[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 15, Chapter 31]
[Chapter 31. Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries]
[A. Points of Order]
[Â§ 7. Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 12197-12242]
 
                               CHAPTER 31
 
                Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
 
                           A. POINTS OF ORDER
 
Sec. 7. Debate

    The Chair allows debate on a point of order at his discretion and 
the Chair normally refuses to allow Members to yield to other Members 
during arguments on points of order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 7.1, 7.2, 7.4-7.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is clear from the precedents that debate on a point of order is 
limited to it and may not go to the merits of the legislative 
proposition involved.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 7.9-7.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a Member, even one sponsoring an amendment against which a 
point of order has been raised, may concede a point of order, the Chair 
still rules on the point of order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 7.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The time consumed in argument on a point of order is not charged 
against that allotted to the proponent of an amendment,(5) 
but where a limitation is imposed on total debate time, or time is 
fixed ``by the clock,'' argument on a point of order may reduce the 
time an individual Member may be allotted.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 7.12, 7.20, infra.
 6. See Sec. 7.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair does not permit Members to ``revise and extend'' their 
remarks on a point of order,(7) and since the 104th 
Congress, the Chair's ability to edit his own ruling has been 
curtailed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 7.22, infra.
 8. See Rule XIV clause 9(a) House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 764a, 
        764b (1997); and see Sec. 7.23, infra.

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

[[Page 12198]]

Discretion of the Chair

Sec. 7.1 Debate on a point of order is within the discretion of the 
    Chair.

    On Apr. 13, 1951,(9) there was an exchange in the 
Committee of the Whole, which exemplifies the discretionary power of 
the Chair in permitting debate on a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  97 Cong. Rec. 3910, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) Does the gentleman from 
    Connecticut desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Antoni N.] Sadlak [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Sadlak: Mr. Chairman, how much time will be allotted to me 
    for that purpose?
        The Chairman: That is in the discretion of the Chair. The 
    gentleman's argument must be confined to the point of 
    order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 102 Cong. Rec. 6891, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 24, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.2 Recognition and time for debate on a point of order are within 
    the discretion of the Chair, and a Member speaking on a point of 
    order does not control a fixed amount of time which he can reserve 
    or yield.

    On Sept. 30, 1976,(12) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 13367, to extend the State and Local Fiscal 
Assistance Act of 1972, a point of order was made, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 122 Cong. Rec. 34075, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 124 Cong. Rec. 
        4451, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 23, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
    of order against the conference agreement on H.R. 13367, to extend 
    the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. The conference 
    agreement contains a provision, not included in the House bill, 
    which provides new spending authority for fiscal years 1978 and 
    1979 over the amounts provided for fiscal year 1977. This new 
    entitlement increment for succeeding fiscal years violates section 
    303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. . . .

    After some debate on the point of order, the following exchange 
occurred:

        Mr. Adams: I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: I thank the gentleman for 
    yielding.
        Mr. Speaker, I refer to Public Law 93-344, the language that 
    exists on page 22(d)(2).
        Mr. Adams: Would the gentleman refer to the motion, please? I 
    am using both the conference report and the statute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Section 401.
        Mr. Adams: Is the gentleman referring to the statute or the 
    conference report?

[[Page 12199]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Section 401 of the statute.
        The Speaker: (13) The Chair has been liberal in 
    enforcing the rules on arguing on a point of order. The Chair 
    controls the time and each individual Member desiring to be heard 
    should address the Chair and not yield to other Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Securing Time To Oppose Point of Order

Sec. 7.3 The proper method for opposing a point of order is for a 
    Member to seek recognition from the Chair for that purpose at the 
    proper time, not by making a point of order against the point of 
    order.

    On Sept. 18, 1975,(14) during consideration under the 
five-minute rule of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975, 
two points of order were reserved immediately after an amendment was 
read. The proceedings and inquiries were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 29333, 29334, 29335, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (15) Are there further amendments to 
    title VI?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: On page 338, after line 
        25, insert a new section.
            ``Sec. 507. An additional $100,000,000 is authorized for 
        the Energy Research and Development Administration for a high 
        priority program exclusively geared to the practical 
        application of fusion energy.''

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan reserves a point of 
    order.
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    reserve a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington reserves a point of 
    order.
        (Mr. Gonzalez asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, is there such a thing as a point of 
    order against a point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman can oppose the point of order when 
    it is made for any proper reason. The gentleman could insist that 
    the point of order be made now.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have my say that I 
    have been recognized for. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    McCormack) insist on his point of order?
        Mr. McCormack: I do insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman. 
    May I speak on my point of order at this time?

[[Page 12200]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman on his point of 
    order.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the 
    amendment comes to the wrong bill and to the wrong committee. The 
    authorization for nuclear research should come to the Joint 
    Committee on Atomic Energy and the Energy Research and Development 
    Administration. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) also 
    reserved a point of order against the amendment.
        Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point of order?
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I do wish to be heard.
        I would like to commend my good friend, the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) for offering what I think is a very well 
    written amendment. Unfortunately, no hearings have been held on it, 
    and it has not been considered. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Gonzalez) on the points of order.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, it is almost getting monotonous. 
    Almost exactly 24 hours ago I heard the same trite argument in the 
    name of ger- maneness.
        In arguing the point of germaneness, I will address myself 
    first to the remarks of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    McCormack).
        I in no way intended to transgress on the jurisdiction of his 
    committee. I know he has developed and he wants to have these 
    10,000 little electric cars running around, but what I am saying is 
    that we need more than that. That is not what the country needs.
        If we are going to debate on a point of order the merits of the 
    amendment, it is contrary to the clear indication in Deschler's 
    Procedure, one of which decisions I quoted yesterday, on page 73, 
    which says that one does not look to the material content of the 
    general purposes of the bill to determine the specificity-there is 
    a good Watergate word-the specificity of the pending amendment. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The title of title VI is exceptionally broad, in the opinion of 
    the Chair.
        If the content of title VI were as broad as the title, the 
    Chair believes that the arguments of the eloquent gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) might bear more weight. But it is the content 
    of the pending title and not its heading against which the 
    germaneness of the amendment must be weighed.
        The Chair has had the opportunity to examine with some care all 
    of title VI and also language on pages 17 and 18 of the committee 
    report which deals with title VI. The Chair will not read from 
    those words except to say that the Chair only refers to those words 
    in that they support his view that title VI actually deals with the 
    conversion from oil or gas to coal and thus the scope of the title 
    is quite narrow. The amendment therefore does not fit the rule of 
    germaneness despite the eloquence of the gentleman from Texas and 
    the Chair feels compelled to rule that the amendment is not germane 
    to title VI and therefore sustains the various points of order.

Controlling Argument on Point of Order

Sec. 7.4 Recognition and time for debate on a point of order

[[Page 12201]]

    are within the discretion of the Chair, and a Member speaking on a 
    point of order can neither yield or reserve time.

    During consideration of a bill providing supplementary financing 
for the International Monetary Fund, on Feb. 23, 1978,(16) 
under the five-minute rule there were several amendments offered. Some 
of the amendments were adopted which had the effect of narrowing the 
scope of the measure, thus making it possible to challenge some 
anticipated amendments as not germane. When an amendment was offered by 
Mr. Tom Harkin, of Iowa, a point of order was in fact raised on this 
basis. A portion of the amendment process is shown below, as well as 
the argument on the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 124 Cong. Rec. 4426, 4427, 4451, 4452, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            committee amendment

        The Chairman: (17) The Clerk will report the next 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: On page 2, after line 15, insert:
            Sec. 2. Section 3(c) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act 
        (22 U.S.C. 286a(c)) is amended by inserting ``(1)'' immediately 
        after ``(c)'' and by adding at the end thereof the following:
            (2) The United States executive director to the Fund shall 
        not be compensated by the Fund at a rate in excess of the rate 
        provided for an individual occupying a position at level IV of 
        the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
        States Code. The United States alternate executive director to 
        the Fund shall not be compensated by the Fund at a rate in 
        excess of the rate provided for an individual occupying a 
        position at level V of the Executive Schedule under section 
        5316 of title 5, United States Code.
            ``(3) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
        United States executive director to the Fund to pre-sent to the 
        Fund's Executive Board a comprehensive set of proposals, 
        consistent with maintaining high lev- els of competence of Fund 
        personnel and consistent with the Articles of Agreements with 
        the objective of assuring that salaries of Fund employees are 
        consistent with levels of similar responsibility within 
        national government service or private industry. The Secretary 
        shall report these proposals together with any measures adopted 
        by the Fund's Executive Board to the relevant committees of the 
        Congress prior to July 1, 1978.

        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Neal to the committee amendment:
            Page 2, strike out line 20 and insert in lieu thereof ``The 
        individual who represents the United States in matters 
        concerning the Supplementary Financing Facility''.
            Page 2, lines 24 and 25, strike out ``The United States 
        alternate executive director to the Fund'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``The alternate to the individual who represents the

[[Page 12202]]

        United States in matters concerning the Supplementary Financing 
        Facility''.
            Page 3, line 5, strike ``United States executive director 
        to the Fund'' and insert in lieu thereof ``individual who 
        represents the United States in matters concerning the 
        Supplementary Financing Facility''.

        Mr. [M. Dawson] Mathis [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment to the committee amendment. . . .
        So the amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment, as 
    amended.
        The committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cavanaugh: At the end of the bill 
        add the following:
            The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286-286k-2), as 
        amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            Sec. 29. The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
        United States Executive Director to seek to assure that no 
        decision by the International Monetary Fund on use of the 
        Facility undermines or departs from United States policy 
        regarding the comparability of treatment of public and private 
        creditors in cases of debt rescheduling where official United 
        States credits are involved. . . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Cavanaugh).
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 14, insert the following:
            Sec. 3. The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 USC 286-286k-
        2), as amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof 
        the following new section:
            ``Sec. 29. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct 
        the United States Executive Director on the Executive Board of 
        the International Monetary Fund to initiate a wide consultation 
        with the Managing Director of the Fund and other member country 
        Executive Directors with regard to encouraging the IMF staff to 
        formulate stabilization programs which, to the maximum feasible 
        extent, foster a broader base of productive investment and 
        employment, especially in those productive activities which are 
        designed to meet basic human needs.
            ``(b) In accordance with the unique character of the 
        International Monetary Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall direct the U.S. Executive Director to take all possible 
        steps to the end that all Fund transactions, including economic 
        programs developed in connection with the utilization of Fund 
        resources, do not contribute to the deprivation of basic human 
        needs, nor to the violation of basic human rights, such as 
        torture, cruel or inhumane treatment or degrading punishment, 
        prolonged detention without charge, or other flagrant denials 
        of life, liberty and the security of person; and to oppose all 
        such transactions which would contribute to such deprivations 
        or violations.
            ``(c) In order to gain a better understanding of the 
        social, political

[[Page 12203]]

        and economic impact of the Fund's stabilization programs on 
        borrowing countries, especially as it relates to the poor 
        majority within those countries, the U.S. Governor of the Fund 
        shall prepare and submit, not later than 180 days after the 
        close of each calendar year, a report to the Congress. Such 
        report shall evaluate, with respect to countries to which loans 
        are made by the Fund during the year, the effects of the 
        policies of those countries which result from the standby 
        agreement(s) on the ability of the poor in such countries to 
        obtain:
            ``(1) an adequate supply of food with sufficient 
        nutritional value to avoid the debilitating effects of 
        malnutrition;
            ``(2) shelter and clothing;
            ``(3) public services, including health care, education, 
        clean water, energy resources, and transportation;
            ``(4) productive employment that provides a reasonable and 
        adequate wage.''. . .

