[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 15, Chapter 31]
[Chapter 31. Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries]
[B. Parliamentary Inquiries]
[Â§ 14. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 12410-12467]
 
                               CHAPTER 31
 
                Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
 
                 B. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
 
Sec. 14. In General

    Parliamentary inquiries are in the nature of procedural questions 
of the Chair, relating to the pending order of business. Compared to 
points of order, the raising of a parliamentary inquiry is a relatively 
informal procedure. In contrast to points of order, no appeal will lie 
from the Chair's response to a parliamentary inquiry.(1) It 
is

[[Page 12411]]

within the discretion of the Chair whether to recognize Members for the 
purpose of propounding parliamentary inquiries.(2) Like 
points of order, however, parliamentary inquiries are properly 
submitted only to the Chair.(3) And where an inquiry is 
directed to House procedure, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
may suggest that the inquiry be addressed to the Speaker when he is 
presiding.(4) Similarly, the Speaker may defer an inquiry 
properly within the cognizance of the Member presiding over the 
Committee of the Whole.(5) Where both an inquiry and a point 
of order are directed to the Chair, the point of order, if timely, 
takes precedence.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 14.4, infra. See also 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6955, 
        8 Cannon's Precdents Sec. Sec. 3457.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 14.1, 14.2, 14.5, infra. See also 6 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 541.
 3. See Sec. 14.14, infra.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 14.39, 14.43, infra.
 5. See Sec. Sec. 14.40, 14.41, infra.
 6. See Sec. 14.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples of subjects deemed suitable for parliamentary inquiries 
include the anticipated order of business,(7) the status of 
the Clerk's progress in reading a document which is before the 
House,(8) the proper or accepted interpretation of a 
rule,(9) the order in which amendments should be 
offered,(10) and the like. Subjects that may not be raised 
by way of a parliamentary inquiry include hypothetical 
questions,(11) a request for an advisory 
opinion,(12) the effect of a vote about to be 
taken,(13) the future exercise of the Chair's power of 
recognition,(14) and the construction or meaning of language 
in a bill (15) or in an amendment.(16) The Chair 
may defer his response to a parliamentary inquiry until he has time to 
research the applicable precedents.(17) It is an improper 
use of a parliamentary inquiry to secure recognition for the limited 
purpose of making an inquiry, and then attempting to offer an 
amendment,(18) or to debate the merits of a pending 
proposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 14.7, infra.
 8. See Sec. 14.12, infra.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 14.6, 14.8, 14.44, infra.
10. See Sec. 14.10, infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 14.16, 14.17, infra. See also Ch. 5, supra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 14.19, 14.33, infra.
13. See Sec. 14.20, infra.
14. See Sec. 14.42, infra.
15. See Sec. 14.18, infra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 14.18, 14.22, 14.35, infra, and 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 254.
17. See Sec. Sec. 14.24-14.28, infra.
18. See Sec. 14.38, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discretion of Chair

Sec. 14.1 Recognition of Members for the purpose of propounding 
    parliamentary in

[[Page 12412]]

    quiries is within the discretion of the Chair.

    On Sept. 11, 1968,(19) numerous parliamentary inquiries 
were posed to Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, who 
responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 26453-56, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 114 Cong. 
        Rec. 30214-16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, as long as these delaying tactics are 
    observed, is this preventing the military appropriation bill from 
    being considered--to take care of our fighting men?
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, is the conference report agreed to on 
    the Speaker's desk, as agreed to by the other body?
        The Speaker: The Chair, in reply, will say that it has been 
    returned from the Senate and is available. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Abernethy: I thank the Speaker.
        Is there any parliamentary procedure whereby these 
    parliamentary inquiries may be brought to a parliamentary 
    conclusion?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that a parliamentary inquiry 
    is a matter of discretion with the Chair. The Chair knows that the 
    gentleman from Mississippi would want to preserve the right of any 
    occupant of the Chair in that respect.

Sec. 14.2 Recognition for parliamentary inquiries is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, who may decline to entertain an inquiry 
    not relevant to the immediately pending question.

    On June 8, 1972,(20) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
refused to entertain a parliamentary inquiry which did not relate to a 
pending motion for the previous question on a conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 20339, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        the conference report on S. 659, the higher education 
        amendments of 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I do want to 
    point out that we have most important provisions affecting the 
    Vocational Educational Act of 1963. Certain of those programs will 
    expire unless the conference report is adopted.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 12413]]

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry relate 
    to the previous question?
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, it does not relate to the vote on 
    the previous question.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.

Relative Precedence of Point of Order and Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 14.3 A timely point of order takes precedence over a parliamentary 
    inquiry, and the reservation of a parliamentary inquiry gives no 
    priority to that purpose, since recognition is within the 
    discretion of the Chair.

    While the Federal Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977 was 
being read for amendment under the five-minute rule in Committee of the 
Whole, on June 7, 1977,(1) an amendment was challenged as 
being not germane. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 17713, 17714, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas N.] Kindness [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments, and I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry with respect 
    thereto.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, may I reserve my parliamentary 
    inquiry and make it after the reading of the amendments?
        The Chairman: Certainly, the gentleman may do that.
        The Clerk will report the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Kindness: Page 28, line 12, 
        strike out ``but does not include a member of the uniformed 
        services'' and insert ``including any member of the uniformed 
        services''.
            Page 30, line 12, strike out ``and''.
            Page 32, line 3, strike out the period and insert ``; 
        and''.
            Page 32, after line 3, insert: ``(10) `Secretary concerned' 
        has the same meaning as given such term in section 101(5) of 
        title 37.
            Page 35, line 2, strike out ``or a member of a uniformed 
        service,''.
            Page 38, line 14, immediately before the period insert ``or 
        by reason of being a member of the uniformed services''.
            Page 45, before line 8, insert the following:
            ``(j) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of a uniformed 
        service. Procedures with respect to any such violation shall, 
        under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be the 
        same as those applicable with respect to violations of section 
        892 of title 10.
            Page 46, after line 12, insert the following:
            ``(c) The preceding provisions of this section shall not 
        apply in the case of a violation by a member of the uniformed 
        services. Any such violation shall, under regulations 
        prescribed by the Secretary concerned, be subject to the same 
        penalties as apply in the case of a violation of section 892 of 
        title 10.''.

