of order is 
    sustained. Section 310 is stricken from the bill. Are there any 
    amendments to that section of the bill?

Points of Order Against Provisions and Amendments Where Bill ``Open'' 
    at Any Point

Sec. 5.6 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees that the remainder of 
    an appropriation bill be considered as read and open at any point 
    to points of order and amendments, the Chairman asks if there are 
    any points of order and then if there are any amendments, and 
    points of order made against items in the bill subsequent to the 
    offering of amendments are not recognized.

        On Aug. 19, 1949,(3) it was emphasized that, 
    following the dispensing of the reading of the remainder of a bill, 
    points of order should be made immediately, before the offering of 
    amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 11870, 11876, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 6008, a supplemental appropriation bill 
        for 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as 
    read and be open at any point to points of order and amendments.
        The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order?
        If not, are there any amendments?
        Mr. [William M.] Wheeler [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Sutton: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language on page 19 that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. At the time 
    the further reading of the bill was dispensed with the Chair 
    requested Members desiring to make points of order to do so at that 
    time.

Sec. 5.7 Where a general appropriation bill is considered as read and 
    open to amendment at any point, points of order must be made before 
    amendments are offered and cannot be ``reserved'' pending 
    subsequent action on amendments, since points of order lie 
    separately against provisions in the reported bill and then 
    separately against amendments in the reported bill.

[[Page 12137]]

        On Dec. 1, 1982,(5) Chairman Don Fuqua, of Florida, 
    was presiding over the Labor, Health and Human Services 
    appropriation bill, fiscal 1983, when the manager of the bill, Mr. 
    William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, asked unanimous consent that the 
    bill be considered read and open to amendment at any point. No 
    objection being heard, a point of order was raised against one 
    paragraph of the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 28174, 28175, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Natcher (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment 
    at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Kentucky?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order against the bill?

                               point of order

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a point of order against a section of the bill.
        The portion of the bill to which the point of order relates is 
    as follows:

                        higher and continuing education

            For carrying out titles III; VI, part A; VIII; IX, parts B, 
        D and E; title X; and sections 417, 420, and 734 of the Higher 
        Education Act; section 406A(2) of the General Education 
        Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221e-1b(2)); section 102(b)(6) of 
        the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961; title 
        XIII, part H, subparts 1 and 2 of the Education Amendments of 
        1980; H.R. 3598 as passed the House on November 4, 1981; and 
        title V, section 528(5) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
        Act of 1981, without regard to section 512(b) of the Omnibus 
        Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, $400,990,000: Provided, That 
        $9,000,000 shall be available in connection with the 
        establishment and construction of the General Daniel James 
        Memorial Education Center at Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, 
        Alabama, and such sums shall be used for an aerospace science 
        and engineering center and shall remain available for 
        obligation until September 30, 1988: Provided further, That 
        funds made available in Public Law 96-536, section 110 for the 
        Wayne Morse Chair of Law and Politics shall remain available 
        for obligation until September 30, 1985: Provided further, That 
        $3,000,000 shall be available until expended for the Carl 
        Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center: Provided 
        further, That $25,000,000 made available for interest subsidy 
        grants under section 734 of the Higher Education Act shall 
        remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
        sections 922(b)(2) and 922(e)(2) of the Higher Education Act 
        shall not apply to funds in this Act.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, on page 44, lines 11 through 13, 
    there is a section of the bill which is in violation of rule XXI, 
    clause 2, because there is no authorization legislation that has 
    been passed by the Congress for the funding which is appropriated 
    in the bill, and I make a point of order against that language in 
    the bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Natcher: On the point of order, yes, Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be

[[Page 12138]]

    heard, but I would like to have a colloquy at this time, with the 
    permission of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker).
        The Chairman: The Chair will permit the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky although 
    ordinarily the Chair controls debate on a point of order.
        Mr. Walker: I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
        Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that, as he knows, this project has been authorized in 
    the House. As I understand, it is before the committee on the other 
    side. I would hope that the gentleman from Pennsylvania would not 
    insist on his point of order at this time. This facility, as the 
    gentleman knows, is being utilized at the present time in honor of 
    one of the great Members who served in this body, the Honorable 
    Carl Albert from Oklahoma, a distinguished Member of the House for 
    many years, later serving as Speaker of the House before his 
    retirement.
        I would hope that the gentleman would not insist on his point 
    of order. As the gentleman knows, this project has not yet been 
    authorized on the other side. It has been authorized on this side. 
    We would hope that the gentleman would not insist on his point of 
    order. Then we would see if it could not be handled quickly on the 
    other side by way of authorization, so that this amount could stay 
    in the 1983 bill and not have to wait until the next appropriation 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) wish to 
    be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Not on this point of order, no, Mr. 
    Chairman. I do have a parliamentary inquiry concerning another 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will protect the gentleman.
        Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) clarify for 
    the Chair the exact language to which he objects in insisting on 
    his point of order?
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the language the gentleman objects to 
    under the point of order is beginning at line 11 on page 44, ``That 
    $3,000,000 shall be available until expended for the Carl Albert 
    Congressional Research and Studies Center:'' ending with the colon 
    on line 13.
        The Chairman: The appropriation is not yet authorized by law 
    and the Chair sustains the point of order. Are there any other 
    points of order against the bill?

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The portion of the bill to which the parliamentary inquiry 
    relates is as follows:

                                special programs

            For carrying out the consolidated programs and projects 
        authorized under chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and 
        Improvement Act of 1981; title IX, part C of the Elementary and 
        Secondary Education Act; title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 
        1964; the Follow Through Act; sections 1524 and 1525 of the 
        Education Amendments of 1978; and Public Law 92-506, 
        $538,920,000: Provided That $454,810,000 to carry out chapter 2 
        of the Education Consolidation

[[Page 12139]]

        and Improvement Act shall become available for obligation on 
        July 1, 1983, and shall remain available until September 30, 
        1984: Provided further, That $29,030,000 for the purpose of 
        subchapter D of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act 
        shall become available for obligation on October 1, 1982: 
        Provided further, That $3,000,000 of the amount appropriated 
        above shall be for the purpose of Public Law 92-506 of which 
        $1,500,000 shall become available on July 1, 1983, and shall 
        remain available until September 30, 1984.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) will state 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, is it possible, since the bill 
    is open to amendment at any point, to reserve a point of order and 
    to make it at a later time against certain lines in the bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the point of order must 
    be made at this time, before amendments are offered.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Then, Mr. Chairman, if it is made at this 
    time, would it be possible to replace the language to which I am 
    making a point of order at a later time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that a 
    proper amendment could be offered to replace the language.