        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, we have just established that we are 
    only considering the so-called Witteveen Facility of the 
    International Monetary Fund, and this amendment goes far beyond 
    that.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) desire 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Harkin: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
        I would respond to that argument by saying that my amendment is 
    entirely in order because, if we look at the different sections, 
    the first section of my amendment goes toward instructing the U.S. 
    Executive Director of the IMF to do certain positive things about 
    initiating wide consultations, and so forth, which would help to 
    promote those kinds of programs that would help meet the basic 
    human needs in other countries. This is a directive to our Director 
    on the Board of the International Monetary Fund.
        The last part of my amendment, subparagraph (c) also mandates 
    that the Executive Director do other positive things by submitting 
    a report to the Congress not later than 180 days after the close of 
    each calendar year outlining the effects of the policies that were 
    followed on the Fund which were designed to meet these basic human 
    needs of people in other countries.
        As far as the Fund or the Witteveen Facility itself is 
    concerned, by subparagraph (b), which is the human rights section, 
    speaks directly to the Witteveen Facility and directs the U.S. 
    Executive Director to make sure that the basic human rights of 
    people are not violated.

        Mr. Mathis: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me on the 
    point of order?
        Mr. Harkin: Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. Mathis: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
    and I would like very much to have the attention of the Chair while 
    the point of order is being argued.
        The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Neal) is attempting now 
    to say that the legislation before us has been narrowed in scope to 
    the point where it only deals with the Witteveen Facility, and that 
    has been the thrust of the previous committee amendments that I

[[Page 12204]]

    have argued against, because I knew we were going to arrive at a 
    point where the gentleman was going to raise this point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, the clumsy attempt to do that has obviously 
    failed in this fashion because subsection (3) of section 2 of the 
    bill still deals with the question of the Secretary of the Treasury 
    instructing the Executive Director of the Fund to present a 
    comprehensive set of proposals that do not deal with that issue. So 
    the committee amendment, which has already been adopted, very 
    clearly deals with the original Bretton Woods Act, and it is not 
    restrictive in its scope.
        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield on his point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman on the 
    point of order.
        Has the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) concluded?
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I have not concluded. I would like to 
    reserve the balance of my time to speak further on the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: It is not in order to reserve debate time on a 
    point of order. The gentleman has no dock of time to reserve.
        Mr. Harkin: Then I would like to continue, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is hearing arguments on the point of 
    order at the present time. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) 
    will be recognized in support of his amendment at a subsequent time 
    if the point of order is not sustained.
        Mr. Harkin: Then, Mr. Chairman, do I understand I will be 
    recognized further?
        The Chairman: Yes. The gentle- man will be recognized to debate 
    his amendment if the point of order is not sustained.
        Mr. Harkin: No. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak further before 
    the Chair rules on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Georgia 
    (Mr. Mathis) has raised an interesting point. In the bill, under 
    paragraph (3) on page 3, it does in fact provide that the U.S. 
    Executive Director to the Fund has to do a certain positive thing. 
    He has to present to the Fund's Executive Board a comprehensive set 
    of proposals, et cetera. So it does not speak simply about the 
    Witteveen Facility.
        I think that my amendment, which mandates that the Executive 
    Director do other positive things, fits in very nicely with 
    subparagraph (3).
        I am not making any kind of argument for any other amendments 
    that might be offered or I am not speaking about any other 
    amendments that might go beyond the scope of instructing the 
    Executive Director of the IMF to do certain things. That would be 
    for the Chair to rule later on, on the germaneness of those. In 
    terms of instructing the Executive Director to do certain things, 
    my amendment is quite germane.
        Mr. Mathis: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Iowa yield 
    further on the point of order?
        The Chairman: Has the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) 
    concluded his statement on the point of order?
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the 
    gentleman.

[[Page 12205]]

        The Chairman: There is no yielding on a point of order.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia 
    (Mr. Mathis).
        Mr. Mathis: Mr. Chairman, I think, after consultation with the 
    Parliamentarian, I am now told that the amendment that was offered 
    by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Neal) has been changed 
    beyond what was read into the Record to go to page 3, line 5, where 
    the language of the amendment very clearly says page 2, line 5, as 
    it was read by the Clerk at the time.
        The Chairman: That is the gentleman's copy and not the copy 
    which was handed to the desk.
        Mr. Mathis: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the procedure is 
    for having words read back. But I think this is an attempt to try 
    to close off amendments which are going to be offered. The 
    Parliamentarian now explains to me that changing the words 
    ``Executive Director'' can preclude this amendment on the basis of 
    germaneness.
        If that is so, I would point out that this House has just 
    adopted an amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
    Cavanaugh) that contains the words ``Executive Director.'' So we 
    are still talking about the Executive Director to the Fund.
        It is a clumsy attempt to try to prevent the Members of this 
    House from offering amendments.
        Very clearly, Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa is germane to the bill, just as much as the 
    Cavanaugh amendment. If the distinguished chairman of the committee 
    is going to make a point of order, he should have made it on the 
    Cavanaugh amendment, because that went back to the Executive 
    Director of the Fund.
        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, I would say that the amendment before 
    us is not germane because it is not germane to the fundamental 
    purpose of the bill nor does it relate exclusively to the subject 
    matter under consideration.
        Under the Rules of the House, no motion or proposition on a 
    subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted 
    under disguise of an amendment.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in why there was not 
    a point of order raised against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Cavanaugh). He speaks of ``Executive 
    Director,'' just as I do.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule and perhaps clarify 
    that question for the gentleman from Iowa.
        The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Neal) made a point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Harkin) is not germane to the bill H.R. 9214 in its perfected form. 
    In its perfected form the bill, while amending the Bretton Woods 
    Agreement Act, relates only to the authority of the United States 
    to participate in the supplementary financing facility of the 
    International Monetary Fund and to the salaries of the IMF 
    employees who are employees who administer that supplemental fi

[[Page 12206]]

    nancing facility, the so-called Witteveen Facility, but it does not 
    deal with the other operations of the International Monetary Fund.
        The precedents indicate:

            To a bill amending one section of existing law to 
        accomplish a particular purpose, an amendment proposing changes 
        in another section of that law in a matter not within the terms 
        of the bill is not germane. (Deschler's Procedure, chapter 28, 
        section 32.1, section 32.14.)
            In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chairman 
        considers the relationship of the amendment to the bill as 
        modified by the Committee of the Whole. (Deschler's Procedure, 
        chapter 28, section 2.4.)

        The bill as modified by the Committee of the Whole is not 
    sufficiently broad, in the opinion of the Chair, to permit 
    amendments affecting operations of the IMF which are not directly 
    and solely related to the Witteveen Facility. As indicated 
    throughout the report on the bill, that special function of the IMF 
    is separate and distinct from other operations of the IMF, both 
    from the standpoint of qualification for participation in the 
    facility and from the point of view of disposition of assets and 
    the liabilities of participating nations.
        Let the Chair just add that the Cavanaugh amendment to H.R. 
    9214 reserved itself to decisions by the IMF on the use of the 
    facility, referring to the Witteveen Facility, thereby confining 
    itself to that narrow aspect of the bill and not amending the 
    entire act.
        Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Argument on Points of Order; Chair's Discretion

Sec.  7.5 Discussion on a point of order is within the discretion of 
    the Chair, and a Member recognized to argue on a point of order may 
    not yield to other Members.

    Where a point of order is raised against consideration of a 
conference report, the Chair may entertain debate, in the nature of 
argument on the point of order, before making a decision to sustain or 
overrule it. If a Member recognized for this purpose attempts to yield 
to another, the Chair may intervene to reassert his control of this 
debate. The proceedings of Sept. 30, 1976,(18) are 
illustrative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 34074, 34075, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 13367) to extend and amend the 
    State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, and for other 
    purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.(19). . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. For provisions of the conference report, see 122 Cong. Rec. 33132-
        44, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., legislative day Sept. 28, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brook] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
    of order against the conference agreement.

[[Page 12207]]

        The Speaker: (20) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against the 
    conference agreement on H.R. 13367, to extend the State and Local 
    Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. The conference agreement contains a 
    provision, not included in the House bill, which provides new 
    spending authority for fiscal years 1978 and 1979 over the amounts 
    provided for fiscal year 1977. This new entitlement increment for 
    succeeding fiscal years violates section 303(a) of the 
    Congressional Budget Act which provides in part:

            It shall not be in order in either the House of 
        Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or 
        resolution (or amendment thereto) which provides-- . . . new 
        spending authority described in section 401(c)(2)(C) to become 
        effective during a fiscal year . . . until the first concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for such year has been agreed to 
        pursuant to section 301.

        By increasing the fiscal year 1978 entitlement by $200 million 
    over the amounts for fiscal year 1977, H.R. 13367 does provide new 
    spending authority to become effective for a fiscal year for which 
    a budget resolution has not been adopted. It would thereby allow 
    that new spending increment to escape the scrutiny of the fiscal 
    year 1978 budget process. While section 303 provides an exception 
    for new budget authority and revenue changes for a succeeding 
    fiscal year, entitlement programs were expressly omitted from the 
    exception by the House-Senate conference on the Congressional 
    Budget Act.
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
    opposition to the point of order.
        The applicable provision of the Budget Act in this matter 
    concerns section 303(d)(1). This provision provides an exception 
    for any bills on the full fiscal year for which the current 
    resolution applies. The $200 million increase contained in the 
    conference report begins in fiscal year 1978, the next fiscal year 
    beyond 1977, the year for which our present budget resolution 
    applies.
        The $200 million increase, since it begins in fiscal year 1978, 
    technically conforms with the Budget Act and deserves to be 
    retained in the conference report. I might say to the membership 
    that in making this point of order, this was brought up in the 
    conference and we purposely did not provide for any increase in 
    fiscal year 1977. We purposely skipped the first three-quarters. We 
    agreed upon a term of 3\3/4\ years for the Revenue Sharing Act to 
    be in effect, but we skipped the first three-quarter year and 
    applied a $200 million increment for the first fiscal year 
    thereafter, namely, 1978, and for each of the 3 years subsequent 
    thereto; or a total of $600 million. So, we purposely skipped this 
    fiscal year 1977 so that we would not violate the budget 
    resolution.
        Accordingly, I believe that the point of order should be 
    overruled.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I also would like 
    to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is recognized. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Adams).