[[Page 12414]]

            Page 47, after line 21, insert the following:
            ``(d) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary concerned shall carry out the responsibilities 
        imposed on the Commission under the preceding provisions of 
        this section.''.
            Page 48, line 17, strike out the close quotation mark and 
        the period.
            Page 48, after line 17, insert:
            ``(c) In the case of members of the uniformed services, the 
        Secretary concerned shall prescribe the regulations the 
        Commission is required to prescribe under this section, section 
        7322(9), and section 7324(c)(2) and (3) of this title.''.

        Mr. [William] Clay [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. Clay: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order on the 
    grounds that the matter contained in the amendment is in violation 
    of the germaneness rule stated in clause 7 of House rule XVI.
        The instant amendment proposes to make the bill applicable to 
    an entirely new class of individuals other than what is covered 
    under the bill.
        The reported bill applies only to civilian employees in 
    executive branch agencies, including the Postal Service and the 
    District of Columbia government, who are presently under the Hatch 
    Act.
        The amendment seeks to add a totally different class of 
    individuals to the bill; namely, military personnel who are not now 
    covered by the Hatch Act. Accordingly the amendment is not germane 
    to the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) wish 
    to speak to the point of order?
        Mr. Kindness: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I understood that I was recognized prior to the 
    reading of the amendment for the purpose of stating a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman chose to 
    defer his inquiry.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the gentleman's 
    point of order is out of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that a point of order is now 
    in order and has preference.
        Mr. Kindness: Responding, then, to the point of order, Mr. 
    Chairman, the bill, as before us at this time, has been expanded in 
    considerable degree by the Clay amendment and by other amendments 
    that have been adopted during the course of the consideration of 
    the bill in the Committee of the Whole.
        However, I would point out that the amendment is germane, and I 
    particularly direct the attention of the Chairman and the Members 
    to line 12 of page 28 where, in the definition of the word 
    ``employee'' the words appear, on line 12, ``but does not include a 
    member of the uniformed services.''
        Mr. Chairman, that is the very crux of this whole point. The 
    committee has given consideration, apparently, to the inclusion or 
    exclusion of members of uniformed services under the provisions of 
    this bill. A conscious decision was apparently made; and as 
    reported to the House, this bill has that conscious decision 
    reflected in it not to include members of the uniformed services.

[[Page 12415]]

        Mr. Chairman, the issue is directly before the House in that 
    form, so that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio is 
    in order, is pertinent, and is germane. It could not be nongermane.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of 
    order.
        The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) makes a point of order 
    that the striking of the language, ``but does not include a member 
    of the uniformed services,'' and the remainder of the amendment 
    broadens the scope of the bill in violation of rule XVI, clause 7.
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kindness) argues that because the 
    exclusion from coverage for the military is in the bill and has 
    received consideration, that the germaneness rule should be more 
    liberally interpreted.
        An annotation to clause 7, rule XVI, says that, in general, an 
    amendment simply striking out words already in a bill may not be 
    attacked as not germane unless such action would change the scope 
    and meaning of the text. Cannons VIII, section 2921; Deschler's 
    chapter 28, sec. 15.3.
        On October 28, 1975, Chairman Jordan of Texas ruled, during the 
    consideration of a bill H.R. 2667, giving the right of 
    representation to Federal employees during questioning as follows:

            In a bill amending a section of title 5, United States 
        Code, granting certain rights to employees of executive 
        agencies of the Federal Government, an amendment extending 
        those rights to, in that case, legislative branch employees, as 
        defined in a different section of that title, was held to go 
        beyond the scope of the bill and was ruled out as not germane.

        The class of employees included in this legislation is confined 
    to civilian employees of the Government, and those specifically so 
    stated and described as being civilian employees of the executive 
    agencies, of the Postal Service and of the District of Columbia 
    government, and a reference to the Hatch Act as currently in force 
    indicates that military personnel are not included in that act.
        It is obvious that the purpose and the scope of the act before 
    us as referred to in its entirety as amended by this bill, is, ``to 
    restore to Federal civilian and Postal Service employees their 
    rights to participate voluntarily, as private citizens, in the 
    political processes of the Nation, to protect such employees from 
    improper political solicitations, and for other purposes.''
        The Chair finds that the striking of the language excluding 
    military employees and inserting language covering the military 
    broadens the class of the persons covered by this bill to an extent 
    that it substantially changes the text and substantially changes 
    the purpose of the bill. The fact that the exclusion of military 
    personnel was stated in the bill does not necessarily bring into 
    question the converse of that proposition. The Chair therefore 
    finds that the amendment is not germane and sustains the point of 
    order.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, has the Chairman ruled on that part 
    of the position stated by the gentleman from Ohio that the bill has 
    already been expanded in scope by reason of the inclusion of 
    provisions with respect to gov

[[Page 12416]]

    ernment employees very similar in category to those who are in the 
    uniformed services and indeed include some in the uniformed 
    services, I believe?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair finds that 
    the general language of the uniformed services is capable of clear 
    interpretation as meaning the military forces of this country.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, I have another parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Kindness: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this: 
    Is there a way to appeal the ruling of the Chair within the rules 
    of the House?
        The Chairman: Yes, there is.
        Mr. Kindness: So that I may respectfully appeal the ruling of 
    the Chair at this point?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Ohio desires to do so.
        Does the gentleman desire to appeal the ruling of the Chair?
        Mr. Kindness: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not so desire at this 
    point.

Appeals

Sec. 14.4 Appeals from responses by the Chair to parliamentary 
    inquiries are not recognized and collateral challenges to 
    proceedings not immediately subjected to points of order cannot be 
    made by appeals from responses to parliamentary inquiries 
    pertaining thereto.

    On Sept. 4, 1940,(3) there was particularly acrimonious 
debate on the floor of the House between supporters of peacetime 
conscription and those opposed to it. Apparently, there was even a 
scuffle between two Members. Not satisfied that the words of Mr. 
Beverly M. Vincent, of Kentucky, had been taken down properly, Mr. 
Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, disputed the handling of the matter by 
Speaker Pro Tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, and attempted to appeal 
the response to a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 86 Cong. Rec. 11516, 11517, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 10132, providing for compulsory military training and 
        service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, a point of order and a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago certain words were 
    uttered by the gentleman on the floor of the House which I demanded 
    be taken down. No report was made of those words. I demand the 
    regular order-the taking down of the words, the report of the 
    words, and the reading by the Clerk.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Sub-sequently, unanimous consent was 
    granted for the words to be withdrawn.
        Mr. Hoffman: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker; three Members were on their 
    feet. I was one of them, and objecting to that.

[[Page 12417]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That was the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. Hoffman: I appeal from the ruling of the Chair then.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is not a ruling, it is just an 
    answer to a parliamentary inquiry.

