[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 15, Chapter 31]
[Chapter 31. Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries]
[A. Points of Order]
[Â§ 6. Timeliness as Against Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 12162-12197]
 
                               CHAPTER 31
 
                Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
 
                           A. POINTS OF ORDER
 
Sec. 6. Timeliness as Against Amendments

    Generally, a point of order against an amendment is properly made 
immediately after the reading thereof by the Clerk.(6) At 
the Chair's discretion, the point of order may be raised even before 
the Clerk has finished the reading, when enough of the text has been 
read to show that it is out of order.(7) While there is a 
requirement that copies of an amendment be made available to Members, 
no point of order lies against the failure of the Clerk to comply with 
this instruction.(8) A point of order against an amendment 
is not entertained where some business has intervened between the 
reading of the amendment and the making of the point of order. Such 
disqualifying business may consist of the granting of a unanimous-
consent request,(9) a res

[[Page 12163]]

ervation of objection against a unanimous-consent 
request,(10) except one to dispense with reading of the 
amendment,(11) the intervention of a parliamentary inquiry 
after a Member has been recognized for debate,(12) but not 
the intervention of another point of order if no debate has 
intervened.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.2, infra.
 7. See Sec. 6.10, infra.
 8. See Sec. 6.12, infra.
 9. See Sec. 6.17, infra.
10. See Sec. 6.19, infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 6.5, 6.6, 6.18, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 6.20, 6.21, infra.
13. See Sec. 6.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The making of a point of order against an amendment after the 
``mere recognition'' for debate of the Member who has proposed the 
amendment has been permitted,(14) although there are rulings 
to the effect that points of order may be held too late if the Chair 
has already recognized the Member who offered the amendment to make his 
remarks on the amendment and some intervening business, such as a 
unanimous-consent request to revise and extend or to proceed for more 
time, has been conducted.(15) Where a Member begins speaking 
on his amendment, before being recognized, a point of order may still 
be timely.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 6.23, 6.24, infra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 6.27-6.29, infra.
16. See Sec. 6.30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a Member has exhibited due diligence and has been overlooked 
by the Chair while he was on his feet seeking recognition at the 
appropriate time, then a point of order may be permitted 
notwithstanding its lateness.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 6.38-6.42, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member seeking to raise a point of order must actively seek 
recognition, by standing and addressing the Chair.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 6.8, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In General

Sec. 6.1 A point of order against an amendment is properly made 
    immediately after the reading thereof.

    On Mar. 29, 1966,(19) Chairman James G. O'Hara, of 
Michigan, ruled that it was not too late for Mr. Joseph L. Evins, of 
Tennessee, to make a point of order immediately following the Clerk's 
reading of an amendment, al

[[Page 12164]]

though the Chairman had been about to put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 7118, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 14012, the second supplemental appropriations bill of 
        fiscal 1966. A unanimous-consent request had been agreed to 
        that debate on the pending paragraph and all amendments thereto 
        be concluded in 15 minutes.
            See also 86 Cong. Rec. 2904, 2905, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., 
        Mar. 14, 1940. Under consideration was H.R. 7079, dealing with 
        the appointment of additional federal judges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elford A.] Cederberg [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cederberg: On page 4, line 22, 
        after ``program'' and before the period add, ``Provided 
        further, That no part of these funds shall be obligated until 
        funds made available for the construction of family housing for 
        the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Defense agencies 
        in Public Law 89-202, have been obligated.''

        Mr. Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    of order comes too late. The Chair was about to state the question.
        The Chairman: The question had not yet been put. The Chair was 
    about to state the question, but the question had not yet been put. 
    The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it relates to funds 
    previously appropriated and which are not carried in this bill and 
    interferes with executive discretion given to the President under 
    existing law to do what he wishes with the funds. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan places an 
    unrelated contingency upon the use of funds provided in this 
    paragraph, and as such is legislation in an appropriation bill, and 
    not germane to the paragraph.
        The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 6.2 A point of order may be made or reserved against an amendment 
    only when the amendment has been offered and read by the Clerk.

        On Mar. 10, 1971,(20) Chairman George W. Andrews, of 
    Alabama, indicated that a Member could not logically reserve a 
    point of order against an amendment which had not yet been offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 5857, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4246, extending laws relating to interest rates, mortgage 
        credit controls, and cost-of-living stabilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Clerk has not read 
    the amendment as yet.
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Then I will reserve a point of 
    order, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: My parliamentary inquiry is this, Mr. Chairman. How 
    can a point of order be reserved to an amendment that has not been 
    read?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa 
    that the gentleman is correct. The Chair has already stated that 
    the Clerk has not read the amendment as yet.
        However, the Chair will state to the gentleman from Texas that 
    if the gentleman has a point of order to raise

[[Page 12165]]

    concerning the amendment, the gentleman can raise his point of 
    order at the proper time after the Clerk has read the amendment.

Chair's Observations on Germaneness of Amendment

Sec. 6.3 Although the Chair may indicate in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry that a pending amendment might not be germane to the 
    proposition to which offered, he will not declare the amendment out 
    of order unless a proper point of order is made.

    On Apr. 4, 1979,(1) an amendment in the second degree 
was offered during consideration of the International Development 
Cooperation Act. Before the amendment was offered, its proponent asked 
if his contemplated amendment would be in order. Chairman Elliott H. 
Levitas, of Georgia, responded to parliamentary inquiries immediately 
before and then after the amendment was read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 7242, 7245, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harsha: Page 18, after line 25, 
        insert the following:

                             assistance for nigeria

            Sec. 127. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
        by the amendments made by this title may be made available for 
        assistance for Nigeria unless the President determines, and 
        reports to the Congress, that assistance for Nigeria is in the 
        national interest of the United States.

        (Mr. Harsha asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.) . . .
        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: If the gentleman added the 
    other countries, that would improve the amendment; but in my 
    judgment, it would still constitute a mistake and it is unlikely 
    that I would support it.
        Mr. [Joseph G.] Minish [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Buchanan: Certainly, I would be glad to.
        Mr. Minish: Mr. Chairman, I will satisfy the gentleman's 
    wishes, because I have an amendment that deals with all the OPEC 
    countries.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Minish: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Minish: Mr. Chairman, would my amendment be in order as a 
    substitute for the Harsha amendment?

        The Chairman: If the gentleman desires to offer his amendment, 
    the Chair will be better able to respond to the gentleman's inquiry 
    when the amendment is offered.

     amendment offered by mr. minish as a substitute for the amendment 
                           offered by mr. harsha

        Mr. Minish: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute 
    for the amendment.

[[Page 12166]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Minish as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Harsha: Page 18, immediately after 
        line 25, insert the following new section:

          prohibition on assistance to members of the organization of 
                         petroleum exporting countries

            Sec. 127. Funds authorized to be appropriated by this title 
        may not be used to provide assistance to any country which is a 
        member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The subject matter of the gentleman's amendment is broader than 
    the specific subject matter of the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Ohio and, therefore, technically might not be germane. However, 
    unless a point of order is made against it, the Chair will not rule 
    on that question.
        Mr. Harsha: Mr. Chairman, reserving a point of order, and I 
    shall not insist upon my point of order, does the gentleman's 
    amendment strike out the amendment that I offered?
        The Chairman: The amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey is 
    a substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio and 
    applies to any country which is a member of the Organization of 
    Petroleum Exporting Countries.
        Mr. Harsha: In the event the gentleman's amendment were adopted 
    it would take the place of my amendment and Nigeria would not be in 
    it, if Nigeria is not an OPEC country. Is that not correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair is not in a position to interpret the 
    effect of the amendment.

Sec. 6.4 While the Chair will or- dinarily not render antici-patory 
    rulings on whether an amendment might be in order, he has responded 
    to a parliamentary inquiry about the germaneness of an amendment 
    printed in the Record and whether it could be in order as a 
    substitute for a pending amendment.