Sec. 5.8 Where unanimous consent is granted that the remainder of a 
    general appropriation bill be considered as read and all portions 
    thereof be subject to amendments and to points of order, the 
    Chairman suggests that points of order be disposed of first since 
    it would be too late to make such points after amendments to the 
    bill have been considered.

    On Apr. 25, 1947,(6) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 4098, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 3123, an Interior Department appropriation bill for 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as read and 
    that all portions thereof be subject to amendment and to points of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair suggests that the points of order be 
    disposed of first under this procedure, before the amendments.

Points of Order Against Paragraph Not Entertained During General Debate

Sec. 5.9 The proper time for raising a point of order that a paragraph 
    in a general appropriation bill violates Rule XXI clause 2 
    (legislation on an appropriation bill) is when the paragraph is 
    reached in the reading for

[[Page 12140]]

    amendment under the five-minute rule, and not during general debate 
    on the bill.

    On June 28, 1989,(8) during general debate on the energy 
and water appropriation bill, fiscal 1990, an inquiry was directed to 
the Chair as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 135 Cong. Rec. 13669, 13670, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       in the committee of the whole

        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill, H.R. 2696, with Mr. Pease in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        By unanimous consent, the bill was considered as having been 
    read the first time.
        The Chairman: (9) Under the unanimous-consent 
    agreement, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
    Myers) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Don J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [John Paul] Hammerschmidt [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hammerschmidt: Mr. Chairman, would this be the proper time 
    to raise a point of order on section 110 and section 112 of the 
    bill?
        The Chairman: It would not be the proper time. The proper time 
    would be when those sections are read under the 5-minute rule.
        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 
    such time as I may consume.

Point of Order Against Paragraph Must Precede Amendment

Sec. 5.10 A point of order against a section of a general appropriation 
    bill must be made immediately after the section is read and comes 
    too late after an amendment to that section has been considered.

    On June 3, 1944,(10) Chairman William M. Whittington, of 
Mississippi, ruled that a point of order came too late after the 
offending section had been read, amended, and the next section read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 90 Cong. Rec. 5245, 78th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4937, the Foreign Economic Administration Act of 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 103. This title may be cited as ``Defense Aid 
        Appropriation Act, 1945.''
    Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I had a point 
of order to submit against section 102 which has not been completely 
read, and which point of order I wish to submit at this time.

        The Chairman: The Clerk has just read section 103.

[[Page 12141]]

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, the Clerk was just reading section 
    102, and I wish to make a point of order against that section.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bell] offered an 
    amendment which was considered by the Committee and agreed to by 
    the Committee, an amendment to section 2 after it had been read.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a point of order 
    against section 102 on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Minnesota makes a point of 
    order that section 102 is legislation on an appropriation bill. The 
    point of order comes too late. As the Chair has previously 
    announced, the Committee has already considered and agreed to an 
    amendment to section 102 offered by the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Bell].
        The point of order is overruled.

Timing of Point of Order Against Provision in Bill Text

Sec. 5.11 A point of order against a paragraph of a general 
    appropriation bill comes too late after amendments have been 
    offered thereto.

    On Apr. 16, 1975,(11) a general appropriation bill was 
being read for amendment in Committee of the Whole. Section 314 of the 
bill was read, and by unanimous consent an amendment was offered, and 
agreed to, which amended that section as well as the following section, 
315, which had not been read. Ms. Abzug then offered two amendments, 
designed to strike out both sections 314 and 315. The proceedings 
transpired as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 10377, 10378, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Ms. Abzug: on page 16, after line 11, 
        strike out sections 314 and 315 and renumber accordingly.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Have not these sections already been read for 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: Only section 314 has been read for amendment.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment comes too late.
        The Chairman: Section 315 has not been read. Therefore, it 
    would not foreclose consideration at this time of a further 
    amendment offered to section 314.
        The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York contains 
    an additional part proposing to strike section 315, which has not 
    been read. Absent a unanimous-consent agreement, she could not 
    offer an amendment to strike section 315 if it had not been read.

[[Page 12142]]

        Ms. Abzug: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendments be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentlewoman from New York?
        Mr. [Fortney H. (Pete)] Stark [of California]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, would this preclude my making a 
    point of order against section 314?
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that section 
    314 has already been read and subject to legislative action in the 
    form of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana and, 
    therefore, a point of order would not be timely against section 
    314. The Chair would advise the gentleman that if he wishes to make 
    a point of order against section 315, the moment for that would be 
    after the Clerk has read that section and before someone offers an 
    amendment and legislative consideration has taken place.

Point of Order Too Late After Amendment Offered

Sec. 5.12 A point of order against a paragraph of a general 
    appropriation bill comes too late after amendments have been 
    offered to that paragraph.

    The proceedings in Committee of the Whole on June 8, 
1977,(13) illustrate two important principles relating to 
the application of clause 2, Rule XXI relating to unauthorized 
appropriations. The first is that where an unauthorized appropriation 
is permitted, by waiver or failure to raise a point of order, the 
paragraph can then be perfected by an amendment which merely changes 
the unauthorized figure in the paragraph. Second, the proceedings 
demonstrate that a point of order must be timely and comes too late 
after the paragraph has been considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 17941, 17942, 17945, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill under consideration was the Department of Transportation 
appropriation bill for fiscal 1978.