Chair Controls Recognition for Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 14.5 Recognition for a parliamentary inquiry is within the 
    discretion and control of the Chair, and a Member so recognized may 
    not yield to other Members.

    On Mar. 16, 1988,(4) a Member who had been recognized 
for a one- minute speech refused to end his remarks at the end of that 
time, despite repeated admonitions from the Chair. Eventually, the 
Speaker Pro Tempore ordered the Sergeant at Arms to turn off the 
microphone on the floor so that the Member would desist. Inadvertently, 
the persons regulating the House coverage by television turned off the 
sound on the broadcast of the House proceedings. Several Members then 
came to the floor to protest this action. Various parliamentary 
inquiries were entertained by the Chair and eventually he felt it 
necessary to reiterate that Members may not carry on a dialogue with 
each other under the guise of a parliamentary inquiry. A portion of 
these hectic proceedings is carried herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 134 Cong. Rec. 4081, 4084-87, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Let Us Have Another Vote on Contra Aid

        (Mr. Dornan of California asked and was given permission to 
    address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his 
    remarks.)
        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: Mr. Speaker, and I 
    address a different Member of this Chamber from New York, because 
    you have left your chair, and Mr. Majority Whip from California, 
    you have also fled the floor. In 10 years Jim and Tony--I am not 
    using any traditional titles like ``distinguished gentleman''--Jim 
    and Tony, in 10 years I have never heard on this floor so obnoxious 
    a statement as I heard. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The time of the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dornan of California: Wait a minute. On Honduran soil and 
    on Nicaraguan soil.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Dornan of California: And it was set up in this House as 
    you set up the betrayal of the Bay of Pigs.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Dornan of California: I ask--wait a minute--I ask unanimous 
    consent for 30 seconds. People are dying.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page 12418]]

        Mr. Dornan of California: People are dying.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, regular 
    order, regular order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired. 
    Will the Sergeant at Arms please turn off the microphone?
        Mr. Dornan of California: You get your regular order, people 
    are dying. You get your regular order now. People are dying because 
    of this Chamber. I demand a Contra vote on aid to the Democratic 
    Resistance and the freedom fighters in Central America. In the name 
    of God and liberty and decency I demand another vote in this 
    Chamber next week.
        Don't get a hernia and break your gavel. Don't get a hernia.

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. [Jud] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I was just in my office viewing the 
    proceedings here, and during one of the proceedings, when the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Dornan) was addressing the House, it 
    was drawn to my attention that the Speaker requested that Mr. 
    Dornan's microphone be turned off, upon which Mr. Dornan's 
    microphone was turned off.

        Mr. Speaker, my inquiry of the Chair is: Under what rule does 
    the Speaker decide to gag opposite Members of the House? Under what 
    rule does the Speaker decide to close down the debate and pursue a 
    policy of shutting up the opposition by not allowing us access to 
    the public and to the media and to our own microphones, the 
    microphones of this House? Under what rule of this House or of our 
    country or our Constitution is freedom of the speech so grossly 
    violated in this institution?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman asked to proceed for 1 
    minute----
        Mr. Gregg: No, I am asking that of the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is referring to Mr. Dornan. 
    He requested permission of the Chair to proceed for 1 minute, and 
    that permission was granted by the House. Mr. Dornan grossly 
    exceeded the limits and abused the privilege far in excess of 1 
    minute, and the Chair proceeded to restore order and decorum to the 
    House. . . .
        Mr. Gregg: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. 
    Is it the Chair's intention to turn off my microphone?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: What is the gentleman's parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Gregg: My parliamentary inquiry is that I want to know how 
    the Chair can specifically turn off the microphone and what rule 
    the Chair does it under, because the Chair has not answered that 
    question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has responded to the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from New Hampshire.
        Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time, and yield to the 
    gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Martin).

[[Page 12419]]

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that a Member may 
    not yield time to another Member under a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. [Paul B.] Henry [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I rise for a 
    point of parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Speaker, I was among those who were on the floor during the 
    exchange which we have been debating and would like to indicate it 
    was the consensus of many of us that when the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Dornan) was addressing the House the floor 
    microphones were not turned off but the difficulty arose in part 
    that the television broadcast, the C-SPAN microphones were cut off. 
    Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House clearly stipulate that 
    electronic broadcast of the proceedings of the House shall be a 
    fair and accurate proceedings, recording and rendering of 
    proceedings of the House.
        I am wondering if the Speaker would respond as to the 
    appropriateness in this instance when apparently the C-SPAN 
    electronic broadcast of the proceedings of the House were cut off 
    while the House microphones were not.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair assure the gentleman 
    that the Chair was directing his remarks to the in-house 
    microphones and certainly not to the coverage of the proceedings of 
    the House by electronic media or the press. . . .
        Mr. Henry: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry 
    and to respond. I had been recognized on this issue and I would 
    like to be very clear for the Record because of the serious 
    importance of this issue: As I understand the Chair's response we 
    are told that your instructions were in fact to turn off the House 
    floor microphones--whether that is appropriate or not is another 
    question--but that was mistakenly acted upon by the internal 
    broadcast mechanism so in fact the House floor's inadvertently 
    remained on and the electronic microphones for internal broadcast 
    system which the other electronic relays rely on was cut off. Am I 
    correct in that, Mr. Speaker? I want to clarify very clearly that 
    the Chair does not have the power to turn off----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct for coverage 
    of proceedings of the House. It was the intent of the Chair to turn 
    off the House microphones.
        Mr. Henry: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Parliamentary Inquiries at Chair's Discretion

Sec. 14.6 Parliamentary inquiries are entertained at the discretion of 
    the Chair, and on occasion, the Chair will respond to inquiries, 
    following a ruling on a point of order, as to the basis for or 
    consequence of that ruling.