    Where a perfecting amendment relating to the budget for one fiscal 
year was pending to a concurrent resolution on the budget, the Chair 
indicated that a noticed amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
encompassing other fiscal years, would not be germane at that point in 
the proceedings. The pertinent excerpts from the Record of May 9, 
1979,(2) are carried below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 10485, 10486, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Marjorie S.] Holt [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mrs. Holt: Strike out 
        sections 1 through 5 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
        sec

[[Page 12167]]

        tion 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that for 
        the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1979-- . . .

        Mr. [Parren J.] MItchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Mitchell) will state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mitchell of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, this gentleman had 
    planned to offer his amendment as a substitute for the Holt-Regula 
    amendment.
        It is my understanding that when the gentlewoman spoke to her 
    amendment, the gentlewoman called it a perfecting amendment. I do 
    not know whether that embraces fiscal year 1979 and 1980. My 
    amendment does.
        This inquiry is whether mine can be offered as a substitute to 
    the Holt-Regula amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Mitchell) that since the gentleman's amendment which is at the 
    desk would go to the fiscal years 1979 and 1980 and is in the 
    nature of a substitute for the entire resolution, it would not be 
    germane or otherwise in order, since the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Holt) is perfecting in nature and 
    only goes to the fiscal year 1980.

Timing of Point of Order Against Offered Amendment

Sec. 6.5 A point of order against an amendment must be made or reserved 
    immediately after the amendment is read, and where unanimous 
    consent is granted that the amendment be considered as read, the 
    point of order must be raised following the disposition of that 
    request.

    On Mar. 29, 1972,(4) Chairman Neal Smith, of Iowa, 
informed Mr. H. John Heinz, III, of Pennsylvania, that a point of order 
could be reserved after the disposition of a unanimous-consent request 
following the reading of the amendment by the Clerk:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 118 Cong. Rec. 10749, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11896, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Heinz (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment and ask that 
    it be printed at this point in the Record.
        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I want to make a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harsha: Mr. Chairman, I intend to make a point of order 
    against this amendment and, if the unanimous-consent request is 
    granted, do I then waive my right to make that point of order at 
    the appropriate time?
        The Chairman: The gentleman will not waive his right if he 
    makes it immediately after the unanimous consent is granted.

[[Page 12168]]

        Mr. Harsha: I reserve a point of order against the amendment, 
    and if the waiver of the reading of the amendment will not waive my 
    right to a point of order----
        The Chairman: The gentleman can make his point of order 
    immediately following the granting of the unanimous-consent 
    request.

Sec. 6.6 A point of order may be made or reserved against an amendment 
    after it is ``considered as read'' but before the proponent of the 
    amendment has been recognized to debate it.

    On Mar. 9, 1978,(5) during the reading of an amendment 
which he had offered, Mr. James M. Jeffords, of Vermont, asked 
unanimous consent that it be considered as read. The following inquiry 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 6285, 6286, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        amendments offered by mr. jeffords as a substitute for the 
                     amendments offered by mr. sarasin

        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments as a substitute 
    for the amendments offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Sarasin).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Jeffords as a substitute for the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Sarasin: Page 64, line 16, strike out 
        ``and productivity'' and insert in lieu thereof ``productivity, 
        and reasonable price stability''.
            Page 64, line 22, before ``and'' insert ``reasonable price 
        stability, which shall be set at a rate which would, within 
        five years, bring the annual rate of inflation, as measured by 
        the Consumer Price Index as determined by the Bureau of Labor 
        Statistics in the Department of Labor, to not more than 3 
        percent''.
            Page 69, after the period in line 6 add the following new 
        sentence: ``Beginning with the third Economic Report submitted 
        after the date of the enactment of the Full Employment and 
        Balanced Growth Act of 1978, the President shall set forth in 
        each Economic Report the programs and policies being used to 
        reduce inflation and the degree of progress made.''.
            Strike out line 13 on page 73 and all that follows down 
        through line 5 on page 75, and insert in lieu thereof the 
        following:
            ``Sec. 9. (a) The Congress determines that reasonable 
        stability as described in section 3(a)(3) and sections 4(a) and 
        4(b)(2) will be achieved under the procedures and requirements 
        of section 5(b). . . .

        Mr. Jeffords (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendments offered as a substitute be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Vermont?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order on the amendments.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California reserves a point of 
    order on the amendments.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 12169]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Vermont has 
    already made the request that the amendment be considered as read 
    and that request was granted, therefore I think the point of order 
    comes too late.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
    Maryland that the point of order can still be made or reserved 
    before the gentleman proceeds with his remarks. Therefore, the 
    reservation is in order.

Sec. 6.7 A point of order may be made against an amendment before 
    debate on the amendment begins.

    On Mar. 31, 1937, after the Clerk's reading of an amendment, but 
prior to debate on it, a Member sought to make a point of order, which 
was challenged as coming too late.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 2980, 2981, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 5966, the legislative appropriation bill for 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment by Mr. [Ross] Collins [of Mississippi]: Page 19, 
        after line 19, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
            ``For additional services in the office of each Member and 
        Delegate and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, in the 
        discharge of his official and representative duties, at a rate 
        not to exceed $1,800 per annum, as to each such office, 
        $783,000.''

        Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I ask recognition.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman from Mississippi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Scott W. Lucas (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from North 
    Carolina rise?
        Mr. Warren: I rise to make the point of order that [the 
    appropriation] is not authorized by law.
        Mr. Fred M. Vinson [of Kentucky]: The point of order comes too 
    late, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman had not begun his remarks. . . .
        The Chair does not believe that the point of order comes too 
    late. The gentleman from North Carolina was on his feet seeking 
    recognition at the time the gentleman rose.

A Point of Order Against an Amendment Must Be Timely

Sec. 6.8 A point of order against an amendment comes too late after the 
    proponent has made his introductory comments in explanation of the 
    amendment.

    A point of order against an amendment must be made or reserved as 
soon as the amendment is read or its reading is dispensed with. When 
the Chamber is crowded and noisy, due diligence requires the Member 
wishing to make the point of order to address the Chair, and merely 
being on

[[Page 12170]]

his feet does not protect his right. The events of Oct. 1, 
1985,(9) during the reading of the Food Security Act of 
1985, show how a Member may lose his opportunity to raise a point of 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 131 Cong. Rec. 25439, 25440, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Frank as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Dorgan of North Dakota: Page 70, 
        strike out line 19 and all that follows thereafter through page 
        71, line 19, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(C) The established price for wheat shall be $4.38 per 
        bushel for the 1986 crop; $4.16 per bushel for the 1987 crop; 
        $3.96 per bushel for the 1988 crop; $3.76 per bushel for the 
        1989 crop; and $3.57 per bushel for the 1990 crop, 
        respectively.

        Mr. Frank (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. David E. Bonior (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Frank: Mr. Chairman, I realize that this bill, in its short 
    stay on the floor, has apparently already outlasted the 
    membership's attention span, but this is a very important amendment 
    which I choose to offer anyway.
        This is an amendment which embodies the position of the Reagan 
    administration on this particular bill.
        Mr. Robert F. Smith [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on this amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair would point out to the gentleman from 
    Oregon that it is too late to reserve a point of order. The point 
    of order has to be reserved before the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    begins his remarks.
        Mr. Robert F. Smith: If I may, Mr. Chairman, it was very 
    difficult to hear. I did not even hear the amendment proposed and I 
    was timely in my reservation of my point of order, Mr. Chairman. I 
    was attempting to get order, as the Chair was. I suggest that I did 
    not even hear the amendment offered.
        The Chairman: The Chair asked if there was objection to the 
    waiving of the reading of the amendment and the Chair did not hear 
    an objection.
        Mr. Robert F. Smith: Mr. Chairman, with due respect, I did not 
    even hear the amendment offered, and it has never been read. I was 
    standing here before you, sir.
        The Chairman: The Chair would note that there were literally 
    dozens of people standing. The Chair was not addressed by the 
    gentleman from Oregon and there was a waiving of the reading of the 
    amendment.