[[Page 12208]]

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments made by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), the provision that he refers 
    to regards new budget authority, not entitlement programs where 
    there is a reference over to the Committee on Appropriations and it 
    is controlled in that fashion. . . .
        I would say to the Members that the same amount of money will 
    go in fiscal year 1977 to the cities, regardless of what happens, 
    so long as the bill is passed this year. There is no dispute about 
    the amount for this year. It is the violation of the budget process 
    for fiscal year 1978, fiscal year 1979, and fiscal year 1980.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask that my point of order be sustained.
        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Adams: I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton).
        Mr. Horton: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman understands, does he not, there is 
    no additional amount in fiscal year 1977?
        Mr. Adams: That is correct.
        Mr. Horton: The amount involved, $200 million, would not be 
    applicable until fiscal year 1978. And in the next Congress, the 
    next session, the Budget Committee would at that time have an 
    opportunity to act on that budget.
        Mr. Adams: No, the gentleman is not correct, because this 
    represents one of the worst kinds of problems in budgeting. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Adams: I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Speaker, I refer to Public Law 93-344, the language that 
    exists on page 22(d)(2).
        Mr. Adams: Would the gentleman refer to the motion, please? I 
    am using both the conference report and the statute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Section 401.
        Mr. Adams: Is the gentleman referring to the statute or the 
    conference report?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Section 401 of the statute.
        The Speaker: The Chair has been liberal in enforcing the rules 
    on arguing on a point of order. The Chair controls the time and 
    each individual Member desiring to be heard should address the 
    Chair and not yield to other Members.

        Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) desire to be heard?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do desire to be heard.
        Mr. Speaker, I refer to Public Law 93-344 of the 93d Congress 
    which was enacted July 12, 1974, and I refer to page 22 of that 
    legislation, section 401(d)(2). Section 401(d) is entitled 
    ``Exceptions.'' Subsection (d)(2), under ``Exceptions,'' says as 
    follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair thinks he 
    has heard about all the arguments he needs to hear.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, may I make one final comment in 
    response to the statement of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Adams)?
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman briefly. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.

[[Page 12209]]

        The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams) makes a point of 
    order against the conference report on the bill H.R. 13367 on the 
    ground that section 5(a) of the conference report provides new 
    spending authority and entitlement increment for fiscal years 1978 
    and 1979 over the amounts provided for in fiscal year 1977, in 
    violation of section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
    1974.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Brown) rebut this argument by contending that a mere 
    incremental increase in an entitlement for subsequent fiscal years 
    is not new spending authority as prescribed in section 401(c)(2)(C) 
    to become effective during the subsequent fiscal years, but rather, 
    a continuation of the spending authority for fiscal year 1977, 
    which is permitted under section 303(a).
        The Chair has examined the conference report, and section 5(a) 
    is structured so as to provide separate authorization for 
    entitlement payments for each of the fiscal years 1977, 1978, and 
    1979, with a higher authorization for 1978 and 1979 than for 1977.
        In the opinion of the Chair, such a separate increase in 
    entitlement authorizations is new spending authority to become 
    effective during those subsequent fiscal years, which may not be 
    included in a bill or an amendment prior to the adoption of the 
    first concurrent resolution for fiscal years 1978 and 1979, which 
    does not come within the exception contained in section 303(b) for 
    new budget authority, and which does not come within the section 
    401(d) revenue-sharing exception--applicable only to . . . spending 
    authority as defined in subsections (a) and (b) of section 401(c)--
    cited by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order against the 
    conference report.

                         amendment in disagreement

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the Senate amendment in 
    disagreement.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause 
        and insert:

                            Section 1. Short Title.

            This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Fiscal 
        Assistance Amendments of 1976''.

Controlling Debate on Point of Order

Sec. 7.6 Debate on a point of order is within the discretion of the 
    Chair, and Members recognized on a point of order may not yield to 
    other Members.

    The Chair has a responsibility to control the argument on a point 
of order, and within his discretion, he can recognize Members who wish 
to argue the point before the Chair renders his decision. The following 
excerpt from the proceedings of Nov. 14, 1980,(1) are 
illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 29615-17, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] Aucoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 12210]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. AuCoin: On page 69, after line 17, 
        insert:
            (n)(1) The Administrator may not acquire any resource 
        derived from a new nuclear generating facility until such time 
        as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has licensed the operation 
        of a permanent storage facility for high level nuclear waste 
        and spent fuel from commercial nuclear generating facilities.
            (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``new nuclear 
        generating facility'' shall not include any nuclear generating 
        facility for which a construction permit was issued by the 
        Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the date of enactment of 
        this Act.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (2) Does the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Dingell) insist upon his point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, the bill before us establishes a 
    planning council. It provides for a planning council. It provides 
    for a program for conservation and for a fish and wildlife program. 
    It provides for the sale of power. It provides for the establishing 
    of rates, and it provides for the acquisition of resources to 
    produce power. . . .
        These nuclear generating facilities are not within the 
    Bonneville Power market area but are anywhere in the United States. 
    And it could include those in the Northeast, the Southeast, the 
    Southwest, in Alaska, or in Hawaii--none of them within the area 
    served. The amendment is much more broad than the bill and deals 
    with quite different matters.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        The Chairman: The Chair controls the time. Does the gentleman 
    from Ohio wish to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on 
    the point of order, but I would like to exchange a view with the 
    gentleman from Michigan to reinforce the point of order.
        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: There is no colloquy on a point of order.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to speak on 
    the point of order, to reinforce the position of the gentleman from 
    Michigan. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) wish 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Aucoin: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
        Mr. Aucoin: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised to hear 
    suggestions in defending the point of order that the people of the 
    Pacific Northwest ought to be inflicted with a burden of building 
    additional nuclear powerplants without safeguards. It is the people 
    in the region who will have to live with the consequences of 
    cooling towers in the Pacific Northwest. . . .
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California wish to be 
    heard on the point of order?

[[Page 12211]]

        Mr. John L. Burton: I would like to speak in opposition to the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. John L. Burton).
        Mr. John L. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the 
    statement of the distinguished gentleman from Texas saying that the 
    NRC cannot license nuclear powerplants without safeguarding the 
    people by dealing with the hazardous waste that is involved is a 
    horrendous task placed on the NRC. I think that the point of order 
    should be overruled. And I think that the bill is the biggest rape 
    and ripoff of the public that I have ever seen in my life.
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, could I be heard on one additional 
    point?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon 
    (Mr. AuCoin).
        Mr. AuCoin: Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas, the 
    subcommittee chairman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, 
    has, I think, confused, momentarily, the difference between an 
    amendment that would force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
    take an action as opposed to imposing on the Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission a new responsibility. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Oregon would impose a contingency which is not 
    solely related to the issue of purchase and transmission of power 
    in the Northwest region and which addresses potentially new NRC 
    licensing authority for all Government and privately owned storage 
    facilities on a national basis.
        The Chair would cite, specifically, chapter 28 of Deschler's 
    Procedures, section 24.15:

            An amendment delaying the effectiveness of a bill pending 
        the enactment of other legislation and requiring actions by 
        committees and agencies not involved in the administration of 
        the program affected by the bill was ruled out as not germane.

        On that basis, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

The Chair Controls Debate or Argument on a Point of Order

Sec. 7.7 A Member may not yield for purposes of debate under a 
    reservation of a point of order; the Chair controls the debate by 
    recognizing Members to speak in favor of or in opposition to the 
    point of order.

        On Oct. 1, 1985,(3) during the reading for amendment 
    of the Food Security Act of 1985, Chairman David E. Bonior, of 
    Michigan, invited amendments to the title of the bill which was 
    open to amendment. An amendment was then offered which went to the 
    pending title and the next. A point of order was first reserved, 
    then pressed, against the amendment for this reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 131 Cong. Rec. 25418-20, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
    September 26, title IV was open to amendment at any point to amend

[[Page 12212]]

    ments printed in the Congressional Record before September 24, 
    1985.
        Are there amendments to title IV?

                     amendment offered by mr. glickman

        Mr. [Daniel R.] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order on the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Glickman: Title IV of H.R. 2100 is 
        amended by--
            On page 65, after line 8, striking all through ``shall'' on 
        line 11 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(2) If the Secretary determines that the availability of 
        nonrecourse loans and purchases will not have an adverse effect 
        on the program provided for in paragraph (3), the Secretary 
        may'';
            On page 67, after line 5, striking ``The Secretary may'' 
        and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(3)(A) Unless the Secretary, at the Secretary's 
        discretion, makes available nonrecourse loans and purchases to 
        producers under paragraph (2) for a crop of wheat, the 
        Secretary shall'';
            On page 68, line 23 before the ``.'' inserting the 
        following: ``, except that the Secretary shall not make 
        available payments under this paragraph to any producer with a 
        wheat acreage base of less than 15 acres for the crop.'';
            On page 70, after line 11, striking all through line 12, 
        page 71 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(C) For each crop of wheat, the established price shall 
        not be less than the following levels for each farm:
            ``(i) $4.50 per bushel for any portion of the crop produced 
        on each farm that does not exceed fifteen thousand bushels and
            ``(ii) $4.00 per bushel for any portion of the crop 
        produced on each farm that exceeds fifteen thousand bushels.'';
            On page 86, line 15 striking ``may not'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof the following: ``shall'';
            On page 86, line 18 striking ``may'' and inserting in lieu 
        thereof the following: ``shall''; and
            Title V of H.R. 2100 is amended by--
            On page 87, after line 15, striking all through ``shall'' 
        on line 18 and inserting in lieu thereof the following-- . . .

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Glickman: Mr. Chairman, rather than taking the time of the 
    full House, rather than talking about the substance of the 
    amendment, in order to expedite the process, I wonder if we might 
    deal with the point of order right now, and if the Chair rules that 
    it is out of order, there is no reason why I have to spend 5 or 10 
    minutes explaining the amendment.

                              points of order

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Illinois insist on his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I yield to the 
    gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Robert F. Smith].
        The Chairman: The gentleman will suspend. Under a reservation 
    of a point of order, the gentleman cannot yield time. If other 
    Members have points of order, they can make them and they will be 
    so recognized.
        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Chairman, I believe a point of order would lie 
    against

[[Page 12213]]

    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] 
    because the amendment, if I understand the amendment that is being 
    offered, goes to more than one title of the bill, and I think that 
    because it goes to more than one title of the bill, it would not be 
    in order at this point.
        Mr. Glickman: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] is 
    recognized.
        Mr. Glickman: Mr. Chairman, the amendment amends two titles of 
    the bill. To be frank with the Chair, it was submitted as one 
    amendment, but the intention of the author of this amendment as 
    well as the other authors was to deal with the issues as they 
    affected title IV and then title V. I put it in one title of the 
    bill, but, to be honest with the Chair, the issues are divisible, 
    they are separate. I could have amended it and put it in two 
    separate amendments. I did not because that is not the way the 
    issue came up in the Committee on Agriculture.
        The issues relating to the issue of targeting deficiency 
    payments to small- and medium-sized farmers and utilizing a device 
    called the marketing loan as a way to deal with our exports; they 
    are in the wheat section, title IV, and there is a separate matter, 
    deals with it separately in the feed grains section, title V.
        The amendments are divisible. The language is divisible, and I 
    would hope that the Chair would understand that it was the intent 
    of the author of the amendment to really consider these two as two 
    separate concepts, but I put them together for the ease of putting 
    them in one amendment, since feed grains in the committee were 
    dealt with as one basic issue.
        Mr. Robert F. Smith [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Robert F. Smith: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Chairman, rule III of the rules provides that 
    considerations can only be by title, not by section. I think the 
    point remains that there is no question that this amendment does 
    affect two titles. There are several other amendments, Mr. 
    Chairman, that I will rise on this same issue affecting both sides 
    of the aisle. I think to keep this whole discussion clean, we 
    should follow the rule. The rule clearly states that you cannot 
    amend two titles in one amendment.
        The Chairman: Are there others who wish to be heard?
        Does the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Stangeland] make a point 
    of order on this?
        Mr. [Arlan] Stangeland [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    the right to make a point of order. I reserve the point of order.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman making a point of order on this 
    amendment?
        Mr. Stangeland: Mr. Chairman, I am arguing against the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
        Mr. Stangeland: I thank the Chair. I just want to make the 
    point that the amendment was printed in two distinctly separate 
    sections. One portion of the amendment dealt with wheat