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  coast guard

                               Operating Expenses

                         (including transfer of funds)

            For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
        the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase of not to 
        exceed twelve passenger motor vehicles, for replacement only; 
        and recreation and welfare; $871,865,000 of which $205,977 
        shall be applied to Capehart Housing debt reduction: Provided 
        That the number of aircraft on hand at any one time shall not 
        exceed one hundred and seventy-nine exclusive of planes and 
        parts stored to meet future attrition: Provided further, That 
        amounts equal to the obligated balances against the 
        appropriations for ``Operating expenses'' for the two preceding 
        years shall be transferred to and merged with this 
        appropriation, and such

[[Page 12143]]

        merged appropriation shall be available as one fund, except for 
        accounting purposes of the Coast Guard, for the payment of 
        obligations properly incurred against such prior year 
        appropriations and against this appropriation.

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Biaggi: On page 3, line 7, strike 
        ``$871,865,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$878,865,000''.

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Madam Chairman, I 
    make a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from Massachusetts 
    will state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conte: Madam Chairman, the amendment under rule XXI, clause 
    2, the amendment of the gentleman from New York is out of order 
    because it has not been authorized. The authorization for this is 
    pending and the House has requested a conference on this.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Biaggi: Yes, Madam Chairman. . . .
        Madam Chairman, I will address myself to the point of order.
        The point of order now is whether or not there is any 
    authorization. I will stick to that point of order, and if the 
    Chair maintains that the point of order is a valid one, then I 
    would only concede that it is valid. If that be a valid point of 
    order, then it is precedent for a subsequent point of order which I 
    will offer immediately after this one is settled.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has before it the amendment which is offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Biaggi). That amendment simply changes 
    an unauthorized appropriations figure in the bill, striking that 
    figure and inserting in lieu thereof another. The gentleman does 
    not seek, in his amendment, to earmark these additional funds at 
    all.
        Under the precedents, then, where an amendment only seeks to 
    change an unauthorized amount permitted to remain in the bill by 
    failure to raise a point of order or by a waiver, and does not add 
    any legislative language or earmark for a specific unauthorized 
    project, that amendment is in order. (Deschler's ch. 25, sec. 
    2311.)
        Therefore, the point of order is overruled and the gentleman is 
    recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Biaggi).
        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: Are there other amendments to this section?
        There being none, the Clerk will read. . . .
        Mr. Conte: Madam Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Conte: Madam Chairman, is the Clerk through reading 
    ``operating expenses''? If not, I would like to raise a point of 
    order against that section.

        The Chairman: The Clerk has read the ``operating expenses'' 
    paragraph of the bill.

[[Page 12144]]

        Mr. Conte: Madam Chairman, am I in order to raise a point of 
    order against that section?
        The Chairman: Not against the ``operating expenses'' paragraph, 
    that is the paragraph which has been read and has been amended, and 
    the point of order would come too late.
        Mr. Conte: All right, then I am out of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Massachusetts will be seated 
    and the Clerk will read.

Points of Order Considered Seriatim

Sec. 5.13 A point of order against a proviso having been disposed of, 
    it is not too late to make a point of order against the paragraph 
    of which the proviso is a part merely because debate has been had 
    on the point of order against such proviso.

    On Feb. 26, 1943,(15) a point of order was held timely 
although debate on another point of order against a proviso in the 
paragraph had intervened after the reading of the paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 89 Cong. Rec. 1369, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 1975, the first deficiency appropriation of 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees of Kansas: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    further point of order against the language in lines 6 to 13 on 
    page 23 that it is legislation on an appropriation bill, not 
    authorized by law.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the point of 
    order comes too late. There has been debate since the paragraph was 
    read. It is now too late to interpose a point of order.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will remind the 
    gentleman from Missouri that we have not gone beyond the point at 
    which a point of order can be made. The paragraph is still under 
    consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman desire to point out to the Chair anything 
    further the Chair may consider in view of the second point of order 
    made against the language in the paragraph?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: We have passed the proposition, Mr. 
    Chairman; we are now on the proviso. The point of order made by the 
    gentleman did not apply to the first portion, which is a separate 
    entity as against the proviso. Inasmuch as the point of order was 
    not interposed at the time, it now comes too late.
        The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman from Missouri 
    that he will hold that the point of order does not come too late, 
    in view of the fact that the proviso is a part of the paragraph.

Items in General Appropriation Bills

Sec. 5.14 The time for making points of order against items in an 
    appropriation bill is after the House has resolved

[[Page 12145]]

    itself into the Committee of the Whole and after the paragraph 
    containing such items has been read for amendment.

    On July 4, 1945,(17) after Mr. Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of the bill at hand, another Member, Vito 
Marcantonio, of New York, inquired as to when would be the proper time 
to make points of order against many items in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 3649, the war agencies appropriation for fiscal 1946.
            For further discussion of appropriations bills, see Ch. 25, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, if, as in this case, the bill 
    contains many items that are subject to a point of order, is it not 
    in order to make a point of order against sending this bill to the 
    Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker: (18) Under the rules of the House, it 
    is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Then the procedure to make the point of order 
    is to make it as the bill is being read for amendment?
        The Speaker: As the paragraphs in the bill are reached.

Sec. 5.15 In the Committee of the Whole, a point of order against a 
    paragraph of an appropriation bill is not in order until that 
    paragraph is read for amendment.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(19) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, ruled that a point of order was raised prematurely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 4012, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 15931, involving the Departments of Labor and Health, 
        Education, and Welfare, and related agencies appropriations for 
        fiscal 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, we have a 
    couple of points of order to make, particularly as to the Michel 
    amendment. When will it be in order to make the point of order to 
    the Michel amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Kentucky, 
    to what section of the bill is the gentleman referring?
        Mr. Perkins: Section 411.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that it will not be in order 
    until that section of the bill is read.
        The Clerk will read.

Timing of Points of Order Against Paragraph in Bill

Sec. 5.16 A point of order against a paragraph in a general 
    appropriation bill must be made immediately following the reading 
    of the paragraph or following unanimous-con

[[Page 12146]]

    sent permission to consider the title of the bill containing the 
    paragraph as having been read.