Chair's Responsibility Where Amendment Improperly Read

Sec. 6.9 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may direct the re-
    reporting of an amendment where it was not read in its entirety 
    when offered.

[[Page 12171]]

    When an improper reporting of an amendment by the Clerk is called 
to the Chair's attention, he may direct it to be reported again so that 
Members have a proper reference for deciding whether to raise a point 
of order. An amendment must be read in full unless the further reading 
is dispensed with by special rule or unanimous consent. When part of 
the amendment was omitted by the Clerk, the Chair correctly directed 
that it be read again, in full. The proceedings of June 16, 
1983,(11) are illustrative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 16031, 16032, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dan] Burton [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Burton: On page 12, between lines 
        17 and 18, insert the following new paragraph:
            (14) Commodities provided under this Act shall be 
        distributed by means of a system developed by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture and State agencies.

        Mr. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I think we all want to help the truly 
    needy, but we also want to make sure we do not at the same time 
    hurt the private sector. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Emerson [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment as read by the Clerk does not 
    conform with the amendment that was delivered to me. I wonder if 
    the Clerk might read the amendment again so that we know what we 
    are talking about.
        The Chairman: (12) Without objection, the Clerk will 
    re-report the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Burton: On page 12, between lines 
        17 and 18, insert the following new paragraph.
            (14) Commodities provided under this Act shall be 
        distributed by means of a system developed by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture and State agencies.
            Eligible organizations must acknowledge receipt of such 
        commodities. Eligible individual recipients shall be provided 
        such commodities by means of commodity coupons distributed 
        under the food stamp program pursuant to rules and regulations 
        issued by the Secretary of Agriculture as authorized by the 
        Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended.

        Mr. Emerson: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. [E (Kika)] de la Garza [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield to me?
        Mr. Emerson: I yield to the chairman of the committee.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact the 
    amendment has been read, but there is some confusion here. Is this 
    a re-reporting of the amendment or just a re-reading of the 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that it is a re-reporting. 
    The Clerk did not report the entire amendment.
        Mr. de la Garza: Mr. Chairman, I make that inquiry because, as 
    the gen

[[Page 12172]]

    tleman from Texas recollects, there was no unanimous consent to 
    dispense with further reading. Therefore, the amendment was not 
    read in its entirety, and I would have raised a point of order at 
    that time had the amendment been correctly read.
        Mr. Chairman, I will inquire, is it proper at this point, if 
    the amendment has been re-reported, to raise a point of order?
        Mr. Chairman, since there was some confusion, I felt obligated 
    to bring the matter before the House, but I will state now that I 
    would not raise a point of order at this time, and we may proceed 
    on the amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Discretion of Chair

Sec. 6.10 While a point of order may be pressed in the Chair's 
    discretion against an amendment when enough of the text has been 
    read to show that it is out of order, the Chairman may decline to 
    rule on the point of order until the entire amendment has been 
    read.

    On Dec. 14, 1973,(13) a Member sought to press his point 
of order during the reading of an amendment with the following result:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 41717, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11450, the Energy Emergency Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk continued to read the amendment.
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for me to 
    press my point of order at this time?
        The Chairman: Did the Chair understand the gentleman to say, to 
    press his point of order?
        Mr. Eckhardt: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Would it be in order for me to urge my point of order at this 
    time?
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that the reading of the amendment 
    should be concluded.

The Chair, on His Own Initiative, May Rule Out an Amendment Which Is 
    Not in Proper Form

Sec. 6.11 The Chair may examine an offered amendment to determine its 
    propriety and may rule it out of order even where no point of order 
    is raised.

    On May 8, 1980,(15) when the Committee of the Whole 
resumed consideration of the Food Stamp Amendments of 1980, the Chair 
announced that amendments to section 1 were in order. Mr. Robert S. 
Walker, of Pennsylvania, offered what he termed ``an amend

[[Page 12173]]

ment in the nature of a substitute.'' Mr. Walker asked that reading be 
dispensed with and was recognized to begin his explanation. The Chair 
interrupted his presentation to inform him that the amendment offered 
was not ``a proper amendment in the nature of a substitute.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 10421, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Wednesday, May 7, section 1 had been considered as having 
    been read and open to amendment at any point. It shall be in order 
    to consider an amendment to title I of said substitute printed in 
    the Congressional Record on April 30, 1980, and said amendment 
    shall not be subject to amendment except for the offering of pro 
    forma amendments for the purpose of debate. No further amendments 
    are in order which further change or affect the Internal Revenue 
    Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there any amendments to section 1?

       amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. walker

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Walker: Page 39, after line 22 insert the following new title:

        Mr. Walker (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection. . . .

        The Chairman: The gentleman will suspend for just a moment. The 
    Chair is advised by the Parliamentarian that the gentleman has not 
    offered a proper amendment in the nature of a substitute here. An 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute would strike everything 
    after the enacting clause. This is an amendment adding a new title 
    III.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that the 
    amendment was prepared in the form of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The amendment at the desk is not prepared in that 
    form, the Chair is advised. When the committee reaches title II, 
    the first part of the gentleman's amendment would be in order. The 
    Chair will rule that the amendment is not pending at this time.
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Chairman, and I am sorry for that 
    confusion.
        The Chairman: Are there any amendments to section 1?
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Idaho has an amendment to 
    section 1. This is the short title of the bill.
        Mr. Symms: It is on page 24, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair doubts that that is an amendment to 
    section 1. The amendment of the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Symms) is 
    not to section 1, but to title I.
        The Clerk will read title I.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 12174]]

     TITLE I--REDUCTION IN FOOD STAMP ERROR AND FRAUD AND REVISION OF 
                                 DEDUCTIONS

Points of Order Against Amendments Because Copies Unavailable

Sec. 6.12 While the rules impose a duty on the Clerk to transmit copies 
    of an amendment to the majority and minority, a point of order does 
    not lie based on the Clerk's inability to comply with this 
    requirement.

    Rule XXIII clause 5(a), specifies that ``Upon the offering of any 
amendment by a Member, when the House is meeting in the Committee of 
the Whole, the Clerk shall promptly transmit to the majority committee 
table five copies of the amendment and five copies to the minority 
committee table. Further, the Clerk shall deliver at least one copy of 
the amendment to the majority cloak room and at least one copy to the 
minority cloak room.'' (17) This rule was added as part of 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,(18) but from its 
inception it has been interpreted as an assignment of responsibility to 
the Clerk but not as a provision which inhibits the consideration of an 
amendment. The proceedings of Mar. 25, 1976,(19) are 
illustrative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule XXIII clause 5(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 870 (1997).
18. The concept was included in Sec. 124, 84 Stat. 1140 and was 
        included in Rule XXIII in the 92d Cong., H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 
        1971, p. 144.
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 7997, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: On page 6, line 3 insert 
        the following new section, and renumber the succeeding 
        sections:
            ``Sec. 9. Notwithstanding any other provision of law the 
        Director of the National Science Foundation shall keep all 
        Members of Congress including the members of the Committee on 
        Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the Senate fully and 
        currently informed with respect to all the activities of the 
        National Science Foundation. Upon the receipt of a written 
        request from any Member of Congress for information regarding 
        the activities, programs, grants, or contracts of the National 
        Science Foundation, the Director shall furnish such information 
        within 15 days. . . .

        Mr. [James W.] Symington [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order. We do not have five copies of the amendment as far as I 
    can tell.
        The Chairman: (20) That is not a point of order, 
    although the Chair hopes the copies will be provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. George E. Danielson (Calif.).