[[Page 12214]]

    and target prices and marketing loans. The second section of the 
    amendment deals with title V, the feed grain section. Two 
    distinctly different amendments but introduced in the Record as, 
    unfortunately, one amendment. But they deal with the two sections 
    separately. I would just appeal to the Chair that the intent of the 
    authors was that because they were handled en bloc in committee, we 
    would run that way, but they are divisible, they can be addressed 
    to title IV and title V very distinctly in the amendment.
        I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would state that the Chair can only look at the form 
    in which the amendment has been submitted for printing in the 
    Record. According to the rule, the substitute shall be considered 
    for amendment by title instead of by sections, and only amendments 
    to the bill which have been printed in the Record by September 24 
    may be offered.
        Therefore, the only way in which the amendment that the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] wishes to offer could be 
    considered is by unanimous consent.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Parliamentary Inquiry; Who Gets Charged for Time

Sec. 7.8 While time for a parliamentary inquiry is normally charged to 
    the Member controlling time who yields for such an inquiry, the 
    Chair may exercise his discretion to recognize for an inquiry 
    between speakers when time is not running against any Member.

    Time for general debate on the concurrent resolution on the budget, 
fiscal 1994-1998, having been fixed by a special rule, and placed by 
that rule in the control of certain named Members, the Committee of the 
Whole, by unanimous consent, reconstituted the time used in a colloquy 
and did not deduct it from the Member controlling time. On another 
point during the debate, the Chair recognized for a parliamentary 
inquiry before recognizing a Member to control a block of two hours 
time. The pertinent proceedings of Mar. 17, 1993,(4) are set 
out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 139 Cong. Rec. 5394-96, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Solomon] reserves the balance of his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, is the process now that we are going 
    to the discussion of another budget, the Black Caucus budget?

[[Page 12215]]

        The Chairman: The process is that the gentleman from Maryland 
    [Mr. Mfume] is going to be recognized for 2 hours.
        Mr. Walker: And that would be pursuant to the rule, House 
    Resolution 131; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Walker: And this is the 2 hours of time controlled by the 
    gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] under that rule; is that 
    correct?
        The Chairman: Those 2 hours have not changed. . . .
        The Chair clarifies that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
    Mfume] controls the 2 hours.
        Mr. Walker: But it is permissible for him to yield that time to 
    the opposition if he so wishes?
        The Chairman: The gentleman can do with his 2 hours whatever he 
    wishes.
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair for that, and, if in fact he were 
    to do that, that would, in fact, even up the time between the 
    majority and minority where right now there is a disparity of about 
    an hour of time between the majority and minority as a result of 
    the way the rule was structured, thereby leaving the minority short 
    of its time to present its case.
        So, it would have that impact; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is drawing a conclusion, and that 
    is not part of an inquiry.
        The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] will be recognized for 
    2 hours.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Kweisi] Mfume [of Maryland]: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland 
    [Mr. Mfume] for yielding to me. . . .
        Mr. Mfume: Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mfume: I would like to ask the Chair whether or not the 
    time for the colloquy was counted against the time allotted.
        The Chairman: Yes. That colloquy consumed 6 minutes.
        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, that is 
    really not in order. I mean this was a colloquy. We were not 
    propounding parliamentary procedures, but we were speaking out of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] did ask 
    the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] to yield, and he yielded 
    three times to three different Members.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is fair. I 
    understand why it is being done, but I ask unanimous consent that 
    the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] be given an extra 6 minutes 
    to restore his 2 hours. That is only fair in this body.
        The Chairman: Without objection, so ordered.
        There was no objection.

Scope of Debate

Sec. 7.9 Debate on a point of order is limited to the question of order 
    and may not go to the merits of the legislative proposition.

[[Page 12216]]

    On July 19, 1967,(6) during consideration of a bill 
prescribing penalties for interstate travel to incite riots, a Member, 
Richard D. McCarthy, of New York, proposed an amendment dealing with 
gun control, particularly mail order guns. This amendment was 
challenged as being not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 19412, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 421, prescribing penalties for travel in interstate 
        commerce to incite riots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. McCarthy] wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph L. Evins (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCarthy: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is germane. There is no 
    doubt about it in my mind.
        Let me explain that H.R. 421 would become section 2 of that 
    bill, and with this amendment added it would create a new section 
    1, which is essentially, with a very slight change at the 
    beginning, the administration's firearms bill, which would prohibit 
    the mail-order sales of firearms and require anyone dealing in, 
    manufacturing, or importing firearms to have a Federal license.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is germane because the pattern of 
    these riots is clear. Guerrilla warfare in the streets with snipers 
    pouring deadly gunfire from roofs and windows above at ambulances 
    with children in them. In Newark killing a fire captain. There was 
    the shooting of firearms and even the shooting up of a hospital.
        Friday a tired Governor Hughes said this.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that 
    the gentleman would confine his remarks to the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York will confine himself 
    to the point of order.
        Mr. McCarthy: I am trying to point out, Mr. Chairman, that in 
    my view this amendment is germane to the intent of this 
    legislation.
        The Governor said that the riots and the sniping, with the use 
    of even automatic weapons and machineguns, pointed to the need for 
    an interstate firearms law. It can be said that New Jersey already 
    has a strict law. I say to that it is 1 year old. Many of these 
    guns were in possession of these people before that. Second, we 
    have ample evidence----
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: I submit that the gentleman is not directing his 
    argument to the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman must confine his remarks to the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Gross: There is no relevancy of the law in the State of New 
    Jersey.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will confine himself to the merits 
    of the point of order and not the substance of the bill.

Argument on Point of Order Should Not Address Merits of Amendment

Sec. 7.10 Argument on a point of order must be confined to

[[Page 12217]]

    the point of order and should not go to the merits of the 
    proposition being challenged.

    During consideration of the Labor and Health, Education, and 
Welfare appropriation bill for fiscal 1977, on June 24, 
1976,(8) Mrs. Millicent Fenwick, of New Jersey, offered an 
amendment. Two Members sought recognition to speak to a point of order 
raised against the amendment. Another raised the issue of whether their 
debate was directed to the point of order. Proceedings were as shown 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 20370, 20371, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Fenwick: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a 
    substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
    (Mr. Skubitz).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Skubitz: On page 7, strike the period 
        at the end of line 25, and insert in lieu thereof: ``: Provided 
        That none of the funds appropriated under this paragraph shall 
        be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, administer, or 
        enforce any standard, rule, regulation, or order under the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which is applicable 
        to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which 
        employs five or fewer employees.'' . . .

        Mr. [Gary] Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania to the 
        amendment offered by Mrs. Fenwick as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Skubitz: At the end of the amendment 
        offered by Mrs. Fenwick strike the period and add the 
        following: ``Provided further, That the funds appropriated 
        under this paragraph shall be obligated or expended to assure 
        full compliance of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
        1970 by Members of Congress and their staffs.''

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not 
    germane. It is also in violation of the rule against legislating on 
    an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers).
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, because of my great 
    concern for the safety of all workers and because of the fact that 
    Members of Congress are allowed in fact to have several offices and 
    up to 18 full-time employees, some of those who travel vehicular 
    equipment on the highways are exposed to extreme hazards, and 
    because of my background and experience in the steel industry, 
    knowing

[[Page 12218]]

    what the regulations are, I see a noncompliance in many of the 
    offices, such as boards across walkways, people standing on chairs 
    instead of ladders, storage facilities not properly put in place. I 
    have a concern about industry and for those people who work in 
    industry.
        It applies also to employees in our offices.
        The objective of this bill is to appropriate money to see that 
    OSHA is bringing under compliance all workers who work in an 
    environment such as an industrial office or similar facilities.
        Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) is 
    being heard on a point of order.
        Mr. Sarasin: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the gentleman 
    is not addressing himself to the point of order, but he is 
    addressing himself to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers), at this point, 
    should address his comments to the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford), to--wit, that the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) would not be 
    germane to the language of the substitute which it would seek to 
    amend and, further, that it would constitute legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Does the gentleman desire to touch on that?
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I was simply laying 
    the groundwork for my response to the point of order.
        It simply is that in this bill we are communicating to OSHA 
    their commitments, and it is simply that message I want to address 
    and require that they do set aside funds for this compliance.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) has offered a 
    substitute for an amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
    (Mr. Skubitz).
        Both the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
    Skubitz) and the proposed substitute offered by the gentlewoman 
    from New Jersey (Mrs. Fenwick) are applicable to farmworkers and 
    have a precise reference to the number of employees engaged by a 
    farmer.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) would add to the 
    substitute additional provisions requiring that funds appropriated 
    under the program shall be obligated and expended to assure 
    compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act by Members 
    of Congress and their staffs.
        Manifestly, this does constitute legislation on an 
    appropriation bill; and, beyond that, it would not be germane, in 
    the opinion of the Chair, to the pending substitute.
        For those reasons, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: I thank the Chairman for his even-
    handed evaluation of the situation.

Sec. 7.11 Debate on a point of order against an amendment is limited to 
    the question of order and may not go to the merits of the 
    amendment.

[[Page 12219]]

    On Nov. 25, 1970,(10) during discussion of the 
provisions of a federal highway bill, Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New 
York, introduced an amendment dealing with the plight of prisoners of 
war. A point of order was then raised against the amendment. In the 
ensuing debate on the point of order, the Member repeatedly referred to 
the amendment, not the point of order. This in turn provoked another 
point of order, with the ultimate result that Chairman Chet Holifield, 
of California, had to rule the Member out of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 38971, 38972, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Under 
        consideration was H.R. 19504, the Federal Highway Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: A point of order is made against the amendment by 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Harsha).
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on the point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from New York 
    on the point of order. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to enlist the 
    support of this House for action taken in an effort to rescue these 
    prisoners. This is a resolution which the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Findley) and I have introduced and on which we are seeking 
    support. I think it is appropriate for two reasons.
        This is an amendment----
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Iowa will state the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not addressing 
    himself to the point of order.
        Mr. Stratton: I am addressing myself to the point of order, if 
    the gentleman from Iowa will allow me to continue.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment----
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York will suspend. This 
    bill is a bill having to do with the highway system of the United 
    States. The Chair regrets to rule that the gentleman----
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, allow me to make my point. I have a 
    couple of very valid points.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has not addressed himself to the 
    point of order and the Chair is constrained to rule that the 
    gentleman is out of order.