    The manager of a general appropriation bill will often strive to 
expedite the reading of the bill for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. One device is to ask unanimous consent that portions of the bill 
be considered as read and open for amendment, rather than proceeding 
paragraph by paragraph. Mr. John M. Slack, of West Virginia, the 
subcommittee chairman and manager of the bill under consideration on 
June 18, 1976,(20) employed this tactic. Proceedings were as 
indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 19308, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk proceeded to read the bill.
        Mr. Slack (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that title V be considered as read and open for amendment 
    at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from West Virginia?
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I have a point of order which would be lodged at 
    the provisions contained on page 44, starting with line 9, through 
    line 25 and I should like to be sure as to whether my position will 
    be jeopardized if this unanimous-consent request were granted, and 
    where and when I would have to make the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that if the unanimous-
    consent request is granted, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) 
    will be recognized to make his point of order immediately 
    thereafter.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from West Virginia?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        (The portion of the bill to which the point of order refers is 
    as follows:)

            No part of these funds may be used to pay the salary of any 
        employee, including Commissioners, of the Federal Trade 
        Commission who--
            (1) make any publication based on the line-of-business data 
        furnished by individual firms without taking reasonable 
        precautions to prevent disclosure of the line-of-business data 
        furnished by any particular firm; or
            (2) permits anyone other than sworn officers and employees 
        of the Federal Trade Commission to examine the line-of-business 
        reports from individual firms; or
            (3) uses the information provided in the line-of-business 
        program for any purpose other than statistical purposes. Such 
        information for carrying out specific law enforcement 
        responsibilities of the Federal Trade Commission shall be 
        obtained under existing practices and procedures or as changed 
        by law.

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order which I 
    make at

[[Page 12147]]

    lines 9 through 25 on page 44 in that the provisions contained 
    therein constitute legislation on an appropriation bill in that new 
    duties are imposed upon the Federal Trade Commission, particularly 
    with respect to the language beginning on lines 12 through 16. It 
    is provided that no part of these funds may be used to pay the 
    salaries of any employee who makes any publication based on line of 
    business data furnished by individual firms without taking 
    reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure of the line of 
    business data furnished by any particular firm. The only thing that 
    limits or controls the question of divulging information respecting 
    such line of business information is contained in the Freedom of 
    Information Act, and this is only to provide an exception from the 
    Freedom of Information Act which would embrace such material, but 
    the Freedom of Information Act leaves it wholly to the Federal 
    Trade Commission to devise whatever systems it desires with respect 
    to such information.
        The provisions in the appropriations bill to which I have 
    referred would require a standard of reasonable precautions to 
    prevent disclosure of the line of business data furnished by any 
    particular firm, and in so doing would create a new and different 
    standard from that which exists in existing law.
        Second, the point of order is specifically lodged to lines 22 
    through 25 in which it is said:

            Such information for carrying out specific law enforcement 
        responsibilities of the Federal Trade Commis-sion shall be 
        obtained under existing practices and procedures or as changed 
        by law.

        It has been held that even though a duty imposed on a 
    commission may be a duty now accepted by that commission, to place 
    it as a duty in law constitutes specific legislation on an 
    Appropriation Act.
        I cite here in support of the point of order provisions in 
    Deschler's procedure, page 305 and the following pages, chapter 26, 
    paragraphs 11 et sequentia. I may say that I do level the point of 
    order at lines 9 through 25.
        Mr. Slack: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order.
        The language which the gentleman refers to was designed to 
    protect the privacy and the security of data obtained in the line 
    of a business program. However, if the gentleman insists on the 
    point of order, of course, we will concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained and 
    the paragraph is stricken.
        Are there any other points of order against the remainder of 
    title V?

When Point of Order Comes Too Late in Reading Bill for Amendment

Sec. 5.17 Where a chapter of a general appropriation bill is considered 
    read by unanimous consent and open to amendment at any point, and 
    no amendments are offered, the Clerk begins to read the next 
    chapter, and it is then too late to raise a point of order against 
    a paragraph in the chapter passed in the reading.

[[Page 12148]]

    On June 11, 1985,(2) during the reading of a general 
appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole, Chairman Pro Tempore 
Philip R. Sharp, of Indiana, in response to a point of order from the 
floor, ruled that it was too late to lodge a point of order against a 
provision in the preceding chapter of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 131 Cong. Rec. 15181, 15182, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      The Chairman Pro Tempore: . . .
    The Clerk will read.

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   Chapter X

                          Department of Transportation

                            Office of the Secretary

                              working capital fund

            The ``Limitation on working capital fund'' is reduced to 
        $65,470,000. . . .

                           railroad-highway crossings

                             demonstration projects

            For an additional amount for ``Railroad-highway crossings 
        demonstration projects'', to remain available until expended, 
        $5,300,000, of which $3,533,333 shall be derived from the 
        Highway Trust Fund. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that chapter X be considered 
    as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Are there any points of order against 
    chapter X?
        Are there any amendments to chapter X?
        The Clerk will read.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair has asked if there are any 
    amendments to chapter X.
        Hearing no requests, the Clerk will read.
        Mr. Conte: Reserving a point of order, the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] wanted to reserve a point of order on 
    page 65, I believe, on the bottom there.
        The Chairman Pro tempore: Would the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts indicate what he is trying to indicate to the Chair?

        Mr. Conte: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] made a 
    request.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order on page 65.
        Mr. [William] Lehman of Florida: Mr. Chairman, I think that 
    chapter has been passed already.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida is making 
    the point of order that the chapter has already been passed in the 
    reading and that no one raised a timely point of order; is that the 
    gentleman's point of order?
        Mr. Lehman of Florida: It is, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does anyone contest that point?
        If not, the Chair will sustain the gentleman's point of order.

[[Page 12149]]

A Point of Order Comes Too Late--After Amendment Has Been Offered

Sec. 5.18 A point of order against a paragraph in an appropriation bill 
    comes too late after an amendment to it has been reported and the 
    sponsor of such amendment is recognized to debate it.