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

[[Page 12175]]

No Point of Order Where Copies of Offered Amendment Are Not Available

Sec. 6.13 No point of order lies against an amendment on the ground 
    that copies thereof have not been made available to Members by the 
    Clerk.

    Rule XXIII clause 5, places up-on the Clerk the responsibility of 
making copies of an offered amendment available to the majority and 
minority tables and to the cloakrooms. This portion of clause 5 was 
adopted as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, and from 
its inception, it has been held that noncompliance does not inhibit the 
consideration of an amendment. The Chair has consistently held that 
failure or inability of the Clerk to comply does not state a point of 
order. For an example of such a ruling, see the proceedings of Sept. 
15, 1977, during consideration of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1977 
(H.R. 3744) carried in Sec. 1.35, supra.

Timeliness of Ruling on Pending Points of Order

Sec. 6.14 A pending point of or-der against certain language must be 
    decided prior to recognition of another Member to offer an 
    amendment to the challenged language.

    On May 18, 1966,(1) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New 
York, informed Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, that his substitute 
amendment was premature until the pending point of order against a 
pending committee amendment was disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 10894, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 14544, the Participation Sales Act of 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina will state the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Patman: Yes. I have a substitute amendment, and I hope it 
    will be acceptable.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Texas 
    that we are under the obligation of disposing of the point of 
    order.

Sec. 6.15 Points of order raised against a proposition must be disposed 
    of before amendments to the challenged language are in order.

    On May 14, 1937,(2) a Member unsuccessfully attempted to 
re

[[Page 12176]]

serve a point of order and offer a substitute amendment at the same 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 4596, 4597, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6958, the Interior Department appropriation for 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    the point of order against the proviso and move to strike out the 
    last word, to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma the reason for the 
    language in lines 17 and 18. . . .
        I do not withdraw my reservation of the point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman, but I have an amendment that I desire to offer.
        The Chairman: (3) The point of order will have to be 
    disposed of before an amendment is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timing of Point of Order Against Amendment

Sec. 6.16 A point of order against an amendment must be raised 
    immediately after the reading of the amendment and before there is 
    any debate on the amendment.

    Where a substitute amendment was offered in Committee of the Whole 
to a bill under consideration, a point of order was raised after the 
proponent of the amendment had begun the explanation of this amendment. 
The proceedings of Mar. 17, 1975,(4) were as indicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 6798, 6799, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Andrews).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Seiberling as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: page 194, 
        line 9, adopt the sentence starting on line 9, but change 
        ``35'' to ``50''.

        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, the effect of my substitute is 
    simply to adopt the language presently appearing on line 9 in the 
    sentence beginning in that line on page 194 with the change offered 
    by the gentleman from North Dakota but with an additional change.
        I would simply change the rate that appears on line 11 from 35 
    cents per ton to 50 cents per ton.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the 
    gentleman from Ohio has made a parliamentary error. His intention 
    is not compatible with the substitution of his amendment for that 
    of the gentleman from North Dakota.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's point of order comes too late.
        Mr. [Mark] Andrews of North Dakota: A parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 12177]]

        Mr. Andrews of North Dakota: My amendment is on page 194, line 
    15.
        I would point out that the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio 
    would probably be better standing on its own, since it affects 
    strip mining all over the country and my amendment affects strip 
    mining only in two or three States.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the amendment of the 
    gentleman from North Dakota beginning on page 194, line 15, while 
    it might have been subject to a point of order earlier, it is not 
    subject to a point of order at the present time.

Intervention of Unanimous-consent Request

Sec. 6.17 A point of order against an amendment is not entertained 
    where business (the granting of a unanimous-consent request) has 
    intervened between the reading of the amendment and the making of 
    the point of order; but if, by unanimous consent, the intervening 
    business is vacated, the Chairman may then entertain the point of 
    order.

    On June 24, 1969,(6) Chairman John S. Monagan, of 
Connecticut, suggested to Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York, that his 
point of order, which was untimely because of intervening business 
between the point of order and reading of the amendment, could be 
perfected by seeking unanimous consent to have the intervening business 
vacated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 17081, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12307, the independent offices and housing and urban 
        development appropriation bill for fiscal 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [Mr. William Steiger, of Wisconsin, after his amendment was 
    read, asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
    remarks.]
        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman's point 
    of order comes a little late.
        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger) had obtained a unanimous-consent request 
    prior to the gentleman from New York being observed by the Chair.
        The Chair will ask the gentleman if the gentleman was on his 
    feet prior to the unanimous-consent request made by the gentleman 
    from Wisconsin?
        Mr. Ryan: The gentleman was on his feet at the point the 
    amendment was read.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York was on his feet 
    during the reading of the amendment?
        Mr. Ryan: That is correct.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman was 
    simply not observed by the Chair prior to the granting of the 
    unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from Wisconsin. Unless 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin de

[[Page 12178]]

    sires to make a unanimous-consent request that his previous 
    unanimous-consent request be vacated, the Chair will state that 
    there is no way the gentleman from New York can be heard on his 
    point of order.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to make 
    such a request.

Timeliness of Point of Order; a Mere Request for Permission To Revise 
    and Extend Not ``Intervening Business''

Sec. 6.18 The mere making of a unanimous-consent request to dispense 
    with further reading of an amendment and that the proponent be 
    permitted to revise and extend is not ``intervening business'' or 
    ``debate'' which would render a point of order against the 
    amendment as untimely.

    During the reading of an amendment to the American Technology 
Preeminence Act of 1991, Mr. Robert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, offered 
an amendment and during the reading by the Clerk made a request. The 
proceedings of July 16, 1991,(7) are shown herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 137 Cong. Rec. 18391, 18392, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          title iv--national commission on reducing capital costs for 
                              emerging technology

          sec. 401. national commission on reducing capital costs for 
                              emerging technology.

            (a) Establishment and Purpose.--There is established a 
        National Commission on Reducing Capital Costs for Emerging 
        Technology (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
        ``Commission''), for the purpose of developing recommendations 
        to increase the competitiveness of United States industry by 
        encouraging investments in research, the development of new 
        process and product technologies, and the production of those 
        technologies. . . .

                      amendment offered by mr. walker

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: Page 40, after line 7, 
        insert the following new title:

        title v--comprehensive national policy for commercialization of 
                             emerging technologies

         sec. 501. comprehensive national policy for commercialization 
                           of emerging technologies.

            It is the sense of the Congress that in order to improve 
        the competitiveness of United States industry--
            (1) the research and experimentation tax credit should be 
        raised to 25 percent and made permanent;
            (2) the capital gains tax should be reduced to levels 
        comparable to that of our major trading partners; and
            (3) the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 should be 
        extended to include joint production ventures.
            Redesignate existing titles V and VI as titles VI and VII, 
        and redesig

[[Page 12179]]

        nate the sections in such titles accordingly.

        Mr. Walker (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record, and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my 
    remarks.
        The Chairman: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Pat Williams (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               point of order

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order that 
    the amendment is not germane to the bill under consideration.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: The point of order comes too late.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman reserve his point of order? 
    Does the gentleman wish to make the point of order?
        Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Chairman, I intended to make a point of 
    order against the gentleman's amendment.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, the point of order comes too late. 
    Business has taken place in the House that would preclude the point 
    of order from being made.
        Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Chairman, I was seeking recognition. I 
    was on my feet. I reserved the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania the point of order is timely. Debate has not yet begun 
    on the amendment.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I asked unanimous consent to revise 
    and extend my remarks, which means that debate had in fact begun 
    and the unanimous consent was agreed to, which means that the point 
    of order does not come timely.
        The Chairman: No order of the Committee has been entered on 
    that manner. The point of order has been reserved.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski] on the point of order.