Sec. 7.12 Debate on a point of order is confined to the question of 
    order, may not extend to the merits of the bill, and is for the 
    edification of the Chair who may decline to hear further argument.

        On June 13, 1991,(11) while the Committee of the 
    Whole was debating amendments under the five-minute rule during 
    consideration of a general appropriation measure, Mr. Richard K. 
    Armey, of Texas, raised a point of order against an amendment 
    offered by Mr. Byron L. Dorgan, of North Dakota. Several Members 
    seemed inclined to discuss not the amendment or the

[[Page 12220]]

    point of order but the broader ``savings and loan'' crisis. The 
    following colloquy illustrates the efforts of the Chair to confine 
    the debate to the question of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 137 Cong. Rec. 14690, 14691, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Armey: Mr. Chairman, I desire to be heard on my point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (12) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. George E. Brown (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Armey: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this 
    amendment violates clause 2 of rule XXI which prohibits this in 
    appropriations bills.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from North Dakota desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Dorgan of North Dakota: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is 
    the gentleman has not asserted a point of order at this moment, is 
    that correct?

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Armey: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Armey: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that once I 
    stipulate the point of order, I have an opportunity to discuss my 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has stated his point of order. He 
    does have the opportunity to be heard. The Chair thought that he 
    had expressed it.
        Mr. Armey: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to discuss my point of 
    order and my reasons for holding that.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Armey: Mr. Chairman, let me say first of all I have 
    enormous respect not only for the gentleman from North Dakota, but 
    in particular, for what it is he is attempting to do.
        I have a concern, on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, that we 
    would be doing it in this matter with respect to legislative 
    procedure, encumber the work of the Committee on Appropriations and 
    circumvent the work of several committees, including the Committee 
    on the Judiciary, the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
    Affairs, and his own Committee on Ways and Means. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would just like to state that the 
    gentleman should speak rather narrowly to the point of order, not 
    to the merits of the proposal.
        Mr. Armey: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chair's advice.
        Mr. Chairman, very narrowly, let me say I hold a point of order 
    that the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for all his good 
    work, all his good intentions, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from North Dakota desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Dorgan of North Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I indicated in my 
    opening remarks that I understood a point of order could lie on 
    this provision. The gentleman from Texas fully understands the 
    conditions under which this legislation is being discussed on the 
    floor today. . . .
        Mr. [Harold] Rogers [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to be 
    heard on the point of order.
        The question is, whether or not there is legislative procedure 
    on an appropriations bill. That is the object of my discussion in 
    these 5 minutes, or the time the Chair allows me.

[[Page 12221]]

        Mr. Chairman, there is already established in the current law 
    in the Department of Justice a financial institutions fraud unit. 
    It is already there. It is in the law. We appropriate money to it 
    in this bill.
        Now, they want to call it a savings and loan criminal fraud 
    unit.
        The Chairman: Would the gentleman merely talk to the merits of 
    the point of order?
        Mr. Rogers: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Dakota spoke 
    broadly about the merits.
        The Chairman: He did, and the Chair is trying to discourage 
    others from making his mistake.
        Mr. Rogers: I insist upon the privilege of doing so.

        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman to speak 
    to the point of order. . . .
        Are there additional Members who desire to be heard on the 
    point of order?
        Mr. [Dennis E.] Eckart [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    be heard on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to advise the gentleman to 
    stick to the point of order. . . .

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Armey: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Armey: Mr. Chairman, is there something in the rules of the 
    House that I have not found that says that there is more latitude 
    granted to Members who speak in opposition to a point of order than 
    the person who makes the point of order?
        The Chairman: There is nothing in the rules that states that.
        Mr. Armey: Then, Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of 
    order with as much latitude to speak about the crime bill?
        The Chairman: The gentleman has already been heard on the point 
    of order. The Chair thinks enough Members have been heard.
        Mr. Armey: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard to speak on the crime 
    bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        A point of order has been raised by the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Armey] against the proposed amendment of the gentleman from 
    North Dakota on the grounds that it violates clause 2 of rule XXI 
    in that it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Texas and others, 
    the Chair agrees with the point of order and rules that the 
    amendment violates the rules of the House and is therefore not in 
    order.

Debate on Point of Order Does Not Come Out of Time to Which the 
    Proponent of an Amendment Is Entitled Under the Five-minute Rule.

Sec. 7.13 The proponent of an amendment against which a point of order 
    has been reserved may not reserve a portion of his time under the 
    five-minute rule to oppose any points of order, if made, since the 
    Chair has discre

[[Page 12222]]

    tion to recognize for separate debate time on any point of order.

    Where points of order are reserved against an offered amendment, 
the proponent may proceed under the five-minute rule to discuss the 
merits of his amendment and need not reserve time to refute any point 
of order which is pressed. The proceedings of Aug. 1, 
1975,(13) illustrate how the Chair differentiates between 
debate on the merits and argument on a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (14) Are there further amendments to 
    title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   amendment offered by mr. brown of ohio

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

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

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a 
    point of order.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment 
    is to strike from the bill the provisions of the Staggers pricing 
    amendment, section 301, by revising title III to strike the whole 
    title and to reinsert all in the title, except section 301.
        Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman has been recognized for 5 minutes, 
    so the gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, may I reserve 2 minutes of my 
    time to speak on the points of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman to speak 
    on the points of order at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet made the point of 
    order. I reserved it.
        The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Ohio 
    to speak on the gentleman's amendment for 5 minutes. Then the 
    gentlemen who reserved the points of order may press them or they 
    may not.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment, 
    as I said, is to strike section 301, the pricing section, from the 
    bill.

Time Consumed on Point of Order When Overall Time Is Limited

Sec. 7.14 Where debate under the five-minute rule has been limited to a 
    time certain, time consumed in argument on a point of order comes 
    out of the total time under the limitation, thus reducing the time 
    which can be allotted to other Members seeking recognition. The 
    time is not

[[Page 12223]]

    charged only against the proponent of the amendment against which 
    the point of order is made.

        On Apr. 26, 1978,(15) debate under the five-minute 
    rule was proceeding the Public Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1978. 
    Mr. George E. Danielson, of California, moved that all debate on 
    the bill and amendments end at 7:30 that evening. The events 
    following the imposition of this limitation were as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 11641, 11642, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Danielson: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this 
    bill and all amendments thereto be terminated at the hour of 7:30 
    o'clock p.m. tonight.
        The Chairman: (16) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Danielson).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Lloyd Meeds (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided, and there were--ayes 22, noes 20.
        Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gary A. Myers: Page 39, insert the 
        following after line 7:
            (g) If any lobbying communication was made on the floor of 
        the House of Representatives or adjoining rooms thereof, or on 
        the floor of the Senate or adjoining rooms thereof, a statement 
        that such lobbying communication was made.

        Mr. Danielson: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order on the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Danielson: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 
    this amendment is not germane to the bill. The bill calls for 
    disclosure of lobbying activities under the terms of expenditure 
    and the like, and related lobbying activities as to influencing the 
    conduct and disposition of legislation. This has to do with 
    activities within the Capitol Building and is not necessarily 
    within the purview of the bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gary A. 
    Myers) desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Gary A. Myers: I do, Mr. Chairman. I would like to be heard 
    on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 
    the amendment is more narrowly drafted than the amendment which I 
    offered last year. It only requires an item of disclosure by those 
    individuals who otherwise would have to be reporting. This bill 
    does not in any way define the geographical location in which 
    lobbying activity would not be reported. Nowhere in the bill does 
    it say that if the lobbyist speaks to a House Member in the Capitol 
    that that is not a reportable item. The only thing this amendment 
    would do would require the reporting of any specific activity 
    discussed on the floor of the House. In last year's amendment there 
    was a point of order raised about the invasion of the House rules. 
    It would seem to me that article I, section 5 of the Constitution 
    clearly states that:

[[Page 12224]]

            . . . each House may determine the rules of its 
        proceedings.

        Numerous precedents have held that the power to make rules is 
    not impaired by rules of previous Congresses or by laws passed by 
    previous Congresses. So that this amendment in no way adds to or 
    impairs the rules of the House.
        It has been recognized that a law passed by an existing 
    Congress can bind that Congress in matters of procedure--and I 
    refer to Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, sections 6767 and 6768. 
    However, this amendment does not even go that far since it in no 
    way binds this or any other Congress. It merely makes available 
    information to the Congress and to the general public. If the 
    Congress chooses to act on that information it can do so according 
    to its rules and procedures.
        Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the amendment is germane, it is 
    simply another item of reporting.
        I also believe it would be inappropriate for this House to 
    object to this type of reporting.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Gary A. Myers), and in addition, since this amendment does not seek 
    to restrain or regulate conduct but only requires disclosure, the 
    Chair will rule that the point of order is not well taken and the 
    amendment is germane as adding a further reporting requirement to 
    those contained in the bill. . . .
        The Chair will notify the members of the committee that time 
    taken from the allotted time for the discussion of the point of 
    order was not allotted to the gentleman from Pennsylvania but will 
    come out of the general time and will reduce everyone's time to 5 
    minutes each.
        Are there further amendments?

Sec. 7.15 Time consumed on a point of order that debate is not relevant 
    does not come out of that allotted to the Member holding the floor 
    under the five-minute rule.

    On June 15, 1983,(17) the House had under consideration 
the Defense Department Authorization Act of 1984 (H.R. 2969). The 
following exchange occurred during the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 129 Cong. Rec. 15818, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: . . . Nineteen years they have 
    been working on this bomb, and they finally decided to test it 
    under something similar to what they might actually face in the 
    modern combat world, and it blew up on them.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
    make a point of order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John P. Murtha, Jr. (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    gentleman from Arkansas. The gentleman is discussing a munition 
    that is not funded in this section of the bill, and he is spending 
    considerable time of the Committee in discussing that, although 
    there are no funds for the production

[[Page 12225]]

    of the weapon that he refers to. I think he is proceeding out of 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Arkansas is 
    discussing chemical weapons, and it is difficult to restrict the 
    gentleman to a narrow interpretation of that in the comments he is 
    making.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further on the 
    point of order, there are a number of things that are funded in the 
    bill. Binary systems is the basic issue which the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin addressed himself to. But the particular one that the 
    gentleman from Arkansas is debating is something that is not funded 
    in this portion of the bill, and it seems to me that this is a 
    proceeding out of order and abusing the time of the Committee.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Bethune) wish to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Bethune: Mr. Chairman, is my time protected while the 
    gentleman from New York makes his point of order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman's time is protected.
        Mr. Bethune: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Chairman, I would just simply say that the bill does ask 
    for moneys to build buildings, facilities, to do tooling work, to 
    build the casings for the Big Eye bomb. I do not know what could be 
    more relevant than to discuss whether or not it works before we 
    start building facilities and the QL mix that would go in the bomb.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further on the point 
    of order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York may be 
    heard further on the point of order.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of the gentleman's 
    argument in discussing an item that is not funded in the 
    legislation is to create the impression that all of the activities 
    of the Department of the Army in dealing with chemical weapons, and 
    particularly the binary weapons which are funded in this section, 
    is defective. But the item which he is constantly referring to, and 
    with all of its mistakes, is not included; and the problems that it 
    had led the committee to remove the money for that particular 
    weapon. If the gentleman wants to discuss it, it ought to be 
    discussed in the research and development title of the bill rather 
    than in the procurement and production title with which we are 
    engaged now.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule.
        The money in the bill is unearmarked and the arguments of the 
    gentleman from Arkansas are considered relevant to the debate on 
    his amendment which is pending and which addresses the issues being 
    debated.
        The Chair will overrule the point of order.