    On Feb. 5, 1992,(6) a resolution creating a task force 
of members

[[Page 12420]]

of the Foreign Affairs Committee to investigate certain allegations 
concerning the holding of Americans as hostages by Iran in 1980 was 
called up for consideration. The resolution had been reported from both 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on House 
Administration, since it both created the task force and funded its 
operations. A point of order was lodged against the consideration of 
the resolution based on the contention that a primary expense 
resolution had not been reported to fund the task force, as required by 
Rule XI clause 5, or, if the resolution was itself a primary expense 
resolution, it failed to meet the standards set for such a resolution 
by the rule. After argument, the Chair overruled the point of order and 
his decision was sustained on appeal. After the ruling, Mr. Robert S. 
Walker, of Pennsylvania, directed a series of inquiries to the Chair. 
The point of order, the Chair's ruling, and the subsequent 
``interrogatories'' are set forth here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 138 Cong. Rec. 1621-23, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Creating a Task Force To Investigate Certain Allegations Concerning 
            the Holding of Americans as Hostages by Iran in 1980

        Mr. [Butler C.] Derrick [Jr., of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, 
    pursuant to House Resolution 303, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 
    258) creating a task force of members of the Foreign Affairs 
    Committee to investigate certain allegations concerning the holding 
    of Americans as hostages by Iran in 1980, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Bob] McEwen [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against House Resolution 258 on grounds that it is in 
    violation of clause 5(a) of House rule XI, and I ask to be heard on 
    my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. David R. Obey (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McEwen: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Speaker, House rule XI, clause 5(a) provides that whenever 
    a committee, commission or other entity is to be granted 
    authorization for the payment from the contingent fund of the House 
    of its expenses in any year, ``such authorization initially shall 
    be procured by one primary expense resolution for the committee, 
    commission or other entity.''
        The rule goes on to require that ``any such primary expense 
    resolution reported to the House shall not be considered in the 
    House unless a printed report on that resolution'' shall ``state 
    the total amount of the funds to be provided to the committee, 
    commission or other entity under the primary expense resolution for 
    all anticipated activities and programs * * *.''
        Mr. Speaker, it is my assumption that this resolution, which 
    was reported by the House Administration and authorizes the payment 
    of ex

[[Page 12421]]

    penses from the contingent fund, is the primary expense resolution 
    for the task force. And yet the committee report on this 
    resolution, House Report 102-296, part II, does not ``state the 
    total amount of funds to be provided'' as required by rule XI, 
    clause 5(a).
        If, on the other hand, it is argued that House Resolution 258 
    is not a primary expense resolution, then it is not in order since 
    House rule XI, clause 5(a) requires that whenever any entity such 
    as this task force is to be granted authorization for the payment 
    of expenses from the contingent fund, and I quote, ``such 
    authorization initially shall be procured by one primary expense 
    resolution for the committee, commission or other entity.'' In 
    other words, this resolution is not in order until after a primary 
    expense resolution has been adopted by this House.
        I urge that my point of order be sustained.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from South Carolina 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Derrick: Mr. Speaker, under clause 5(c), the funds will be 
    provided to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and they will, in 
    turn, provide the funds to the subcommittee, I mean to the 
    committee that we are establishing.
        Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, does Chairman Whitten share that view?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman wish to be heard 
    further on the point of order?
        Mr. Derrick: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to read clause 5(c) 
    on page 482 of the House Rules Manual. I would be glad to read that 
    for you.
        Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the gentleman to say 
    that the money is coming from the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
    funds; is that what he is saying?
        Mr. Derrick: Mr. Speaker, the House Administration Committee, 
    in its forthcoming resolution, will provide funds to the Committee 
    on Foreign Affairs and they will provide it to the committee that 
    is being established. And this authority is provided under 5(c).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman desire to be heard 
    further on the point of order?
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard.
        Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me as though the gentleman from South 
    Carolina is contending that the money is previously authorized 
    under the House Administration's budget and so therefore the money 
    is allocated there. When the House Administration Committee's 
    budget was put into place, there was absolutely nothing in the 
    House Administration budget which indicated that this task force 
    was going to be formed. The new entity being created under the 
    rules is the entity of the task force. It is that entity to which 
    the gentleman from Ohio has referred, it is that entity to which 
    the House rules speak. Either the House rules are going to apply to 
    this or we are going to completely abandon any pretense that the 
    House rules have meaning with regard to spending. This is very much 
    of a spending issue because if in fact we do not obey House rules 
    there, we have open ended the fund for this task force for as far 
    out into the future as we can see.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule unless 
    the

[[Page 12422]]

    gentleman from Ohio wishes to be heard further on his point of 
    order.
        Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, I would only say as a member of the 
    Committee on Rules, reading the rules, it says that if we are going 
    to spend money, it has to be authorized under a resolution. It is 
    not before us. There is no rule that permits us to proceed at this 
    time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Ohio, in a point of 
    order, suggests to the House that under rule XI, clause 5(a), there 
    needs to be a total amount stated in the report of the Committee on 
    House Administration for funding of the task force, and the Chair 
    would simply point out that the primary expense resolution for the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs and all other committees will be 
    reported to the House later this year.
        As the gentleman from South Carolina has attempted to point out 
    to the House, clause 5(c) of rule XI reads as follows:

            The preceding provisions of this clause do not apply to--
            (1) any resolution providing for the payment from the 
        contingent fund of the House of sums necessary to pay 
        compensation for staff services performed for, or to pay other 
        expenses of, any committee, commission or other entity at any 
        time from and after the beginning of any year and before the 
        date of adoption by the House of the primary expense resolution 
        providing funds to pay the expenses of that committee, 
        commission or other entity for that year.

        It is the ruling of the Chair at this time that the task force 
    comes under that exception. The task force is a subunit of the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs and not a separate entity.
        The point of order is, therefore, overruled.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal the ruling of 
    the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
    Walker] appeals the ruling of the Chair.
        The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
    judgment of the House?

                   motion to table offered by mr. derrick

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

            Mr. Derrick moves to lay on the table the appeal by the 
        gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] on the ruling of the 
        Chair.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to table 
    offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick].
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Walker) there were--ayes 19, noes 29. . . .
        So the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair 
    was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 12423]]

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry is that the 
    Chair in its ruling on the previous point of order indicated, and I 
    think the video record of the House will confirm this, that the 
    reason for the ruling was that the entity being created is a 
    subunit of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Is that not what the 
    Chair ruled?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has ruled on the basis that 
    clause 5(c) of rule XI simply provides an applicable exception, and 
    the Chair has ruled on that basis.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary 
    inquiry. My understanding of the Chair was that 5(c) applied 
    because this was a subunit of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The 
    Chair specifically mentioned the Foreign Affairs Committee in his 
    ruling. It is now my understanding, after further consultation, 
    that that is not the case, and so, therefore, the Chair's ruling 
    was based upon an understanding which does not exist under section 
    5(c).