    On Nov. 28, 1945,(3) it was ruled that a point of order 
came too late even though the Member, Arthur L. Miller, of Nebraska, 
had been standing to make the point of order when the sponsor of an 
amendment rose to speak.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 11128, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4805, the Defense appropriation bill for fiscal 1946.
 4. But see Sec. Sec. 6.22-6.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from West Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. Bailey: I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, 
    that all debate on this amendment close in 20 minutes, the last 5 
    minutes to be reserved to the committee.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Missouri?
        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
    object, I wish to make a point of order against the last part of 
    the paragraph.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point of 
    order comes too late.
        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: I asked for recognition on the point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from West Virginia has already been 
    recognized, and the gentleman from Nebraska made no remarks prior 
    to that time.
        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: I asked for recognition, and I was 
    standing here.
        The Chairman: The Chair did not know for what purpose the 
    gentleman had risen. The point of order comes too late.

--After Amendment Has Been Adopted

Sec. 5.19 A point of order against legislation in a paragraph of a 
    general appropriation bill must be lodged immediately after the 
    paragraph is read and comes to late after an amendment has been 
    adopted thereto.

    The proceedings of Nov. 30, 1982,(6) illustrate the 
importance

[[Page 12150]]

of being timely when pressing a point of order during the reading of a 
general appropriation bill for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 128 Cong. Rec. 28057, 28058, 28060, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         United States Customs Service

                             salaries and expenses

            For necessary expenses of the United States Customs 
        Service, including purchase of two hundred passenger motor 
        vehicles for replacement only, including one hundred and ninety 
        for police-type use; acquisition (purchase of 1), operation and 
        maintenance of aircraft; hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
        aircraft; and awards of compensation to informers, as 
        authorized by section 1 of title VI of the Act of June 15, 1917 
        (22 U.S.C. 401); $528,700,000, of which not to exceed $150,000 
        should be available for payment for rental space in connection 
        with preclearance operations: Provided, That none of the funds 
        made available by this Act shall be available for 
        administrative expenses to pay any employee overtime pay in an 
        amount in excess of $25,000: Provided further, That the 
        Commissioner or his designee may waive this limitation in 
        individual cases in order to prevent excessive costs or to meet 
        emergency requirements of the Service: Provided further, That 
        none of the funds made available by this Act shall be available 
        for administrative expenses to reduce the number of Customs 
        Service regions below nine during fiscal year 1983 without 
        advance approval from both House and Senate Committees on 
        Appropriations: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
        available by this Act may be used for administrative expenses 
        in connection with the proposed redirection of the Equal 
        Employment Opportunity Program.

                       amendment offered by mr. conte

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: On page 4, line 22, strike 
        out ``$528,700,000,'' and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
        ``$548,700,000, of which not to exceed $30,000,000 shall be 
        available for Project Exodus, and''. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte), as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the language in lines 6 through 10 on page 5 of 
    H.R. 7158. These lines constitute legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and are, therefore, in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. If 
    the Chair will permit me, I would like to be heard on my point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Minnesota that the paragraph in question has already been read and 
    amended. Therefore, a point of order to the paragraph comes too 
    late.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, at what point would a point of order 
    have been timely?

[[Page 12151]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a point 
    of order would be in order between the time when the paragraph had 
    been read by the Clerk and the time when an amendment to that 
    paragraph had been offered or the Committee had gone to another 
    paragraph.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet when the previous 
    amender was recognized, and I do not recall having heard that 
    language being read. Can the Chair give me some assurance on that?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    first amendment offered to the paragraph in question was offered by 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte). The Chair observed 
    the gentleman on his feet, although not pressing a point of order, 
    at the time that the amendment to the amendment was offered, but 
    not at the time the original amendment was offered.
        Mr. Frenzel: And to be timely, my point of order would have to 
    have been made before the gentleman from Massachusetts offered his 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Frenzel: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will read.

Sec. 5.20 A point of order against language in a paragraph of an 
    appropriation bill comes too late after the paragraph has been read 
    and an amendment thereto has been agreed to.

    On June 13, 1961,(8) a Member was advised that his point 
of order came too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 10178, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7577, making appropriations for the executive office and 
        Department of Commerce for fiscal 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee accepts the amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Is a point of order to the language on page 29 in 
    order?
        The Chairman: If it is to language preceding line 5 on page 29 
    it is not in order.
        Mr. Gross: It does precede line 5 on page 29. The Clerk did not 
    read the language on page 29, lines 1 to 5.
        The Chairman: The Clerk has read and an amendment has been 
    adopted to the paragraph starting on page 28, line 8, and ending on 
    page 29, line 5.
        Mr. Gross: Then a point of order to the language on page 29, 
    line 5, is not in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman it comes too 
    late at this time.

--After Next Paragraph Is Read

Sec. 5.21 Points of order must be made immediately after a

[[Page 12152]]

    paragraph of an appropriation bill is read, and it is too late to 
    make such points of order after the Clerk has begun reading the 
    next paragraph.

    On Apr. 15, 1943,(10) Chairman William M. Whittington, 
of Mississippi, ruled that a point of order against a paragraph came 
too late after the Clerk had completed reading the next paragraph, even 
though the Member protested that he was on his feet seeking recognition 
during the reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 3420, 3421, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 2481, an agricultural appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: I make the point 
    of order that the language on page 22 beginning in line 19 and 
    ending in line 25 . . . is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tarver: I make the point of order that the point of order 
    comes too late inasmuch as the portion of the bill against which 
    the point of order is made has been read and the Clerk was reading 
    the next paragraph.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order raised by 
    the gentleman from Georgia. The Clerk had read a substantial part 
    of the following paragraph and had reached line 17 on page 23.
        Mr. Fulmer: I think, Mr. Chairman, I made my point of order in 
    time. Maybe the Clerk had started the following paragraph, but I 
    was on my feet and feel that I made my point of order in time.
        The Chairman: The Chair has ruled that the reading of the 
    paragraph had been completed. Under the rules it is essential that 
    a point of order against a paragraph be made immediately after the 
    reading of the paragraph.

--After Debate

Sec. 5.22 After debate has been had on a paragraph of an appropriation 
    bill it is too late to make a point of order against that 
    paragraph.