Sec. 6.19 After an amendment has been read by the Clerk and a 
    reservation of objection has been made against a unanimous-consent 
    request for an additional five minutes' debate, it is too late to 
    raise a point of order against the amendment.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(9) a point of order against an 
amendment was ruled untimely by Chairman William J. Driver, of 
Arkansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 83 Cong. Rec. 1364, 75th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriation for 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.

[[Page 12180]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dirksen: On page 57, in line 19, 
        strike out ``$900,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,900,000.''

        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed 
    for an additional 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object----
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that this increase is not authorized 
    by law.
        The Chairman: The point of order of the gentleman from New York 
    comes too late. A request has already been presented, and there has 
    been a reservation of objection to it.

Intervention of Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 6.20 A point of order against an amendment is properly raised 
    immediately after the reading thereof and comes too late after the 
    Chairman has entertained and responded to a parliamentary inquiry 
    from another Member.

    On Nov. 5, 1969,(10) immediately after the reading of a 
substitute amendment, Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, responded 
to a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 33133, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6778, amending the One Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bennett as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Bevill: strike lines 12 through 23 and 
        insert:
            ``d. The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 is amended by 
        adding at the end of section 2 the following new subsection:
            `` `Sec. 4. The provisions of this law shall not apply to 
        one-bank holding companies with bank-assets of less than 
        $30,000,000 and non-bank assets of less than $10,000,000.' ''

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Benjamin B.] Blackburn [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Chairman, do I understand we are preparing 
    to vote, and if so, what will we be voting upon? I understand there 
    is another amendment now. . . .
        Mr. [Gary E.] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I raise a point 
    of order on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Bennett) in that it is not germane to the bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point 
    of order?
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I would like to be 
    heard on my point of order.]
        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    that I think the point of order . . . is too late, but I think the 
    amendment is germane, anyway.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the point of order 
    raised by the gentleman from Michigan is too late. The gentleman 
    from Georgia had arisen for a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, if I could be heard on 
    that, as I

[[Page 12181]]

    recall the activity of the House at that time the amendment was 
    offered, it was read, the parliamentary inquiry was made as to what 
    was before the Committee, the Chair explained what was before the 
    Committee at that time, and at that time I made my point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman's point 
    of order comes too late because we have had a parliamentary inquiry 
    in the meantime, and the Chair has responded.

Sec. 6.21 A point of order must be made immediately after the reading 
    of an amendment and comes too late if a parliamentary inquiry 
    intervenes.

    On Dec. 11, 1947,(11) Chairman Earl C. Michener, of 
Michigan, answered an inquiry suggesting the importance of making a 
point of order immediately after the reading of an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 93 Cong. Rec. 11279, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 4604, a foreign aid bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    have a specific ruling as to whether a parliamentary inquiry made 
    before a point of order makes a point of order out of order?
        The Chairman: A point of order must be made immediately after 
    the reading of the amendment. No business must intervene between 
    the reading of an amendment and the raising of the point of order. 
    A point of order comes too late if a parliamentary inquiry 
    intervenes.

Intervention of Another Point of Order

Sec. 6.22 After a point of order against an amendment has been 
    overruled, the Chairman may entertain a further point of order if 
    the Member offering the amendment has not yet begun debate thereon.

    On Nov. 17, 1971,(12) Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, 
of Illinois, entertained a further point of order after overruling the 
first, as nothing else had intervened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 41801, 41802, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 11731, the Department of Defense 
        appropriations for 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, am I 
    recognized?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
    minutes.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    point of order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I understand the point of order has 
    been overruled.
        The Chairman: The Chair has overruled the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Texas, but the gentleman from Illinois has not yet 
    begun his remarks.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry, is not a 
    further point of order in order?

[[Page 12182]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Arizona on 
    the parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had been recognized.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry is whether or 
    not a further point of order can be made at this time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the point of order.

Effect of Recognition for Debate

Sec. 6.23 Mere recognition for debate does not preclude a point of 
    order against an amendment if no debate has intervened.

    On July 30, 1969,(13) following the reading of the 
amendment by the Clerk, Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, 
recognized the proponent, Mr. Torbert H. Macdonald, of Massachusetts, 
to speak on it, but, before Mr. Macdonald could begin his remarks, Mr. 
Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, raised a point of order, which led to 
the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 21458, 21459, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 1311, the Departments of Labor and 
        Health, Education, and Welfare appropriations for fiscal 1970. 
        But see 99 Cong. Rec. 2106, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 18, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Macdonald) for 5 minutes in support of his 
    amendment.
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, the point 
    comes too late.
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order. . . 
    .
        Mr. Macdonald of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Macdonald of Massachusetts: Could I be enlightened as to 
    when a Member who has been recognized and starts to talk has given 
    up his right of recognition?
        The Chairman: A point of order can intervene before debate is 
    conducted on an amendment, particularly when the chairman of the 
    subcommittee is on his feet seeking recognition. There had been no 
    debate on the merits of the amendment.

Sec. 6.24 Mere recognition by the Chairman of a Member proposing an 
    amendment does not preclude a point of order being raised by a 
    Member who has shown due diligence.

    On Mar. 31, 1937,(14) Mr. Ross A. Collins, of 
Mississippi, had

[[Page 12183]]

been recognized to speak on his amendment when Chairman Scott W. Lucas, 
of Illinois, permitted another Member, Lindsay C. Warren, of North 
Carolina, to raise a point of order that the amendment was an 
unauthorized appropriation on a general appropriation bill. The 
Chairman allowed the point of order to be made because Mr. Warren had 
been on his feet seeking recognition at the time Mr. Collins rose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 2980, 2981, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 5966, an appropriations bill fixing compensation of 
        employees of the legislative branch for fiscal 1938.
            See also 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        30, 1955. Under consideration was H.R. 6857, authorizing the 
        General Services Administration to convey realty to the city of 
        Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, 
    which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. Warren: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from North 
    Carolina rise?
        Mr. Warren: I rise to make the point of order that it is not 
    authorized by law.
        Mr. Fred M. Vinson [of Kentucky]: The point of order comes too 
    late, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman make the point of order?
        Mr. Warren: I make the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Collins: And I make the further point of order that I had 
    secured recognition from the Chair before the point of order was 
    made, and therefore the point of order comes too late.
        The Chairman: The gentleman had not begun his remarks. The 
    Chair will hear the gentleman from Mississippi on the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    point of order comes too late. I was on my feet and had been 
    recognized by the Chair, as will be shown by the stenographic 
    notes.
        The Chairman: The Chair does not believe that the point of 
    order comes too late. The gentleman from North Carolina was on his 
    feet seeking recognition at the time the gentleman rose.
        Mr. Collins: On the contrary, I had secured recognition from 
    the Chair and was approaching the Well of the House for the purpose 
    of speaking to my amendment before the gentleman addressed the 
    Chair, all of which will be shown by the stenographic notes.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi had not begun 
    debate on the amendment, and even though the Chair had recognized 
    the gentleman from Mississippi, the gentleman from North Carolina 
    was on his feet at practically the same time, and the Chair does 
    not believe that the point of order has been raised too late.

Sec. 6.25 Points of order against proposed amendments come too late 
    after a Member has been recognized to debate his amendment and a 
    unanimous-consent request has

[[Page 12184]]

    been granted on that Member's time.

    On Mar. 18, 1953,(15) Chairman Kenneth B. Keating, of 
New York, recognized the proponent of an amendment, William L. Dawson, 
of Illinois, but, before the Member could speak, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, 
of Michigan, made a unanimous-consent request that the amendment be 
reread, which request was granted. Mr. Hoffman then attempted to make a 
point of order, still before Mr. Dawson had commenced his remarks, but 
the Chair ruled the point of order came too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 99 Cong. Rec. 2106, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., relating to H.J. Res. 223, 
        providing that Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953 take effect 
        within 10 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois is recognized in 
    support of his amendment.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the amendment be read again.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk reread the Dawson amendment.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment.
        Mr. Dawson of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, the point of order comes 
    too late.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: It does not specify wherein the 
    resolution that is now before the Committee is to be amended and, 
    further, Reorganization Plan No. 1 is not before the Committee at 
    this time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's point of order comes too late. 
    The gentleman from Illinois had already been recognized.