        Would the Chair clarify for the House the entity we are about 
    to create?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the resolution, the task force 
    consists of members of and reports to the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs. But in any event, the Chair has ruled that the clause (c) 
    exception applies to the task force. This is the first example, 
    since the rule cited the creation of an entity and its funding at 
    the same time. That is why the resolution was sequentially referred 
    to the House Administration Committee. In any event, the clause 
    5(c) exception applies to any entity, not to any preexisting 
    entity. . . .
        Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry. If that was 
    the impression of the Chair at the time, is that what the Chair 
    ruled?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair ruled as the Chair stated.
        Mr. Walker: The Chair ruled on section (c).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On any entity being excepted under 
    (c).
        Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry. The Chair 
    ruled on section 5(c) based upon his contention that it was a 
    subunit of the Foreign Affairs Committee. What I am seeking to find 
    out is whether or not the Chair is now withdrawing that contention.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair's ruling was based on the 
    literal ruling of 5(c).
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair for pointing out it was based 
    upon a literal ruling of 5(c). However, the specific ruling of the 
    Chair, and again, I point out the video record of the House will 
    certainly confirm this, that he ruled on 5(c) based upon----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has already commented on 
    that and does not care to repeat himself. . . .
        Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, under my point of order under clause 
    5(a) of House rule XI, I stated that the new entity being created 
    by the resolution currently before us had to meet the requirements 
    of that. You have stated now that this new entity is a subunit.
        Can the Chair rule for me the circumstances under which my rule 
    cited here, clause 5(a) of rule XI, would apply ever?

[[Page 12424]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair read the exception as it 
    applies in this instance and has ruled accordingly.
        Mr. McEwen: So can the Chair state for me of an instance or 
    example in which the rule that I cited under the belief that it 
    applied to the House would be applicable to anything stated?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot speculate about other 
    situations, and the Chair has provided the ruling, and the House 
    has spoken.

Scope of Permissible Inquiries

Sec. 14.7 Parliamentary inquiries concerning the anticipated order of 
    business may be entertained by the Chair.

        On Sept. 11, 1968,(8) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
    Massachusetts, answered a question concerning what item would next 
    be taken up by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 26455, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, will the Chair advise whether or not 
    the conference report has been sent over by message from the 
    Senate, indicating that the authorization bill has now cleared both 
    Houses--that is, for the Defense Department bill--and, if that is 
    correct, would it be in order for the Committee on Appropriations 
    to call up the $72 billion Defense appropriation bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Senate has approved 
    the conference report. The Department of Defense appropriation bill 
    is programmed for today. All Members recognize the importance, I am 
    sure, of having this bill acted upon as quickly as possible, and, 
    after the Journal is read and approved, the Defense appropriation 
    bill will be the next order of business to be brought up.

Use of a Parliamentary Inquiry--the Proper Interpretation of a New Rule

Sec. 14.8 A parliamentary inquiry may address the proper interpretation 
    of a new rule.

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole indicated that a new rule (Rule XXIII clause 5), 
requiring distribution of offered amendments by the Clerk, was not a 
mandatory requirement and that the Clerk's distribution was a matter of 
courtesy and not a mandatory prerequisite for consideration of an 
amendment. The inquiry and the Chair's response made on Mar. 14, 
1975,(9) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 6708, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 12425]]

        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, without a copy of the 
    amendment, we cannot understand the purpose of the amendment.
        I thought that under the new rules we are under some obligation 
    to provide some sort of amendment in written form so that those 
    Members who wish to go to the extra effort might read and 
    understand what is going on.
        Am I correct or incorrect, Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman: It does not stop the consideration of an 
    amendment, although that is supposed to be the custom.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: Mr. Chairman, the rule is simply a 
    matter of courtesy rather than one of mandate?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Steiger of Arizona: I thank the Chair.

Proper Uses of Parliamentary Inquiries

Sec. 14.9 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated that 
    committee reports that erroneously reflect the information required 
    under clause 2(l)(2)(B) of Rule XI (that committee reports reflect 
    the total number of votes cast for and against any public measure 
    or matter and any amendment thereto and the names of those voting 
    for and against) would be subject to a point of order against its 
    consideration; however, a point of order would not lie if the error 
    was introduced by the Government Printing Office.

    On Jan. 15, 1995,(11) an inquiry was directed to the 
Presiding Officer regarding a rule adopted at the commencement of the 
104th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. [Paul E.] Kanjorski [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Steve Gunderson (Wis.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kanjorski: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the new rule in 
    clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI, adopted on January 4 of this year as 
    the new rules of the House, each committee report must accurately 
    reflect all rollcall votes on amendments in committee; is that 
    correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Kanjorski: Mr. Speaker, as a further parliamentary inquiry, 
    the report accompanying H.R. 5, as reported from the Committee on 
    Government Reform and Oversight, House Report 104-1, part 2, lists 
    many rollcall votes on amendments. On amendment 6, the

[[Page 12426]]

    report states that the committee defeated the amendment by a 
    rollcall vote of 14 yes and 22 no. However, the tally sheet shows 
    35 members voting ``aye'' and 1 member voting ``nay''.
        Mr. Speaker, would a point of order under clause 2(l)(2)(B) of 
    rule XI apply?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, the 
    gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Kanjorski: Mr. Speaker, if that were the case, it is clear 
    that this bill could not proceed under its present rule; is that 
    correct?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct, if it is an 
    error on behalf of the committee. If it is a printing error. That 
    would be a technical problem which would not be sustained in the 
    point of order.
        Mr. Kanjorski: . . . I would urge that the majority, in 
    consideration of the fact that we are not going to use this tactic 
    to delay this debate, take into consideration that their rules must 
    be applied on a day-to-day basis, because the majority is 
    responsible for having passed this rule.

Sec. 14.10 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that the adoption of an amendment adding a new section would 
    preclude further amendment to the pending section.

    During consideration of a bill setting emergency price support 
levels for the 1975 crop year, an amendment was offered which would add 
a new section following the one then open for amendment. Following a 
reservation of a germaneness point of order against the amendment, a 
parliamentary inquiry was made by another Member who wished to offer a 
perfecting amendment to the section which had been read by the Clerk. 
The proceedings were as shown in the Record of Mar. 20, 
1975.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 7666, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter A.] Peyser [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Peyser: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 16, insert the following new section:
            ``Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there 
        shall be no acreage allotment, marketing quota or price support 
        for rice effective with the 1975 crop of such commodity.''

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington] reserved a point of order 
    on the amendment.
        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Symms: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment to section 2 
    of the bill. Will this amendment preclude the offering of the next 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: It will if the amendment is agreed to.
        Does the gentleman from Washington insist on his point of 
    order?