    On Mar. 15, 1945,(11) certain Members debated the 
subject of a paragraph before one of them made a point of order, but 
the delay was fatal to the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 2306 et seq., 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 2603, the State, Justice, Commerce, 
        Judiciary, and Federal Loan Agency appropriation bill for 1946.
            See also 88 Cong. Rec. 754, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 27, 
        1942. Under consideration was H.R. 6460, the Navy Department 
        appropriation for 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
    out the last word.

[[Page 12153]]

        I do this for the purpose of asking the majority leader a 
    question. I am wondering if the majority leader can tell us what is 
    to be the program for the balance of this week and the first part 
    of next week? . . .
        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have asked 
    for this time in order to inquire of the chairman of the committee 
    regarding the language appearing in the bill beginning in line 17 
    on page 23 and ending in line 23 on page 24. I do not see where any 
    money item is included. Is this intended to be an authorization for 
    construction or is it an appropriation?
        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: That is just the preamble, 
    general language.
        Mr. Hinshaw: Is that in the nature of an authorization to do 
    this work, or is there any law cited that would authorize it?
        Mr. Rabaut: It is based on law and on a treaty.
        Mr. Hinshaw: There is no law quoted in this language to which I 
    refer, and I do not know of any treaty that authorizes it; none is 
    stated here.
        Mr. Chairman, I am forced to make a point of order against the 
    language contained in the lines beginning in line 17 on page 23 and 
    ending in line 23 on page 24, as not being authorized by law.
        Mr. Rabaut: It is language that has always been carried, I may 
    say to the gentleman.
        Mr. Hinshaw: That may well be; but I insist on the point of 
    order.

        The Chairman: (12) The Chair must inform the 
    gentleman from California that his point of order comes too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hinshaw: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hinshaw: Did not the Clerk finish reading it?
        The Chairman: The subject matter of the paragraph was discussed 
    under the gentleman's amendment to strike out the last word [and] 
    also under the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. 
    Business having intervened the point of order comes too late. The 
    Chair therefore overrules the point of order.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For similar rulings, see 103 Cong. Rec. 5032, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Apr. 3, 1957 [H.R. 6287, making appropriations for the 
        Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare]; 89 
        Cong. Rec. 3485, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 16, 1943 [H.R. 
        2481, an agriculture appropriation for 1944]; and 89 Cong. Rec. 
        3421, 3422, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 14, 1943 [H.R. 2481].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diligence of Members in Seeking Recognition

Sec. 5.23 In a few instances, a Member who was on his feet seeking 
    recognition at the proper time to make a point of order has been 
    recognized even though the Clerk had read past the paragraph to 
    which the point of order was directed.

    Although failure to raise a point of order immediately after the

[[Page 12154]]

reading of a paragraph by the Clerk is usually fatal to the point of 
order, an exception to this rule may be invoked where a Member was on 
his feet, actively seeking recognition at the time the Clerk was 
reading the paragraph. For example, on Sept. 15, 1961,(14) 
Chairman Oren Harris, of Arkansas, entertained such a point of order 
under the following circumstances:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 19729, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9169, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1962. 
        To the same effect, see 116 Cong. Rec. 18395, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., June 4, 1970. Under consideration was H.R. 17867, a 
        foreign assistance appropriation bill for fiscal 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order against the language on page 9, line 8 through line 12, on 
    the same ground, that it changes existing law. It is, therefore, in 
    violation of the rules.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the objection 
    came too late. We will waive that point of order because the Clerk 
    started reading the next paragraph, and we will not press that 
    point that his objection came too late. The point is well taken, 
    but I would remind my friend again that not 1 penny of that 
    expenditure is taxpayers' money. It is a limitation on the funds 
    they have earned by virtue of that operation. Will not my friend 
    withdraw it?
        Mr. Gross: No.
        Mr. Thomas: Well I am not going to press my point of order that 
    his point came too late.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order that the gentleman's point of order came too late.
        The Chairman: The Chair observed that the gentleman was on his 
    feet seeking recognition while the Clerk was reading.
        Does the gentleman from Texas concede the point of order?
        Mr. Thomas: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 5.24 A point of order against language in a paragraph of a bill is 
    not precluded by intervening debate where the Member raising the 
    point of order was on his feet, seeking recognition before debate 
    began.

    On May 11, 1959,(15) intervening debate did not preclude 
a point of order against language in an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 7905, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 7040, the independent offices appropriation for 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: I must insist on my point of order 
    in protection of the committee and in protection of the Civil 
    Service Commission.

[[Page 12155]]

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: I oppose the point of order 
    because the paragraph was read.
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair thinks the gentleman 
    from Iowa was within his rights to make the point of order. He 
    observed the gentleman standing when unanimous consent was granted 
    to go back to the previous section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: Well, the point of order is good, then. We admit 
    it, then.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

Sec. 5.25 The mere fact that a Member was on his feet does not entitle 
    him to make a point of order where he has not affirmatively sought 
    recognition of the Chair at the time the language complained of was 
    read for amendment.

    On Apr. 14, 1970,(17) in the Committee of the Whole, 
despite the assertion of Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan, that he had 
been on his feet seeking recognition, Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, ruled that his point of order came too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 16916, Office of Education appropriations, fiscal 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. William D. Ford) rise?
        Mr. William D. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order as 
    to the language in the proviso in the paragraph entitled ``School 
    Assistance in Federally Affected Areas.'' The point I make goes to 
    the language which appears on line 6, page 2, extending down 
    through and including all of line 12. I make the point of order, it 
    is in violation of rule XXI of the rules of the House.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood), 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
        I do not like to operate this way, but I am the chairman of the 
    subcommittee and obviously I must object, and make a point of order 
    because the point of order comes much, much too late. We have 
    passed that point in the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Clerk had read past 
    that paragraph of the so-called title I, and stopped at line 14 on 
    page 3. The gentleman was not on his feet seeking recognition at 
    the time the first section, down through line 12 on page 2, was 
    read.
        Mr. William D. Ford: Mr. Chairman, the paragraphs are not being 
    read. The bill is being read by paragraph headings. I was on my 
    feet at the beginning of the reading. As a matter of fact, I moved 
    from there to here as soon as the Clerk began to read. I was never 
    off my feet from the moment he started the reading. I was trying to 
    get to the point in the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot observe the movements of the 
    Members from place to place. The gentleman was not seeking 
    recognition at the time when he should have been,

[[Page 12156]]

    under the rules. He should have been seeking recognition vocally, 
    not by standing.
        The Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).