Point of Order Precluded by Proponent's Requests To Revise and Extend 
    and That the Amendment Be Reread

Sec. 6.26 Where a Member had been recognized to debate his proposed 
    amendment, had asked permission to revise and extend, and had 
    received unanimous consent to have the amendment reread (since a 
    quorum call intervened between the offering of the amendment and 
    his recognition), the Chair stated that it was too late to raise a 
    point of order.

        Until Jan. 4, 1977, it was still possible to make a point of 
    order that a quorum of the Committee of the Whole was not present 
    at any time during the five-minute rule.(16) In the 
    proceedings

[[Page 12185]]

    of June 26, 1975,(17) when an amendment was offered at a 
    point when few Members were on the floor, Mr. Robert E. Bauman, of 
    Maryland, made the point that a quorum was not present. A call of 
    the Committee followed, and after one hundred Members responded, 
    the Chair terminated proceedings under the call and recognized the 
    proponent of the amendment for debate. The Congressional Record 
    shows the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XXIII clause 2, was amended in the 95th Congress to permit a 
        point of no quorum, after a quorum of the Committee has once 
        been established on that day, only when the Chair has put the 
        question on a pending proposition. See House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 863 and annotation thereto (1997).
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 20945, 20946, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [M. G. (Gene)] Snyder [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Snyder: On page 16, after line 14, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this title 
        shall be used for the purposes of negotiating the surrender or 
        relinquishment of any U.S. rights in the Panama Canal Zone.''

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will count. Thirty-six 
    Members are present, not a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair announces that he will vacate proceedings under the 
    call when a quorum of the Committee appears.

        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.
        The Chairman: One hundred Members have appeared. A quorum of 
    the Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to rule XXIII, 
    clause 2, further proceedings under the call shall be considered as 
    vacated.
        The Committee will resume its business.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Snyder).
        (Mr. Snyder asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. Snyder: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there are a 
    few Members on the floor who were not here a while ago, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Clerk reread my amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Kentucky?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will reread the amendment.
        The Clerk reread the amendment.
        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Chairman, is it too late to make a point of 
    order with respect to the amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair informs the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Leggett) that it is too late.

Sec. 6.27 A point of order against an amendment came too late after the 
    proponent of the amendment had been recognized and had been granted 
    permission to revise and extend his remarks.

    On July 26, 1973,(19) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chair

[[Page 12186]]

man Charles M. Price, of Illinois, ruled a point of order raised by Mr. 
Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, came too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 26191, 26192, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 9360, the Mutual Development and 
        Cooperation Act of 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Young of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Young had been recognized and had asked 
and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if this section is the 
    proper place for this amendment. I would like to reserve a point of 
    order until we find out whether this is the proper location.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia has already been 
    recognized.

Sec. 6.28 A point of order against the germaneness of an amendment must 
    be made or reserved immediately after the amendment is read and 
    comes too late after the proponent of the amendment has been 
    recognized and has asked and received permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.

    The proceedings of Sept. 17, 1975,(20) which illustrate 
the above headnote, are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 28937, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Maine (Mr. Emery) for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Emery asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that his reservation comes too late. The 
    Chair had already recognized the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Emery), 
    and the point of order comes too late.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine for 5 minutes in 
    support of his amendment.

Sec. 6.29 After a Member had been granted 15 minutes to address the 
    Committee of the Whole on his amendment, it was held to be too late 
    to make a point of order against the amendment.

    On Apr. 17, 1943,(2) a point of order raised by Mr. 
Usher L. Burdick, of North Dakota, against an amendment to an 
agricultural appropriation bill was ruled untimely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 89 Cong. Rec. 3510, 78th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2481, the agricultural appropriation for 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes . . . .

[[Page 12187]]

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman is recognized for 15 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Burdick: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
    amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. The gentleman 
    has been recognized and has been granted permission to proceed for 
    15 minutes.

Effect of Failure To Obtain Recognition To Debate

Sec. 6.30 Recognition of a Member by the Chair to offer an amendment 
    does not give such Member the privilege of debating his amendment; 
    consequently a point of order against an amendment may be made in a 
    proper case even though a Member has started debate thereon if he 
    did not obtain recognition for that purpose (the Committee 
    overruling the Chair on appeal).

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(4) during consideration of amendments 
to H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriations bill of 1939, it 
was contended that a point of order against an amendment was untimely 
in that it had been made after debate had begun. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 83 Cong. Rec. 1372, 1373, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Collins: On page 68, line 20, 
        after the period, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
            ``Street lighting: For purchase, installation, and 
        maintenance of public lamps, lampposts, street designations, 
        lanterns, and fixtures of all kinds on streets, avenues, roads, 
        alleys, and for all necessary expenses in connection therewith, 
        including rental of storerooms, extra labor, operation, 
        maintenance, and repair of motor trucks, this sum to be 
        expended in accordance with the provisions of existing law, 
        $765,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall not be 
        available for the payment of rates for electric street lighting 
        in excess of those authorized to be paid in the fiscal year 
        1927, and payment for electric current for new forms of street 
        lighting shall not exceed 2 cents per kilowatt-hour for current 
        consumed.''

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language that is incorporated in the amendment----
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Collins: Eliminates the language against which the 
    gentleman made the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman's 
    point of order comes too late.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from Oklahoma makes 
    a point of order on the amendment, and the gentleman from 
    Mississippi makes the point of order that the point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Oklahoma comes too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order of the gentleman from Mississippi is 
    sustained. . . .

[[Page 12188]]

        Mr. Nichols: If the Chair did recognize the gentleman from 
    Mississippi I may say the Chair recognized him while I was on my 
    feet taking the only opportunity presented to me to address the 
    Chair, in order that I might direct my point of order to the Chair.
        The Chairman: That may be true. The Chair does not care to 
    indulge in any controversy on that question with the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma. The Chair is merely stating what occurred. The Chair may 
    state further to the gentleman from Oklahoma, in deference to the 
    situation which has developed here, that if that had been true, 
    under the rules it would have been the duty of the Chair to have 
    recognized a member of the committee in preference to any other 
    Member on the floor. The Chair was acting under the limitations of 
    the rule. . . .
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the rule, 
    as I understand it, is that if any action is taken on the 
    amendment, then the point of order is dilatory. The only action 
    that could have been taken was recognition by the Chair of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi to debate his amendment.
        I want to call the attention of the Chair to the fact the only 
    manner in which the Chair can recognize a Member to be heard on 
    this floor is to refer to the gentleman either by name or by the 
    State from which the gentleman comes, and I call the attention of 
    the Chair to the fact that the Chair in this particular instance 
    did not say he recognized the gentleman from Mississippi or the 
    gentleman [Mr. Collins], and for that reason there was no official 
    proceeding and no official action taken between the time that the 
    amendment was offered and the time the gentleman from Oklahoma made 
    his point of order, and therefore the point of order was not 
    dilatory.
        The Chairman: The Chair desires, in all fairness, to make this 
    statement to the Committee, as well as directly to the gentleman 
    from Michigan. Not only was the gentleman from Mississippi 
    recognized, but he began an explanation of his amendment, and the 
    Chair certainly presumes that the gentleman being on the floor at 
    the time heard that; and when that occurred, the Chair does not 
    think the gentleman will disagree with the Chair about the fact 
    that the Chair is required, under the rules, to rule in deference 
    to the situation that developed. The Chair does not desire to 
    forestall proceedings and would be pleased to hear points of order, 
    but the Chair must act within the definition of the rule.
        Mr. Wolcott: If the Chair will indulge me for a moment in that 
    respect, the point I wish to make is this. The gentleman from 
    Mississippi had no authority to address this Committee until he had 
    been recognized by the Chair, and if the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    made his point of order during a brief sentence by someone which 
    had no right under the rules of this House even to be reported by 
    the official reporter, then he cannot be estopped, under those 
    circumstances, from making his point of order. The Chair of 
    necessity must have recognized the gentleman from Mississippi to 
    debate the amendment.
        The offering of an amendment is not a proceeding which will 
    estop the gentleman from Oklahoma from making his point of order. 
    It is recognition by