[[Page 12427]]

        Mr. Foley: I do, Mr. Chairman. I insist on the point of order 
    against this amendment.
        The amendment is not germane to the bill, and violates rule 
    XVI, clause 7.
        H.R. 4296 deals with price supports, established prices, and 
    loan rates for wheat, feed grains, cotton, and milk under sections 
    103, 105, 107, and 201 of the Agricultural Act of 1949.
        The bill does not relate to acreage allotments, or marketing 
    quotas on any commodity. The amendment offered would affect the 
    provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
        Accordingly, the amendment is not germane to the bill, and I 
    therefore press my point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Peyser: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        The reason I offered the amendment was because of the ruling of 
    the Chair dealing with the Conte amendment some hour or so ago, 
    where we were discussing it, and the Chair ruled in favor of nuts 
    and fruits, and some other items, and I therefore felt that 
    introducing the question of rice would be substantially within the 
    germaneness of this bill as the other items that have been offered, 
    and that the Chair had ruled in favor of.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair has heard the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Washington (Mr. Foley), and has listened to the response made 
    by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Peyser).
        The Chair would observe in respect of its earlier ruling on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts that the 
    earlier amendment was a price support amendment. The purpose of the 
    bill under consideration, as the gentleman from Washington has 
    already pointed out, runs to price supports. Acreage and allotments 
    and marketing quotas are not within the scope of the bill, and the 
    Chair rules, therefore, that the amendment is not germane, and 
    sustains the point of order.

Sec. 14.11 A parliamentary inquiry is an appropriate vehicle to 
    ascertain the proper time for making a point of order against the 
    content of an unprivileged committee report.

    On May 16, 1989,(15) a bill which had been ordered 
reported by the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs was 
filed in the House. Not having a privileged status, the report was 
filed through the hopper. Mr. Robert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, was 
under the impression that certain changes had been made in the report 
after the committee action. His inquiries were directed toward the 
appropriate time to make a point of order if his allegations were well 
founded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 135 Cong. Rec. 9329, 9355, 9356, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that this House is up 
    to its eyeballs in creating the problem that

[[Page 12428]]

    led to the savings and loans crisis. Now as we are about to 
    consider legislation to deal with the S&L crisis that this House 
    helped create, we hear a rumor that the process and the procedures 
    of the House are about to be abandoned as we bring that legislation 
    to the floor.
        Evidently the chairman of the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
    Urban Affairs has unilaterally changed the legislation and intends 
    to file a report later today which is his personal version of the 
    bill rather than that reported from his committee.
        Mr. Speaker, when is someone going to stop this kind of abuse? 
    We cannot have chairmen of committees overruling the work of their 
    committees.
        There is a lot of controversy about this particular legislation 
    for FSLIC. It should be resolved unilaterally by one chairman. The 
    Chair should refuse to let the report be filed until the House is 
    assured that it is the committee's report and not the chairman's 
    personal report.

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas A. Luken (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that in the 
    course of the day today, or perhaps later on today, there will be a 
    report filed from the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
    Affairs with regard to the FSLIC bill. Can the Chair, first of all, 
    tell me whether that report has been filed?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The report has just been filed.
        Mr. Walker: The report has been filed.
        Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the language in that 
    report differs markedly from the language as reported from the 
    Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, that in fact 
    substantive sections of the bill have been changed unilaterally by 
    the chairman, and that is reflected in the report before the House 
    in the new language as defined by the chairman rather than the 
    language as reported from the committee.
        Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me whether or not a point of 
    order rests against the filing of that report under those kinds of 
    circumstances?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under these circumstances, the normal 
    time to question the validity of a committee report is when the 
    bill comes up for consideration in the House or at a hearing before 
    the Committee on Rules.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly then, this 
    question could be raised about the change of the language before 
    the Committee on Rules, or should a rule be adopted with regard to 
    consideration of the bill, a point of order would rest against 
    consideration of the bill on the House floor given the fact that 
    language was changed subsequent to committee action; is that 
    correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the bill was improperly reported, 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) is correct.

Sec. 14.12 The status of the Clerk's progress in reading a

[[Page 12429]]

    document which is before the House is a proper subject for a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(17) before the transaction of 
legislative business, the roll was taken numerous times to ascertain 
the presence of a quorum. After unanimous consent was sought to 
dispense with the reading of the Journal, the following exchange 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 30100, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. At the time the Clerk was 
        reading the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Andrews of Alabama: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andrews of Alabama: I would like to know how many pages 
    have been read and how many remain.
        The Speaker: That is a very proper inquiry.
        Mr. Andrews of Alabama: I am most interested in the reading.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that there are 68 pages and 
    the Clerk has already read 38.

Chair's Comments on Matters Pending at Desk

Sec. 14.13 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker may 
    examine a report at the desk and render an advisory opinion about 
    its validity.

    On Oct. 8, 1986,(19) when the Chairman of the Committee 
on Rules filed a hastily assembled report from that committee, a series 
of inquiries sought assurances that the report was complete. The 
Chair's response is carried herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 132 Cong. Rec. 29803, 29804, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Louis] Stokes [of Ohio]: I am delighted to yield to the 
    gentleman from Florida.

      report on resolution providing for consideration of h.r. 3810, 
        immigration control and legalization amendments act of 1985

        Mr. Pepper, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
    report (Rept. No. 99-980) on the resolution (H. Res. 580) providing 
    for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3810) to amend the 
    Immigration and Nationality Act to revise and reform the 
    immigration laws, and for other purposes, which was referred to the 
    House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Tim Valentine (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, the rule just filed by the 
    distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
    from Florida (Mr. Pep

[[Page 12430]]

    per) references 14 amendments which are made in order that are not 
    contained in the rule but are contained in the report of the 
    Committee on Rules. May I ask if the texts of those amendments are 
    contained in the report of the Committee on Rules that has just 
    been filed by the chairman of the committee as a privileged report?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would say to the gentleman 
    that the Chair presumes that that is the case.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker. The gentleman from Wisconsin wishes to know if the text of 
    the one substitute and the 14 amendments to the substitute that are 
    referenced are in the report and thus available to the Members as 
    of this legislative day?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman 
    that there are 14 numbered amendments in the report.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker. The resolution that was just filed by the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules also makes reference to an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. Is the text of that amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute contained in the report that has just been filed?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman 
    that it is not, but it has been introduced separately and it will 
    be printed and available to the Members in the morning.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: I thank the Chair.