Time Consumed by Parliamentary Inquiries

Sec. 7.16 When the Member holding the floor in debate refuses to yield 
    for a parliamentary inquiry, the time consumed by repeated requests 
    for him to yield does not come out of his allotted time.

[[Page 12226]]

    Where the Member making a statement during general debate on a bill 
in Committee of the Whole refuses to yield for an inquiry until he has 
finished his statement, the minutes taken by repeated requests for him 
to yield is not taken from his time. Proceedings on Nov. 22, 
1993,(19) were as indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 139 Cong. Rec. 31981, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Christopher] Cox [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 
    minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], chairman of the 
    Republican conference.
        Mr. [Dick] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
    gentleman for yielding the time. . . .
        I will not yield to the gentleman, so do not bother asking.
        Mr. [Ronald D.] Coleman [of Texas]: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Armey] has the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Coleman: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas 
    rise?
        Mr. Coleman: I want to ask a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] yield 
    to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] for a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Armey: I will not yield to the gentleman from Texas until I 
    have finished my statement.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas has the time and the 
    gentleman does not yield.
        Mr. Coleman: Parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas does not yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Coleman: He does not have to. I am asking a question.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Texas does not yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman from Texas has the time.
        Mr. Armey: I would ask the Chair, if he does not mind, that 
    time used to explain the rules will not come out of my time?
        The Chairman: That will not count against the time of the 
    gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Coleman: Mr. Chairman, do you mean to tell me when I ask a 
    parliamentary inquiry, it does not ask that of the Chair?
        The Chairman: Under the rules, the gentleman does not have to 
    yield, as long as he has the floor, for a parliamentary inquiry. 
    The gentleman from Texas has the time, and this time will not be 
    counted against the gentleman from Texas.

Chair Controls Argument on Point of Order

Sec. 7.17 Argument on a point of order is at the discretion of the 
    Chair, and Members seeking to be heard must address the Chair and 
    cannot engage in ``colloquies'' on the point of order.

[[Page 12227]]

    On Sept. 18, 1986,(1) the House had under consideration 
in Committee of the Whole a bill dealing with minimum altitude for 
aircraft flying over national parks. When a section dealing with the 
restrictions pertaining to the Grand Canyon was reached in the reading, 
Mr. Robert K. Dornan, of California, offered an amendment that required 
the installation of collision avoidance systems in all aircraft. A 
portion of the amendment and the related proceedings are carried 
herewith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 132 Cong. Rec. 24082-84, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) Are there any amendments to 
    section 2? If not, the Clerk will designate section 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. J. J. Pickle (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of section 3 is as follows:

                    Sec. 3. Grand Canyon National Park.

            (a) Noise associated with aircraft overflight at the Grand 
        Canyon National Park is causing a significant adverse effect on 
        the natural quiet and experience of the park and current 
        aircraft operations at the Grand Canyon National Park have 
        raised serious concerns regarding public safety, including 
        concerns regarding the safety of park users.

        Mr. Dornan of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dornan of California: At the end 
        of the bill add the following:

                    Sec. 4. Collision Avoidance System.

            Section 312(c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 
        U.S.C. App. 1353(c)), which relates to research and 
        development, is amended by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after 
        ``(c)'' and by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(2) In carrying out his functions, powers, and duties 
        under this section pertaining to aviation safety, the Secretary 
        of Transportation shall coordinate and take whatever steps 
        necessary (including research and development) to promulgate 
        standards for an airborne collision avoidance system for all 
        United States aircraft, civil and military, to improve aviation 
        safety. The Secretary of Transportation shall promulgate such 
        standards within one year after the date of enactment of this 
        Act. Such standards shall require that such collision avoidance 
        system be designed-- . . .
            [A point of order was reserved against the amendment.]

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dornan) has expired.
        Does the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) insist on his 
    point of order?
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Vento [of Minnesota]: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I 
    insist on my point of order.

            The Chairman: The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.

                               point of order

        Mr. Vento: Mr. Chairman, under the rule of germaneness, rule 
    XVI, clause 7, no subject different from that under consideration 
    shall be admitted under the color of an amendment. The amendment of 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) violates that rule and I 
    must reluctantly insist on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from California wish to be 
    heard on the point of order?

[[Page 12228]]

        Mr. Dornan of California: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    speak to it.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California is recognized.
        Mr. Dornan of California: Mr. Chairman, I understand the 
    gentleman's objection and I would ask for some help. Under my 5 
    minutes here, I would like to ask for a colloquy with my good 
    friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Mineta).
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that he 
    cannot have a colloquy during a point of order.
        Mr. Dornan of California: All right, Mr. Chairman, here is what 
    I will ask rhetorically and publicly. . . .
        Now, I would ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Mineta) if 
    there is any way that we can get some kind of a hearing in the 
    remaining 2 or 3 weeks, God forbid that we come back into a special 
    session, so that this 99th Congress, which suffered a midair 
    collision over the Grand Canyon on June 18 does something in this 
    Congress.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to withdraw his objection.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    California that he is still not speaking to the point of order and 
    will ask the gentleman to conclude his remarks on the point of 
    order, without the colloquy or the questions.
        The gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Dornan of California: That is all, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) has offered an 
    amendment adding a section 4 pertaining to the collision avoidance 
    system.
        The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the amendment and 
    it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is not germane. 
    The bill before us, H.R. 4430, is a narrow one addressing only 
    overflights over certain national park areas.
        The amendment goes to an unrelated subject amending an act not 
    amended by the bill.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Scope of Debate on Point of Order; on Motion To Recommit

Sec. 7.18 Debate on a point of order raised against a motion to 
    recommit a conference report with instructions to the conferees 
    must be confined to the question of order and may not go to the 
    merits of the underlying proposition.

    Where a point of order was raised against the instructions included 
in a motion to recommit a conference report on the ground that the 
instructions exceeded the differences committed to conference, the 
argument on the point of order tended to roam to the merits of the bill 
in conference and away from the merits of the point of order. At one 
point, the Chair had to bring the debate back to the issue at hand. The

[[Page 12229]]

proceedings of Apr. 9, 1992,(3) are set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 138 Cong. Rec. 9021, 9022, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The question is on the 
    conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Dennis E. Eckart (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  motion to recommit offered by mr. walsh

        Mr. [James T.] Walsh [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    conference report in its present form?
        Mr. Walsh: Mr. Speaker, I am.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Walsh moves to recommit the conference report on the 
        bill S. 3 to the Committee of Conference with instructions to 
        the managers on the part of the House to include in the 
        conference report the provisions of H.R. 3770 including:
            1. The requirement that a majority of a candidate's 
        contributions come from individuals residing in the candidate's 
        district.
            2. A limit of $1,000 on PAC contributions to candidates.
            3. A total ban on soft money contributions to political 
        parties.
            And to further include the requirement that no taxpayer 
        dollars may be used to finance congressional campaigns.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Sam] Gejdenson [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Gejdenson: Mr. Speaker, I would make a point of order that 
    the instructions exceed the scope of the conference report. It is 
    clear that the requirement of in-district funding is beyond the 
    scope of the conference report, and I would move that therefore the 
    motion to recommit should be ruled out of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Walsh] wish to be heard in opposition to the point of order?
        Mr. Walsh: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this motion adds to the 
    fairness of the conference report, and I would urge that it be 
    added.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Walsh] concede the point of order?
        Mr. Walsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does anyone else wish to be heard on 
    the point of order?
        Mr. [Paul B.] Henry [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be 
    heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is contested. The 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Henry] is recognized on the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Henry: Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure we understand what 
    the point of order is and what the question is and what the contest 
    is. . . .
        Mr. Gejdenson: Mr. Speaker, the objection is because it is 
    beyond the scope of the conference. At this stage of the game to 
    try to rewrite the whole conference is really in fact an attempt to 
    kill campaign finance reform, at least at this session, in my 
    perspective. . . .

[[Page 12230]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
    Leach] wish to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Jim] Leach [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I do think this body 
    ought to understand what is taking place here. The minority 
    resolution talked about a $1,000 cap on PAC's. The House bill 
    passed a $5,000 limit. The Senate bill passed a zero or up to a 
    thousand, if the court threw it out.
        So what the majority is attempting to do is stifle a very 
    thoughtful amendment of the minority for real reform of the 
    political action system and is using the Rules of the House against 
    real reform. And there is nothing more germane to this bill.
        The subject matter of this bill is containing political action 
    committees. I think the public record ought to indicate it.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] is 
    entitled to be heard on the point of order under the rules of the 
    House. That does not entitle the gentleman to be heard on the 
    merits of the bill.
        If the gentleman has remarks to make, they should be confined 
    to the point of order before the House. . . .
        The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Connecticut makes a point of order against 
    the motion offered by the gentleman from New York on the ground 
    that the instructions therein exceed the scope of the conference.
        The motion offered by the gentleman from New York proposes to 
    instruct the managers on the part of the House to include in the 
    conference report three features of a separate bill, H.R. 3770. 
    Each of these three initiatives falls outside the matters committed 
    to the conference as disagreements between the Senate bill and the 
    House amendment thereto.
        Therefore, under clause 3 of rule XXVIII, a conference report 
    may not include a matter although germane that was not committed to 
    the conference of either House.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the instructions proposed in the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from New York exceed the scope of 
    the differences committed to the conference and the point of order 
    is sustained.

Senate Rules as Authority

Sec. 7.19 Parliamentarian's Note: It is in order in debate on a 
    question of order to read a rule of the House or Senate for the 
    Chair's information if it relates to the point of order.

    On July 16, 1935,(5) during debate on a point of order 
in the House, a Member was permitted to read aloud excerpts from the 
Senate rules as authority for his argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 11262, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: I refer the Chair to the 
    following portion of rule XXVIII of the United States Senate:

            Messages shall be sent to the House of Representatives by 
        the Secretary, who shall previously certify the determination 
        of the Senate

[[Page 12231]]

        upon all bills, joint resolutions, and other resolutions.

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman cannot read from any document or 
    from any other papers.
        The Speaker: (6) This is for the information of the 
    Chair, and the point of order is overruled. The gentleman from 
    Texas will proceed in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conceding Points of Order During Debate

Sec. 7.20 Where a point of order is made against language in a bill and 
    the point is conceded in debate by the Member handling the bill, 
    the Chair rules on the point of order unless there is further 
    argument by another Member against the validity of the point of 
    order.

    For example, on Apr. 12, 1960,(7) in the Committee of 
the Whole, Chairman W. Homer Thornberry, of Texas, ruled on a point of 
order against an amendment immediately after the proponent conceded 
during debate that the point of order was well taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 11666, which made appropriations for certain departments 
        of the executive branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that this violates rule 21, paragraph 2, of Cannon's 
    Procedures which provides that no appropriation shall be made 
    without prior authorization.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Yes, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        . . . I am now constrained to concede that the point of order 
    is well taken and I shall immediately offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained.