Reading General Appropriation Bill for Amendment

Sec. 5.26 General appropriation bills are read by paragraphs, and where 
    one section of the bill contains several paragraphs, a point of 
    order must be made immediately after a paragraph is read and cannot 
    be delayed until the entire section is read.

    On July 29, 1982,(18) during consideration of the 
supplemental appropriation bill, fiscal 1982, the Clerk had proceeded 
to read two paragraphs in a particular section of the bill. Mr. Robert 
S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, wished to lodge a point of order against 
the first two paragraphs. The proceedings which denied him that 
opportunity are carried herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 128 Cong. Rec. 18626, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, on page 17 under Administrative 
    Provisions now being read by the Clerk, I raise a point of order 
    against those sections, that they are legislation on an 
    appropriations bill and therefore violate clause 2 of rule XXI.
        The Chairman: (19) Does the gentleman make his point 
    against all four paragraphs on page 17 in that section?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    point out that the Clerk had read the first two sections.
        We would concede the point of order to the remainder.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi is correct, the 
    first two paragraphs of that section had been read and hence the 
    gentleman's point of order comes too late with regard to those two 
    sections.
        Mr. Walker: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
        The Clerk will read.

Proper Time To Determine Whether Bill Requires a Three-fifths Vote 
    Because It Carries a Tax Rate Increase

Sec. 5.27 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated that 
    the proper time to raise a point of order under Rule XXI clause 
    5(c) that a bill carries a ``federal income tax rate increase'' is 
    when the question is put on final passage.

    H.R. 1215, the Contract with American Tax Relief Act of 1995, was 
to be considered in the House on Apr. 5, 1995.(20) The 
Speaker

[[Page 12157]]

was asked by Mr. James P. Moran, of Virginia, if the provisions of the 
bill did in fact carry a tax rate increase which would require a three-
fifths vote, and while the Chair stated that the question was 
premature, he did indicate that the proper time to press a point of 
order on that basis would be when the question of final passage was 
before the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moran: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Robert W. Goodlatte (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moran: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that this body 
    passed legislation earlier this term, in fact, on the first day of 
    this session, that required that any tax increase be passed with a 
    three-fifths vote of this body.
        Since there is a tax increase to be leveled on Federal 
    employees, in the case of the Federal Employees Retirement System, 
    a 313 percent increase on their retirement contribution; in the 
    case of the Civil Service Retirement System there was a 35 percent 
    increase in their retirement contribution. This is clearly a tax 
    increase, Mr. Speaker.
        Therefore, it seems to me, to be consistent with the 
    legislation this body previously passed, it would require a three-
    fifths vote. I would reserve my point of order, but I would make 
    that parliamentary inquiry at this time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will take the gentleman's 
    inquiry under advisement and rule on it at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Moran: Mr. Speaker, I would ask, when would be the 
    appropriate time for a ruling on this parliamentary inquiry?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Pending final passage of the 
    legislation.
        Mr. Moran: Mr. Speaker, when would I be able to get a division 
    of the question on that issue?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the rule 
    relates to the vote on passage. The question becomes ripe for the 
    House upon passage of the legislation. . . . 
        If the gentleman will suspend. At this point the Chair is 
    merely not responding to an anticipatory parliamentary inquiry. The 
    Chair will rule at the appropriate time.
        Mr. [Kweisi] Mfume [of Maryland]: When is the appropriate time, 
    Mr. Speaker? When is the appropriate time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The appropriate time is upon final 
    passage.

Points of Order Which May Be Raised ``at Any Time''

Sec. 5.28 A waiver of points of order against an appropriation in a 
    legislative bill does not inure to the protection of an amendment 
    containing an identical appropriation, as under Rule XXI clause 5, 
    a point of order against any such bill or amendment can be raised 
    ``at any time.''

[[Page 12158]]

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(2) the House had under consideration, 
in Committee of the Whole, the Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation 
Assistance Act (H.R. 6096). The bill was called up under a special rule 
reported from the Committee on Rules which waived points of order 
against appropriations in the language of the bill but did not 
explicitly protect amendments which contained appropriation language. 
In a case of ``first impression,'' Chairman Otis G. Pike, of New York, 
sustained a point of order against an amendment, as amended. 
Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 11512, 11513, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: . . . Are there any other amendments?
        If not, the question is on the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) to the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Edgar).
        The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Robert W.] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I demand 
    a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    272, noes 146, not voting 14, as follows: . . .
        So the substitute amendment for the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Edgar: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his 
    point of order.
        Mr. Edgar: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that my 
    substitute is not in order at this time because of the Eckhardt 
    substitute, and I reserve a point of order according to rule XXI of 
    our rules.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania will have to 
    state his point of order at this time. The point of order, as the 
    Chair understands, was against the Edgar amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute, as amended by the Eckhardt substitute?
        Mr. Edgar: That is correct.
        I make that point of order for two reasons: In the original 
    rule that brought the committee bill to the floor, all points of 
    order against section 3 and section 6 were waived. Our rules say 
    that no general appropriation bill or amendment thereto shall be 
    received or considered if it contains a provision reappropriating 
    unexpended balances of appropriations; except that this provision 
    shall not apply to appropriations in continuation of appropriations 
    for public works.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I first wish to point out that the point of order 
    comes too late, and I assert that the point of order may not be 
    timely considered after the vote has occurred.
        In addition to that, of course, this is not an appropriation 
    bill. This is an authorization bill, as I understand it.