                               point of order

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Speaker, is it not necessary that at the time 
    the motion is made to file a report that that report be in hand, 
    completed as approved by the committee submitting the report?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is the rule as the Chair 
    understands it, and that is the case.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the rule as 
    approved by the Rules Committee less than an hour ago is not 
    complete and, therefore, cannot be presented in a complete form at 
    this time, and I challenge the validity of that procedure.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would say to the gentleman 
    that the Chair believes that it is complete, and of course it has 
    been filed.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Speaker, will the Chair point to the report 
    as filed?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman 
    from Texas that the report is here at the desk and available for 
    examination by the gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair and I withdraw my 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) 
    still has the time and may proceed.

Inquiries Properly Submitted to Speaker

Sec. 14.14 Inquiries concerning the parliamentary situation on the 
    floor are properly directed to the Chair, and it is not customary 
    for a Member

[[Page 12431]]

    to request that the notes of the official reporters be read to 
    ascertain what motions have been put by the Chair.

    On May 22, 1968,(1) in a confusing parliamentary 
situation involving the consideration of a conference report, Minority 
Leader Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, requested that the reporter's notes 
be read back to clarify the legislative situation. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, rejected the request, and, a few moments 
later, the Speaker went on to remind the Members of their duty to 
address questions of order to the Chair, not to other Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 14403-05, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Rept. No. 1397 on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection 
        Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, so that the record is crystal 
    clear, I request that the notes of the reporter be reread to the 
    Members.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that this has never been done 
    before so far as the knowledge of the Chair is concerned. . . .
        The Chair will suggest that the Members can carry on their 
    colloquy but the position of the Chair is clear--the gentleman from 
    Texas called up the conference report and had asked that the 
    statement of the managers on the part of the House be read and 
    after the Clerk had proceeded to read the statement, the gentleman 
    from Texas asked unanimous consent that the further reading of the 
    statement of the managers on the part of [the] House be dispensed 
    with and that it be placed in the Record.
        The gentleman from Texas was standing and the Chair rose and 
    said--`The question is on agreeing to the conference report.'' The 
    Chair did it deliberately--and the report was agreed to. The Chair 
    acted most deliberately. . . .
        The gentleman from Virginia reserves the right to object.
        Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
    right to object in order to propound a question to the 
    distinguished majority leader. In the event the House agrees to the 
    request of the gentleman, would the minority maintain the right 
    under the rules of the House to offer motions to recommit if it 
    were so disposed?
        The Speaker: The gentleman ought to address his question to the 
    Chair. That question should be addressed to the Chair, and, 
    assuming that the gentleman did address the Chair, the Chair will 
    state that point has gone by, and a motion to recommit under those 
    circumstances would not be in order.

Not Cognizable by Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 14.15 The Chair responds to parliamentary inquiries relating to 
    the pending proceedings but is not required to verify allegations 
    placing current events in historical context.

        On June 25, 1992,(2) during discussion regarding the 
    adoption of a re

[[Page 12432]]

    strictive rule on a general appropriation bill, Mr. Robert S. 
    Walker, of Pennsylvania, posed an inquiry to the Speaker Pro 
    Tempore, Mr. Michael R. McNulty, of New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 138 Cong. Rec. 16174, 16175, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, in this morning's newspaper, the 
    Speaker of the House is quoted as saying the process under which we 
    are operating on this rule, or on this bill, is a common practice; 
    namely, the practice of having closed rules on appropriation bills 
    of a general character. My research tells me that we have only had 
    such rules five times in the history of the Congress. My research 
    indicates that only five times in the history of the Congress have 
    we had a situation where general appropriation bills have been 
    considered under a closed rule. Three of those have been during 
    this speakership.
        I am asking the Chair whether or not the Chair can confirm that 
    that is, indeed, the situation that this is only the sixth time in 
    history that we will be considering this bill under such a process.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman must state a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

Inquiries Which Chair Does Not Entertain

Sec. 14.16 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not respond 
    to hypothetical questions raised under the guise of a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(3) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, declined to answer a 
hypothetical question raised in the guise of a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 6114, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 2362, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Quie: Mr. Chairman, if I had risen to move to strike out 
    the last word, rather than offering an amendment which would be 
    voted on, then would the extra 5 minutes have been divided equally?
        The Chairman: The Chair is not in position to answer that kind 
    of question.
        Mr. Quie: It may happen in the future as we go along with the 
    debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair will meet the situation as it arises.

Sec. 14.17 The Speaker does not entertain hypothetical questions.

    On Sept. 14, 1944,(4) at a time when there was no bill 
or resolu

[[Page 12433]]

tion before the House, a Member asked about the status of certain 
funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 90 Cong. Rec. 7772, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Orville Zimmerman (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: I gathered from statements which were made on the 
    floor today that a statement going back as far as 1920 and 
    containing information as to the amounts of money requested by the 
    military establishments of the Government, as to the amounts that 
    had been recommended by the executive department, and as to the 
    amounts finally appropriated by Congress, had been sent to the 
    Committee on Appropriations, but for some 2 years it had been in 
    the safe over there, inaccessible to Members of the House. By what 
    authority or what rule of Congress or what rule governing 
    committees was that suppressed?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the chair has 
    no knowledge of any such facts, and therefore is not in a position 
    to answer the gentleman's inquiry.
        Mr. Hoffman: Does the Chair mean he does not have any knowledge 
    that that is true?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has no knowledge of that, 
    except that somebody has said it is true, according to the 
    gentleman's statement.
        Mr. Hoffman: Submitting that then as a hypothetical question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair does not entertain a 
    hypothetical question, and does not think that the parliamentary 
    inquiry is pertinent at this stage of the proceedings and at this 
    particular time in the absence of the Speaker.

What Is Not a Proper Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 14.18 It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to inquire of the 
    Chair whether his ruling striking a portion of a paragraph in a 
    general appropriation bill leaves a certain program without 
    sufficient funds.