Argument on Point of Order; Revisions and Extensions Not Permitted

Sec. 7.21 The Chair will not entertain unanimous-consent requests to 
    revise and extend remarks when hearing argument on a point of 
    order.

    On Oct. 7, 1977,(8) a rather involved point of order was 
raised against a conference report on the Energy Research and 
Development Administration Authorization Act of 1978. The report was 
called up by Mr. Teague, Chairman of the Committee on Science and 
Technology. The argument in favor of the point of order was advanced by 
Mr. Udall, Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 
The proceedings

[[Page 12232]]

leading up to the unanimous-consent request cited above, were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 33770, 33771, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       conference report on s. 1811, energy research and development 
                  administration authorization act of 1978

        Mr. [Olin E.] Teague [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1811) to authorize 
    appropriations to the Energy Research and Development 
    Administration in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy 
    Act of 1954, as amended, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization 
    Act of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy 
    Research and Development Act of 1974, as amended, and for other 
    purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order 
    against the conference report. Is this the appropriate time?
        The Speaker: It is.
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    conference report.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Udall: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order. Section 
    106(d)(3), adopted by the conference committee on the bill now 
    before the House, exceeds the authority of the conference committee 
    in that it inserts new substantive provisions in the legislation 
    which were not included in the bill, either as passed by the House 
    or passed by the Senate.
        I would like to be heard briefly on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Arizona is recognized. . . .
        Mr. Udall: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is based on the 
    conference report violation of rule 28, which requires that the 
    report shall not include matter not committed to the conference 
    committee by either House. The offending provision of the 
    conference report is section 106. It amends section 103 of Public 
    Law 91-273 as amended, and imposes new requirements on the Clinch 
    River breeder project. . . .

    After several other Members were heard on the point of order, Mr. 
Carr sought recognition.

        Mr. [M. Robert] Carr [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    rise in support of the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Carr: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
    permitted to revise and extend my remarks.
        The Speaker: The Chair will inform the gentleman that his 
    request to revise and extend his remarks is not in order on a 
    point-of-order discussion.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Carr) will be heard.

[[Page 12233]]

Sanctity of Argument on Point of Order

Sec. 7.22 The Chair will not entertain unanimous-consent requests by 
    Members to ``revise and extend'' their arguments on points of 
    order.

    Since it is essential that the Chair's ruling on a point of order 
be responsive to the arguments actually made in support of the point of 
order, requests to revise and extend those remarks are not entertained. 
In the proceedings which are carried herein, the arguments on the point 
of order were complex and the Chair had to have the benefit of all the 
presentations to make his decision.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 30542, 30545-47, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 2, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Coats: Page 36, after line 4, 
        insert the following:

        sec. 11. ineffectiveness of act in case of compensation by, or 
           retaliation against, united states agricultural or other 
                                   industries

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the 
        Secretary nor any other party shall take any action under this 
        act if the implementation of any provision of this Act either--
            (1) would violate the obligations of the United States 
        under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and could 
        therefore result in retaliation by another country; or
            (2) would entitle any other country to compensation from 
        the United States in the form of reduced restrictions on 
        imports of agricultural, industrial or other products from 
        other countries or to retaliation against the United States in 
        the form of increased restrictions against exports of 
        agricultural, industrial or other products from the United 
        States.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the United 
        States district court for the appropriate judicial district 
        shall have jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising under this 
        section.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the amendment is 
    not germane.
        Mr. Chairman, it is within the rules of the House and the 
    interpretation of the rule of germaneness that the amendment must 
    relate to the purposes of the legislation before the House.
        I would observe that the purposes of the legislation before the 
    House are to assure that automobiles will have a certain percentage 
    of domestic content in automobiles which are sold inside the United 
    States. The legislation before the House at this time deals with 
    automobiles and the trade in automobiles inside the boundaries of 
    the United States. The legislation before the House sets up no new 
    causes of action.
        There are provisions in the legislation which are essentially 
    disclaimers. The Chair will note that on page 15, in

[[Page 12234]]

    line 5, there is language which relates to disclaimers of an 
    intention to violate GATT and which do not confer any new 
    jurisdiction upon any court in the United States to consider or to 
    resolve conflicts related to GATT or ``to alter or amend any law 
    existing on the date of enactment. . . ..''
        I would observe that the amendment is much more broad, and I 
    would like the attention of the Chair with regard to a number of 
    points.
        First of all, in the last four lines of the amendment, the 
    language is:

            Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the United 
        States district court for the appropriate judicial district 
        shall have jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising under this 
        section.

        That is a very broad conferral of jurisdiction upon all of the 
    Federal courts of the United States in their respective judicial 
    districts to deal with disputes. That kind of an amendment would 
    necessarily have either gone initially or sequentially to the 
    Judiciary Committee because of the jurisdiction of that committee 
    relative to disputes and causes of action. I would refer the Chair 
    to the letter which relates to this matter as written by Chairman 
    Rodino on judicial matters.
        Mr. Chairman, there are some other points I would like to make 
    concerning the scope and the sweep of this matter. First of all, 
    the jurisdiction conferred upon U.S. district courts would be to 
    determine whether the Secretary had carried out his 
    responsibilities under lines 4 through 7 of the amendment, as to 
    whether the Secretary or any other party had taken any other action 
    under the act if the implementation of any provision of this act--
    and then it goes on to say this--``would violate the obligations of 
    the United States under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 
    . . .''
        So that question would be reviewable. The question would also 
    be reviewable as to whether or not the action of the Secretary 
    would result in retaliation by another country. I would observe 
    that an amendment which is contingent upon some future 
    indeterminate action is also violative of the rules on germaneness.
        Beyond this, the question would be placed before the courts 
    upon action by any citizen feeling aggrieved, under the last four 
    lines, lines 19 through 22, as to whether any other country would 
    be entitled to compensation from the United States in the form of 
    reduced restrictions on imports of agricultural, industrial, or 
    other products.
        This section confers jurisdiction relative to actions which 
    would be taken in other countries regarding a whole series of other 
    commodities, agricultural, industrial, and whatever they might 
    happen to otherwise be.
        In addition to this, it says, ``or other products from other 
    countries or to retaliation against the United States in the form 
    of increased restrictions. . . .''
        So those matters would again be subject to judicial review and 
    independent litigation by any person under the provisions of this 
    amendment.
        I would point out further that the amendment says, Mr. 
    Chairman, that the Secretary may not take action to implement the 
    law if it violates GATT. It also says, if it would entitle any 
    other country to compensation from the United States.

[[Page 12235]]

        Now, in Cannon's, VIII, 3029, it states that an amendment 
    delaying operation of a proposed enactment pending an ascertainment 
    of a fact is germane when the fact to be ascertained relates solely 
    to the subject matter of the bill.
        Here the condition to be ascertained, whether the act violates 
    GATT or would entitle another country to compensation, is not 
    germane.
        There are general foreign policy questions and concerns that 
    have to be addressed, as in the case of the prior amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Glickman) and which caused that 
    to be ruled out of order as not germane.
        Mr. Chairman, the bill also creates a broad new jurisdiction in 
    the U.S. district court, a form of judicial relief to determine if 
    the act violates GATT. That is, of course, an entirely new 
    provision relating to commodities, agricultural, industrial, or 
    other, which is far more broad than that in the bill.
        While this bill does allow the district court to enforce the 
    bill, this is an entirely new form of review and confers a cause of 
    action far more broad than any found anywhere else in the 
    legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this would confer broad 
    jurisdiction on private persons to enter the courts of the United 
    States. A provision of this sort would necessarily involve 
    jurisdiction of the committee having jurisdiction over that matter, 
    and that is, of course, the Judiciary Committee.
        The Chairman: (11) Does the gentleman from Indiana 
    (Mr. Coats) wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Coats: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Coats) may 
    proceed.
        Mr. Coats: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
    permitted to revise and extend my remarks.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that in 
    presenting his remarks on the point of order, he cannot make a 
    request to revise and extend.

        Mr. Coats: I will withdraw my unanimous consent to revise and 
    extend my remarks, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Coats: Mr. Chairman, the committee report issued by the 
    Committee on Energy and Commerce chaired by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) specifically states in section 2(c), which 
    was an amendment to the bill adopted by the committee, that:

            It is the intent of Congress that this act shall not be 
        deemed to modify or amend the terms or conditions of any 
        international treaty, convention, or agreement ***.

        That alone expands the jurisdiction of the bill beyond specific 
    auto content.
        Second, we also adopted an amendment which directed the 
    Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Trade Commission, in 
    fact it mandated a study as to the impact on agriculture. That 
    again expands the jurisdiction beyond what the gentleman claimed in 
    his point of order, that it is auto-specific. It is broader that 
    auto-specific because the bill itself as adopted by the committee 
    contains a direction that a study be conducted of the impact on 
    agriculture and that goes directly to

[[Page 12236]]

    the heart of the amendment that I am offering.
        In addition, let me just make a couple comments about the 
    jurisdiction of the courts. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
    the bill's proponents offered language which would in effect strip 
    the U.S. courts of jurisdiction to hear disputes under the act. 
    After lengthy debate on this issue, some of that language was 
    withdrawn and the bill now purports to be neutral on jurisdiction.
        This language in the amendment simply makes clear that as is 
    the normal case in any other case, U.S. courts would have 
    jurisdiction under this section to resolve disputes. These matters 
    of conflict between U.S. international obligations and U.S. 
    statutes should be decided by U.S. tribunals and not left solely to 
    international machinery.
        So I think it is clear that the amendment before us clearly 
    fits within the bill that we are taking up, that the jurisdiction 
    is broader than just an auto-specific content, as stated by the 
    congressional findings, purpose, and disclaimer, section 2(c) and 
    as stated in section 8(G) on page 33, which mandates a study as to 
    the effect on agriculture by the Secretary of Transportation and 
    the Federal Trade Commission.
        For that reason, I urge the Chair to rule against the point of 
    order.
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard 
    against the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to repeat the 
    arguments of the gentleman from Indiana that his amendment is 
    clearly germane to section 2(c) on page 15 of the bill, but I think 
    the Chair's perusal of that section will verify that fact.
        The point I would like to add in addition is that when the 
    Chair ruled against the Glickman amendment, it took pains to 
    specifically point out that the effect of the Glickman amendment or 
    its effectuation would take place because of items external to the 
    workings of the bill.
        The Coats amendment, on the other hand, would be effectuated 
    clearly by items that are covered by the bill and, therefore, it 
    is, to use a pardonable phrase, ``a horse of quite a different 
    color.''
        The Chairman: Is there any further argument with regard to the 
    point of order?
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I would just observe that my good 
    friend, the gentleman from Minnesota, has been reading the language 
    of a disclaimer. Never, I believe, in the history of the House has 
    a disclaimer been used to expand the jurisdiction or to expand the 
    purposes or the scope of legislation for purposes of defining 
    whether or not a matter is germane.
        Now, if the Chair will refer to the report of the committee, 
    the Chair will find that the disclaimer is constructed, and it says 
    how the disclaimer is to be constructed, and the disclaimer says as 
    follows:

            The subsection also contains a disclaimer that the Act 
        should not be construed to confer new jurisdiction on any 
        Federal court to consider and resolve such conflicts. In short, 
        it states that the Act is not to be con

[[Page 12237]]

        strued to confer jurisdiction where none presently exists. At 
        the same time, it declares that the Act does not alter or amend 
        any law existing on the date of enactment of this Act which may 
        confer such jurisdictions on the courts.