[[Page 12189]]

    the Chair of another gentleman to discuss the amendment, and the 
    gentleman could have discussed the amendment only after recognition 
    was given. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: If the Chair has made a final ruling, I would, in 
    the most respectful manner I know, request an appeal from the 
    decision of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma appeals from the 
    decision of the Chair on the ruling of the Chair on the point of 
    order, as stated.
        The question before the Committee is, Shall the ruling of the 
    Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the noes 
    had it.
        So the decision of the Chair does not stand as the judgment of 
    the Committee.

After Debate on Amendment

Sec. 6.31 A point of order against an amendment comes too late after 
    there has been debate on the amendment.

    On June 1, 1961,(6) Chairman W. Homer Thornberry, of 
Texas, indicated that a point of order made by Mr. John J. Rooney, of 
New York, against an amendment offered by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, came too late, as Mr. Hoffman had already begun his remarks 
on the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 9349, 9350, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. [H.R. 7371].
            See also 113 Cong. Rec. 32662, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 
        15, 1967 [S. 2388]; 113 Cong. Rec. 19417, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 19, 1967 [H.R. 421]; 101 Cong. Rec. 3947, 3948, 84th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Mar. 29, 1955 [H.R. 3659]; and 93 Cong. Rec. 4079, 
        80th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 25, 1947 [H.R. 3123].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross of Iowa: ``On page 7, strike 
        out all of lines 21 through 25 and on page 8, strike all of 
        lines 1 through 3.'' . . .

        The amendment was rejected.

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: ``On page 8, 
        lines 2 and 3, strike all after the semicolon.''

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Hoffman asked and was given permission 
to revise and extend his remarks.

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, being a realist I 
    understand----
        Mr. Rooney: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rooney: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment now offered by the gentleman from Michigan is the same in 
    effect as that which was offered by the gentleman from Iowa and 
    just defeated.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    point of order comes too late. The gentleman from Michigan had been 
    recognized and started to speak.

[[Page 12190]]

        The Chairman: While the point of order does come too late, the 
    amendment does strike out language different from that stricken out 
    by the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa.

Sec. 6.32 A point of order against an amendment must be made or 
    reserved immediately after it is read by the Clerk, and comes too 
    late after debate has begun on the amendment.

        On Nov. 25, 1970,(7) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
    California, ruled that a reservation of a point of order by Mr. 
    George H. Fallon, of Maryland, came too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 38991, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 19504, the Federal Highway Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Harsha [of Ohio] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
    amendment [offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Bingham] be 
    dispensed with, since both the majority and the minority have 
    copies of the amendment, and that it be printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is recognized.
        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    purpose of the amendment, which is to section 142 of the bill, is 
    to strike out certain words in that section which limit the 
    supplementary assistance that this bill now provides for mass 
    transportation to highway transportation.
        Mr. Fallon: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Bingham: the gentleman can get me additional time, I shall 
    be glad to yield.
        Mr. Fallon: It will take less than a minute.
        Mr. Bingham: I yield to the chairman of the committee.
        Mr. Fallon: Would the gentleman's amendment transfer money out 
    of the trust fund to be used for any other purpose?
        Mr. Bingham: I cannot answer that question that way, Mr. 
    Chairman. If the chairman would allow me to proceed----
        Mr. Fallon: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman rises too late for that purpose. 
    The gentleman from New York will proceed.

Sec. 6.33 A point of order against the germaneness of an amendment must 
    be raised prior to debate thereon, and comes too late if the 
    proponent has commenced his remarks.

        On June 16, 1975,(8) a point of order was held to 
    come too late where the amendment had been read, the proponent had 
    received permission to revise and extend and had begun his brief 
    remarks. The Record excerpt is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 19073, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William L.] Armstrong [of Colorado]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an

[[Page 12191]]

    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            An amendment offered by Mr. Armstrong to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Burke of Massachusetts as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Vanik: Amend the Burke amendment by 
        adding the following: and on line 6, strike the word 
        ``temporarily.''

        (Mr. Armstrong asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, I will take only a moment.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order, that the amendment is not germane.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman's point of order 
    comes too late. The gentleman from Colorado has already commenced 
    his statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.34 A point of order against an amendment must be made or 
    reserved immediately following the reading of the amendment, and 
    comes too late after the proponent of the amendment has begun his 
    remarks.

        On Mar. 20, 1975,(10) a Member attempted to reserve 
    a point of order against an amendment offered during consideration 
    of a bill providing emergency price supports for 1975 crops. The 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole declared that the attempted 
    reservation came too late, the proponent of the amendment having 
    uttered a few words in explanation of his amendment. The 
    proceedings were as shown below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 7665, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     amendment offered by mr. jeffords

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 3, after line 6 
        strike out ``the support price of milk shall be established at 
        no less than 80 per centum of the parity price therefor, on the 
        date of enactment, and the support price shall be adjusted 
        thereafter by the Secretary at the beginning of each quarter 
        beginning with the second quarter of the calendar year 1975,'' 
        and insert ``the support price of milk shall be established at 
        no less than 80 per centum of the parity price therefor, on the 
        date of enactment, and the support price shall be adjusted 
        thereafter by the Secretary to no less than 82 per centum of 
        the parity price therefor, at the beginning of each quarter, 
        beginning with the third quarter of the calendar year 1975,''.

        Mr. Jeffords: Mr. Chairman, this amendment merely does this. It 
    says that the 80 percent----
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I was on 
    my feet earlier when the amendment was read. I would like to 
    reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: (11) The Chair must advise the 
    gentleman from Washington that his point of order comes too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John Brademas (Ind.).

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

[[Page 12192]]

Sec. 6.35 A point of order against an amendment cannot be reserved 
    after the proponent of the amendment has been recognized and has 
    begun his explanation of the amendment.

        On May 27, 1969,(12) Chairman John H. Dent, of 
    Pennsylvania, ruled that an attempted reservation of a point of 
    order by Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, came too late after 
    the proponent of the amendment had been recognized and started his 
    remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 14074, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
    minutes.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, this is really a simple 
    amendment.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman--
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts rise?
        Mr. Conte: I reserve a point of order to the amendment.
        Mr. Smith of Iowa: The reservation comes too late. I object.
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the request of 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts comes a little too late. The 
    gentleman from Iowa is proceeding.

Sec. 6.36 A point of order against an amendment comes too late after 
    debate has begun on the amendment, and the rereading of the 
    amendment by unanimous consent after there has been debate does not 
    permit the intervention of a point of order against the amendment.

        On Nov. 4, 1971,(13) debate had already begun on an 
    amendment when Mr. Hugh L. Carey, of New York, sought, and 
    obtained, a rereading of the amendment. Chairman Pro Tempore Edward 
    P. Boland, of Massachusetts, then advised Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of 
    Michigan, that he could not then make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 39302, 39303, 92d Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 7248, to amend and extend the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 and other acts dealing with higher 
        education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Carey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the amendment be read again.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the unanimous-
    consent request that the amendment be read again?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
    object, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: If the amendment is read again it will not 
    then be subject to a point of order if it is not germane?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that a point of 
    order relative to the germaneness of this amendment would come too 
    late.