[[Page 12159]]

        Mr. Edgar: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I might 
    say that we checked with our legal counsel when we originally 
    drafted the bill, and we had in my substitute some of the things 
    contained in the original House bill, and we were informed that 
    those parts of the House bill were not in order in my substitute 
    simply because we did not have a waiver.
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, if the 
    gentleman from Texas will yield, the point of order raised has been 
    that an amendment which provides funds for certain purposes derived 
    from funds previously appropriated is in violation of clause 5 of 
    rule XXI.
        The Chairman: Did the gentlewoman say clause 5 of rule XXI?
        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        I make a point of order against the point of order as coming 
    too late.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair desires to 
    hear the point of order before the Chair is able to rule on the 
    question of its timeliness.
        The Chair will read clause 5 of rule XXI of the 94th Congress. 
    The Chair will state that the Chair does not believe it is that 
    which was cited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar):

            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. . . .

        The Chair will state that the Chair believes that what the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania read was clause 4 of rule XXI in the 
    old version.
        Is the gentleman now referring to the same language which the 
    Chair has just read?
        MR. EDGAR: We are referring to the same language which the 
    Chair has read.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Eckhardt) 
    desire to be heard further?
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I only want to make it clear that I 
    am raising the point of order that this point of order is made too 
    late. I wish to reiterate the statement that I made before. The 
    point of order is too late and, therefore, it is itself not in 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair did not read the entirety of that section. The 
    section ends

            A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill, 
        joint resolution, or amendment thereto, may be raised at any 
        time.

        Accordingly, the rule under which this legislation was 
    considered waived points of order against the original bill. It did 
    not waive points of order against the amendment. The rule does 
    provide that the point of order may be raised at any time (Deschler 
    chapter 25, section 3.2).
        The point of order is sustained. The Edgar amendment, as 
    amended, is now ruled out of order.
        The Clerk will read.

``At Any Time'' Means While the Amendment Is Pending

Sec. 5.29 The provision in Rule XXI clause 5, that a point of

[[Page 12160]]

    order against an amendment containing an appropriation to a 
    legislative bill can be made ``at any time'' has been interpreted 
    to require the point of order to be raised during the pendency of 
    the amendment under the five-minute rule.

    On Apr. 28, 1975,(3) where the Committee of the Whole 
had completed consideration of a measure, had adopted an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, and reported the bill, as amended back to 
the House, the following events occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 12043, 12044, 12048, 12049, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Perkins to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. O'Hara: Page 7, line 17, 
        strike out ``the following new paragraph:'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``the following: Beginning with the fiscal year ending 
        June 30, 1976, the income guidelines prescribed by each State 
        educational agency for reduced price lunches for schools in 
        that State under the fifth sentence of this paragraph shall be 
        100 per centum above the applicable family size income levels 
        in the income poverty guideline prescribed by the Secretary, 
        and any child who is a member of a household, if that household 
        has an annual income which falls between (A) the applicable 
        family size income level of the income guideline for free 
        lunches prescribed by the State educational agency in 
        accordance with the third and fourth sentences of this 
        paragraph and (B) 100 per centum above the applicable family 
        size income levels in the income poverty guideline prescribed 
        by the Secretary, shall be served a reduced price lunch at a 
        price not to exceed 20 cents.'' . . .

        The Chairman: (4) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) to the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute, as amended.
        The committee amendment, in the nature of a substitute, as 
    amended, was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore 
    (Mr. O'Neill) having assumed the chair, Mr. Evans, of Colorado, 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 
    the bill (H.R. 4222) to amend the National School Lunch and Child 
    Nutrition Acts in order to extend and revise the special food 
    service program for children and the school breakfast program, and 
    for other purposes related to strengthening the school lunch and 
    child nutrition programs, pursuant

[[Page 12161]]

    to House Resolution 352, he reported the bill back to the House 
    with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Under the rule, the 
    previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
    the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
    further consideration of the bill on the ground that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) on page 17, 
    line 7, constitutes an appropriation in a legislative authorization 
    bill in that it gives to the Secretary of Agriculture the duty of 
    providing all necessary funds to carry out and maintain certain 
    other programs to be used as sources of these funds, but leaves to 
    his discretion the other programs that might possibly be used as 
    sources for these funds and, therefore, constitutes an 
    appropriation of moneys in a legislative authorization bill.
        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
    Perkins) desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Speaker, the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman), comes too late, would be my first point. 
    But, Mr. Speaker, on the merits of the bill, the point of order is 
    not well taken because, on page 22 of the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara) 
    we find this language:

            (b) In order to carry out the program provided for under 
        subsection (a) of this section during each of the fiscal years 
        ending June 30, 1976, September 30, 1977, and September 30, 
        1978, there is authorized to be appropriated the sum of 
        $250,000,000 for each such fiscal year.

        So that the authorization is plain, and the only thing we do is 
    to mandate some regulations to the effect if the money is 
    appropriated that the Secretary may be required to spend the money.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point of 
    order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland will 
    proceed.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, 
    specifically, this point of order lies at any time, and it does not 
    come too late. The rules of the House provide that it may be made 
    at any time prior to the final consideration of the bill.
        In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I refer the Chair to the question 
    that was ruled on last week on either Wednesday or Thursday in 
    regard to the Vietnamese war.

[[Page 12162]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) comes at a 
    time when the amendment is not being considered, and cannot be 
    directed against consideration of the bill itself. In view of the 
    fact that the gentleman from Maryland did not raise his point of 
    order at the time of the consideration of the amendment the Chair 
    holds that the point of order is out of order.
        Mr. Bauman: But, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House directly 
    provide for this.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair again will state that the 
    point of order is not well taken.
        The Chair has already ruled.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Waggonner: My parliamentary inquiry is this: Does the Chair 
    rule this way in view of the decision of the Chair last week when 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Pike) was the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole, and who ruled that a point of order could 
    be made at any time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state it can be made at 
    any time that the House is in the Committee of the Whole, and the 
    amendment is pending. The House is not in the Committee of the 
    Whole at this time, and the amendment has been agreed to.
        Mr. Waggonner: The words ``at any time,'' then, may be 
    interpreted in a different way today than they were last week?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; the rulings are consistent.
        Mr. Waggonner: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the engrossment and 
    third reading of the bill.