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York is recognized.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, under the General Agreement on 
    Tariff and Trade, there is an elaborate procedure that is 
    prescribed with respect to complaints under that act. There is no 
    jurisdiction in the Federal courts at the present time that 
    somebody can go in and seek to enforce the provisions of GATT in 
    our courts.
        What the bill says on page 15 is that nothing in this act shall 
    be construed to confer jurisdiction.
        Were we to have gone ahead and sought to confer jurisdiction, 
    it clearly would have been beyond the jurisdiction of our 
    committee. It would have had to go to the Judiciary Committee.
        The disclaimer was put in to protect that at the express 
    request of Chairman Rodino.
        Therefore, since this amendment does seek to confer 
    jurisdiction which presently is not there, and that is a matter not 
    within the jurisdiction of the bill, I urge that the Chair sustain 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: Are there any further arguments with regard to 
    the point of order?
        If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
        First of all, the Chair would note that the bill before the 
    House at the present time differs from the bill that was before the 
    House in the last session.
        In the legislation that is currently before the House, the 
    committee dealt with the issue of the relationship between this 
    legislation and other law in section 2(c) which states:
        It is the intent of Congress that this Act shall not be deemed 
    to modify or amend the terms or conditions of any international 
    treaty, convention, or agreement that may be applicable to 
    automotive products entered for sale and distribution in interstate 
    commerce and to which the United States, on the date of the 
    enactment of this Act, is a party, including, but not limited to, 
    the terms or conditions of any such treaty, convention, or 
    agreement which provide for the resolution of conflicts between the 
    parties thereto. Nothing in this Act shall be construed (1) to 
    confer jurisdiction upon any court of the United States to consider 
    and resolve such conflicts, or (2) to alter or amend any law 
    existing on the date of enactment of this Act which may confer such 
    jurisdiction in such courts.
        Section 2(c) therefore addresses the issue of interpretation of 
    the bill as it applies to treaties, conventions, and other 
    agreements applicable to automotive products.
        The amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
    Indiana deals specifically with the actions of the Secretary in the 
    implementation of provisions that may relate to treaties, 
    specifically the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
        It would appear, therefore, that the amendment does relate to 
    subject matter that has already been introduced in the bill by 
    virtue of section 2(c).

[[Page 12238]]

        With regard to the court jurisdiction argument, that issue is 
    addressed within the bill, specifically on page 30, relating to 
    appropriate judicial circuits for judicial review and other 
    provisions that relate to the jurisdiction of Federal courts. So 
    the Chair feels that the issue of court jurisdiction has, in fact, 
    been presented within the legislation.
        With regard to the disclaimer argument, it is the position of 
    the Chair that if the provision in the bill was merely a narrow and 
    technical disclaimer, then the argument of the gentleman from 
    Michigan might prevail; but since it can be read as an overall 
    provision that relates to the broad interpretation of the bill as 
    it applies to trade agreements, and since the test the Chair must 
    apply is the relationship of the amendment to the bill as a whole, 
    it is the position of the Chair that the point of order should not 
    be sustained.
        Is there any further discussion with regard to the amendment?

Chair's Right To Clarify Ruling in Record

Sec. 7.23 The Chair formerly exercised the right under the precedents 
    and applicable standards regarding ``accuracy in the Record'' to 
    refine his ruling on a point of order in the Record to clarify, but 
    not to change the substance of, the ruling.

    On Feb. 19, 1992,(12) Mr. Robert S. Walker, of 
Pennsylvania, who had debated the Chair at length following his ruling 
of Feb. 5, again raised the issue. Comparing the audio transcripts of 
the Chair's ruling with what appeared in the Record on the Feb. 5 
proceedings, Mr. Walker determined that a change had been made. The 
Chair had in the ruling used the word ``because'' as a conjunction 
between two independent clauses. He had stated that House Resolution 
258 came within the exception in clause 5(c), Rule XI. The change made 
in the transcript was as follows: ``It is the ruling of the Chair at 
this time that the task force comes under that exception because the 
task force is a subunit of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and not a 
separate entity. In the revisions, the Chair replaced ``because'' with 
a comma and made the two clauses independent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 138 Cong. Rec. 2461, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair's exchange with Mr. Walker is carried in full.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Michael R. McNulty (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, if a Member has reason to believe that 
    the Chair has made an inaccurate ruling, and if, further, that 
    Member has rea

[[Page 12239]]

    son to believe that that inaccurate ruling was further made 
    problematic by the addition of words to the Record spoken by the 
    Chair or the deletion of words in the Record spoken by the Chair, 
    what is the recourse of action available to the Member to bring 
    about the appropriate correction?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the Member discuss the nature of 
    the concern with the Chair so that he can further understand the 
    concern?
        Mr. Walker: I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday, 
    February 5, the Chair was asked to rule on the matter of the rule 
    on the task force concerning the holding of hostages by Iran in 
    1980.
        At that time, this Member suggested that the Chair had ruled 
    inaccurately by suggesting that this matter did not apply, because 
    we were dealing with a subunit of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
        When I go back and find the Record, I discover that that is 
    precisely what the Chair ruled. I at that point challenged the 
    ruling of the Chair. We had a vote. The Chair was upheld despite 
    the fact that the ruling is inaccurate.
        Later on, in raising questions about that, the Chair then made 
    a number of statements to clarify its position. When I put the 
    Record of the House, the written Record of the House, against the 
    tapes of that day, I find that words were added to the Chair's 
    message. I also find that things were deleted from what the Chair 
    actually said in the course of clarifying its decision. . . .
        I would now like to figure out how it is we can go about 
    correcting both the ruling of the Chair and the fact that the 
    Record has been changed with regard to the words of the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would remind the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania that the ruling of the Chair that day was 
    sustained by a vote, and that the Chair subsequently has the right 
    to clarify his ruling. . . .
        And it did not change the thrust of the ruling.
        Mr. Walker: In clarifying its ruling, does not the Chair have 
    an obligation to the House to accurately reflect his ruling in the 
    presentation to the House and not then modify that statement later 
    on by both adding words and deleting words from the Chair's 
    statement as the official Record appears? . . .
        Well, if that is the case, then why does the permanent Record 
    of the House as reflected on the videotape differ with the Record 
    reflected in the printed Record of the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Because the gentleman was attempting 
    to clarify his ruling as a result of the inquiry from the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Walker: So a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Even in matters then where precedent is being set, 
    we can have the person who occupies the Chair modify their words in 
    the Record and thereby change, in my opinion, the intent of the 
    ruling.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without changing the ruling, the Chair 
    may do that.
        Mr. Walker: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 12240]]

        Mr. Walker: Is it not true that Members are not granted that 
    right, so therefore that is a special right that has now been 
    created for the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Members have the right to revise and 
    extend their remarks continuously.
        Mr. Walker: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Under recent rulings, Members have been admonished 
    very clearly that they are not to change in any way the substantive 
    value of what they say in those revisions and extensions. In my 
    opinion, the Chair has done that here.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: To the best of the knowledge of the 
    Chair, the person who was in the Chair on that day did not change 
    the substance of his ruling.

Sec. 7.24 The Speaker announced that consistent with clause 9 of Rule 
    XIV, adopted in the 104th Congress, statements and rulings of the 
    Chair appearing in the Record would be a substantially verbatim 
    account of those words as spoken during the proceedings of the 
    House, subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical 
    corrections.

        The Speaker made the following announcement on Jan. 20, 1995: 
    (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (15) The Chair announces that 
    consistent with clause 9 of rule XIV, statements and rulings of the 
    Chair appearing in the Record will be a substantially verbatim 
    account of those words as spoken during the proceedings of the 
    House, subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical 
    corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Newt Gingrich (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the permanent Record of January 18 at pages 
    301 and 303 will reflect this policy.
        There was no objection.

    This announcement was precipitated by a point of order raised under 
clause 9 of Rule XIV on Jan. 19, 1995,(16) against 
modifications made in certain statements by the Chair. The point of 
order and inquiries on that earlier day are carried here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               point of order

        Mr. [Barney] Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman from 
    Massachusetts is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. David Dreier (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of 
    this session, the House adopted a new rule which says the 
    Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of 
    remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to 
    technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by 
    the Member making the remarks involved.

[[Page 12241]]

        In the Congressional Record that we received this morning, 
    reflecting yesterday's proceedings, at page H301 in the transcript 
    of the remarks of the Speaker pro tempore, the gentleman from 
    Florida, there are two changes that were made between what he, in 
    fact, said and what is in the Record.
        The first change is as follows:
        He said yesterday with regard to the statements of the 
    gentlewoman from Florida about the book of the Speaker, ``It is the 
    Speaker's opinion that innuendo and personal references to the 
    Speaker's conduct are not in order.''
        That has been altered and that does not appear verbatim in the 
    Congressional Record. Instead, it says, ``It is the Speaker's 
    opinion that innuendo and critical references to the Speaker's 
    personal conduct are not in order.''
        Additionally, later on in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    from the gentleman from Missouri, the Speaker pro tempore said, as 
    I recollect it, ``it has been the Chair's ruling, and the 
    precedents of the House support this, a higher level of respect is 
    due to the Speaker.''
        In the Congressional Record that has been changed to ``a proper 
    level of respect.''
        Now, I do not believe that changing ``personal'' to 
    ``critical'' and ``proper'' to ``higher'' is either technical, 
    grammatical, or typographical. Both make quite substantive changes. 
    Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that by the standard that the 
    Speaker yesterday uttered, the gentlewoman from Florida was judged, 
    but if you take today's standard of revised, illegitimately revised 
    version that is in the Record, there would be no objection to what 
    the gentlewoman from Florida said.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair might respond to the 
    gentleman.
        The Chair would recite from the manual that in accordance with 
    existing accepted practices, the Speaker may make such technical or 
    parliamentary insertions, or corrections in transcript as may be 
    necessary to conform to rule, custom, or precedent. The Chair does 
    not believe that any revision changed the meaning of the ruling.
        The Chair would under the circumstances inform the House on 
    behalf of the Parliamentarian that the new rule is as it might 
    apply to the role of the Chair will be examined.

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled, and I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
    recognized.
        Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: The Speaker cited previous 
    references to the House rules and manual. That predates the rules 
    change adopted this year. This is not simply a case of making a 
    technical change in a ruling. We are talking also about substantive 
    changes in the debate in the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has made it very clear, the 
    Chair would say to the gentleman.
        Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: No, the Chair has not.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has made it clear that the 
    Parliamentarian plans to examine this issue.
        Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I have a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 12242]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
    recognized.
        Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: In the first instance, I thought 
    the Speaker was the responsible ruler in this situation, while the 
    Parliamentarian advised him.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.