[[Page 12193]]

Sec. 6.37 A point of order against an amendment in the House comes too 
    late after there has been debate thereon and the previous question 
    has been ordered.

        On Mar. 1, 1967,(14) after an amendment was offered, 
    debated for an hour, and the previous question on the amendment 
    voted upon, the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 5020, 5036-38, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under 
        consideration was H. Res. 278, relating to the right of 
        Representative-elect Adam Clayton Powell to be sworn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The result of the vote was as above recorded.
        Mr. [Phillip] Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, I raise a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Burton of California: In view of the fact that this 
    resolution, among other things, states that the Member from New 
    York is ineligible to serve in the other body, and therefore 
    clearly beyond our power to so vote; and in addition to that fact 
    it anticipates election results in the 18th District of New York, a 
    matter upon which we cannot judge at this time, I raise the point 
    of order that the resolution is an improper one for the House to 
    consider, and that it clearly exceeds our authority.
        The Speaker: The Chair will observe to the gentleman that if 
    the point of order would be in order it would have been at a 
    previous stage in the proceedings, and the gentleman's point of 
    order comes too late.

Effects of Diligence in Seeking Recognition

Sec. 6.38 A point of order against an amendment does not come too late 
    where the Member raising the point was on his feet, seeking 
    recognition, at the time the amendment was read.

    On Sept. 29, 1969,(16) after recognition of the 
proponent of an amendment, Chairman Charles E. Bennett, of Florida, 
permitted Mr. John P. Saylor, of Pennsylvania, to make a point of order 
that would otherwise have come too late, when Mr. Saylor explained that 
he had been on his feet trying to obtain recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 27351, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 13369, extending the authority of the Administrator of 
        Veterans' Affairs to set interest rates on mortgages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman----
        Mr. Saylor: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman makes his point too late. The 
    gentleman from Texas was recognized.
        Mr. Saylor: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet trying to get 
    recognition.
        The Chairman: The gentleman states he was on his feet at the 
    time the amendment was read?

[[Page 12194]]

        Mr. Saylor: I have been on my feet for the last 5 minutes. . . 
    .
        Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the gentleman's 
    amendment comes too late. The committee amendment has been adopted.
        The Chairman: The committee amendment, as amended, is still 
    pending and the Chair has not put the question thereon. The 
    gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
    amendment.

Sec. 6.39 A point of order against an amendment is not precluded by the 
    Chairman's recognition of the Member offering the amendment if the 
    Member raising the point of order was on his feet, seeking 
    recognition, before debate on the amendment began.

    On Aug. 30, 1961,(17) following the reading of an 
amendment to a bill dealing with the prevention and control of juvenile 
delinquency, Mr. James Roosevelt, of California, sought to make a point 
of order, although the proponent had already been recognized and 
started his remarks. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, 
nevertheless permitted the point of order to be raised as Mr. Roosevelt 
was on his feet actively seeking recognition at the time the proponent, 
Mr. Robert P. Griffin, of Michigan, started his remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 107 Cong. Rec. 17612, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. [H.R. 8028].
            See also 115 Cong. Rec. 21458, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        30, 1969 [H.R. 13111].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
    minutes on his amendment.
        Mr. Griffin: Mr. Chairman, these are conforming amendments to 
    draw the bill in accordance with the previous amendment and to make 
    sense in the legislation. I ask that they be adopted.
        Mr. Roosevelt: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
    the amendments.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Griffin: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    point of order comes too late.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California was on his feet.
        Mr. Griffin: The amendment was offered and I was recognized to 
    explain the amendment, and I proceeded to explain the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California was on his feet 
    seeking recognition. The gentleman from California will state his 
    point of order.

Time of Making or Reserving Point of Order

Sec. 6.40 A point of order against an amendment may be made or reserved 
    immediately after an amendment is read; but where several Members 
    are on their feet, and the

[[Page 12195]]

    Chair recognizes the offeror of the amendment, another Member who 
    has exercised due diligence and persists in his attempt to gain the 
    attention of the Chair can still be recognized to reserve a point 
    of order.

    It is the duty of the Chair to protect the rights of Members 
seeking recognition. He did so, over objections, when he allowed a 
point of order to be reserved against an amendment offered by Mr. Henry 
B. Gonzalez, of Texas, on June 11, 1987.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 133 Cong. Rec. 15541, 15543, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     amendment offered by mr. gonzalez to the amendment offered by mr. 
                                   hiler

        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Hiler: In the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment--
            (1) strike ``in excess of'' and insert ``, the amounts 
        provided shall not exceed''; and
            (2) strike ``as passed'' and all that follows through 
        ``applicable level.''
            (3) strike ``or subfunction'' the first place it appears.

        Mr. [John] Hiler [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
    of order on the amendment.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Brian J. Donnelly (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, did the Chair recognize the 
    gentleman's interposition of a point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Indiana was on his feet and he has properly maintained his right to 
    reserve a point of order.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, may I pursue my parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        The Chairman: The gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, it is my recollection that I had 
    been recognized by the Chair on my amendment, at which time the 
    gentleman interposed his objection.
        In my opinion and according to the precedents I have listened 
    to, that is not in a timely fashion interposing a motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair states that the gentleman was on his 
    feet at the time that the gentleman from Texas was recognized. The 
    matter of precedent does not lie on this case.
        Does the gentleman from Indiana insist on his point of order?
        Mr. Hiler: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve my point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Indiana reserves his point of 
    order. . . .
        Does the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hiler) press his point of 
    order?
        Mr. Hiler: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

[[Page 12196]]

        The Chairman: The point of order is withdrawn.
        Mr. Hiler: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
    of words, and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Sec. 6.41 Although the proponent of an amendment had been recognized 
    and had begun his discussion, the Chairman entertained a point of 
    order against the amendment by a Member who stated he had been on 
    his feet, seeking recognition for that purpose when the discussion 
    began.

    On Sept. 26, 1967,(20) Chairman Charles E. Bennett, of 
Florida, allowed Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, to make a point of 
order after the time therefor had passed, because Mr. Perkins had been 
on his feet seeking recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 26878, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 12120, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act 
        of 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer two amendments, and I ask unanimous consent that they be 
    considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner]?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Chairman, these two amendments----
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        I hate to raise the question, but I do make the point of order 
    that the amendments are not germane.
        My point of order being that we are now by these amendments 
    trying to reach other acts and exclude.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman's point of order comes too late.
        The gentleman from Louisiana had started his discussion of the 
    amendment, and there was no previous point of order made prior to 
    the discussion.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet seeking recognition 
    at the time the gentleman commenced to address the Chair.
        The Chairman: Was the gentleman from Kentucky on his feet 
    seeking recognition?
        Mr. Perkins: I was, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair then overrules the point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Michigan, and the Chair will hear the 
    gentleman from Kentucky on his point of order.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, how far in the discussion of 
    a man who offers an amendment can such a point of order be made, 
    then?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Kentucky was on his feet seeking recognition, and so stated. 
    Therefore, the gentleman from Kentucky will be recognized to make 
    his point of order.

[[Page 12197]]

Sec. 6.42 A member who has shown due diligence is recognized to make a 
    point of order against a proposed amendment even though the sponsor 
    of the amendment had commenced his remarks.

    On June 23, 1945,(1) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, 
allowed Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, to make a late point of order 
because Mr. Spence had been on his feet seeking recognition when the 
Chair recognized Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, to explain the 
amendment which he had proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 91 Cong. Rec. 6597, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.J. Res. 101, extending the Price Control and Stabilization 
        Acts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    proposes----
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's 
    point of order comes too late, because I had been recognized and 
    started to debate the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky was on his feet, and 
    the point of order does not come too late.