    On Oct. 26, 1983,(6) during the reading of the Defense 
appropriations bill of 1984, certain language was conceded to be a 
reappropriation of funds, in violation of Rule XXI clause 6, and was 
stricken from the bill. The proceedings and the resulting inquiry are 
carried herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 29416, 29417, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Missile Procurement, Army

                         (including transfer of funds)

            For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
        and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
        ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
        therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion 
        of public and private plants, including the land necessary 
        therefor,

[[Page 12434]]

        without regard to section 4774, title 10, United States Code, 
        for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests 
        therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon 
        prior to approval of title as required by section 355, Revised 
        Statutes, as amended; and procurement and installation of 
        equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private 
        plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
        equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
        foregoing purposes, as follows: For Other Missile Support, 
        $9,200,000; for the Patriot program, $885,000,000; for the 
        Stinger program, $100,500,000, and in addition, $37,300,000 to 
        be derived by transfer from ``Missile Procurement, Army, 1983/
        1985''; for the Laser Hellfire program, $218,800,000; for the 
        TOW program, $189,200,000; for the Pershing II program, 
        $407,700,000; for the MLRS program, $532,100,000; for 
        modification of missiles, $123,300,000; for spares and repair 
        parts, $261,702,000; for support equipment and facilities, 
        $108,200,000; in all: $2,807,702,000, and in addition 
        $37,300,000 to be derived by transfer, to remain available 
        until September 30, 1986: Provided That within the total amount 
        appropriated, the subdivisions within this account shall be 
        reduced by $28,000,000 for revised economic assumptions.

        Mr. [Richard] Ray [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order that the language on page 19, line 5, after ``$100,500,000'' 
    through ``1983/85'' on line 6 constitutes a reappropriation of 
    unexpended balances of appropriations and thus is not in order 
    under rule XXI, clause 6.
        The $37,300,000 that would be transferred from the Army missile 
    funds, 1983-1985, would be extended in availability to September 
    30, 1986.
        Such an extension of these funds through appropriation is 
    prohibited by the rules.
        The Chairman: (7) Does the gentleman from New York 
    wish to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I concede 
    the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. [David] Dreier of California: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dreier of California: Does the ruling of the Chair on the 
    gentleman's point of order mean that title IV is underfunded by 
    $37.3 million for Stinger missile procurement in fiscal year 1984?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman is not 
    making a parliamentary inquiry.

Chair Does Not Signal His Ruling on Future Amendment

Sec. 14.19 The Chair can respond to a parliamentary inquiry about the 
    effect of voting down the previous question on a special order--``a 
    germane amendment would be in order''--but will not render an 
    advisory opinion as to whether a particular described amendment 
    would be in order.

[[Page 12435]]

    On June 16, 1994,(8) where the previous question had 
been moved on a special order reported from the Committee on Rules, the 
Speaker Pro Tempore responded to parliamentary inquiries as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 140 Cong. Rec. 13155, 13156, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bart] Gordon [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the resolution.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Porter J.] Goss [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Robert E. Wise, Jr. (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Goss: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is rejected, 
    would it be in order for me to offer an amendment to the rule to 
    strike the exception that leaves the Wolf provision subject to a 
    point of order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: While the Chair cannot give a specific 
    anticipatory ruling, in the opinion of the Chair, should the 
    previous question be rejected, any germane amendment to the rule 
    may be offered.
        Mr. Goss: Mr. Speaker, the Chair's answer is ``yes'' and that 
    would be my intention.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair stands by his statement. Any 
    germane amendment can be offered.
        Mr. Goss: I was not asking a parliamentary inquiry about 
    germaneness. I wish to know whether or not that would be in order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has responded.
        The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.

Chair Does Not Interpret Whether Votes Are Consistent

Sec. 14.20 A request that the Chair announce the effect on an earlier 
    House political position of a vote about to be taken is not a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

    On June 26, 1942,(10) Speaker Pro Tempore Jere Cooper, 
of Tennessee, sustained a point of order against Mr. Clarence Cannon, 
of Missouri, when he made an inquiry as to the effect of a vote on a 
pending motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 5646, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 6709, an agriculture appropriation for 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: A vote against the motion is a vote to 
    sustain the position of the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: A vote against the pending motion is a 
    vote for the defeat of the pending motion.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that 
    the chair

[[Page 12436]]

    man of the subcommittee has made this motion without authorization 
    by a majority of the managers on the part of the House, it is only 
    fair that the House understand the effect of this vote. 
    Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I desire to know if a vote against the 
    pending motion is not a vote to sustain the position which the 
    House took when it sent the bill to conference.
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: The question raised by the gentleman from 
    Missouri is not a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 14.21 The Chair will not comment on the consistency of amendments 
    under the guise of responding to a parliamentary inquiry.

    On May 15, 1991,(11) the House was considering 
amendments to a measure under consideration in the Committee of the 
Whole. One amendment had been agreed to when an inquiry was directed to 
the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 137 Cong. Rec. 11116, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Marty] Russo [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Jim McDermott (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Russo: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the parliamentary 
    situation, we are now voting on the Upton amendment which, if you 
    voted for Berman, you would vote no to Upton.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois is not 
    stating a parliamentary inquiry.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Upton) as a substitute for the amendment en bloc 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Snowe) as amended.

Sec. 14.22 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole responds to 
    parliamentary inquiries as to whether an amendment changing a lump-
    sum figure in a general appropriation bill is in order; but he does 
    not interpret the effect of the adoption of such an amendment on a 
    particular project which might be funded by the lump-sum figure.

    On Oct. 21, 1990,(13) during consideration of the 
legislative branch appropriation bill for fiscal 1991 in Committee of 
the Whole, there was pending an amendment reducing a lump-sum figure in 
the bill. The announced goal of the proponent of the amendment was to 
eliminate funding for certain garage attendants. Another Mem

[[Page 12437]]

ber wished to eliminate yet another service, and attempted to get a 
ruling from the Chair whether by an amendment to the pending amendment 
he could accomplish that goal. The discussion was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 136 Cong. Rec. 31673, 31674, 31689-91, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 5399

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

                       TITLE I--CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               Mileage of Members

            For mileage of Members, as authorized by law, $210,000.

                             Salaries and Expenses

            For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives, 
        $667,-010,000, to remain available until expended, as follows:

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, as provided in 
    the rule, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma Mr. 
    [Synar] and the gentleman from California Mr. [McCandless], who are 
    cosponsoring this amendment, for the purpose of offering the en 
    bloc amendments numbered one and printed in the report of the 
    Committee on Rules.

                  amendments en bloc offered by mr. synar

        Mr. [Mike] Synar [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 
    gentleman from California Mr. [McCandless] and myself, I offer 
    amendments en bloc under the rule.
        The Chairman: (14) The Clerk will report the 
    amendments en bloc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Synar:
            Page 2, line 8, strike ``$677,010,-000'' and insert 
        ``$663,510,000''.
            Page 14, line 4, strike ``$27,238,-000'' and insert 
        ``$22,721,000''. . . .
            Page 14, line 18, strike ``$32,285,-000'' and insert 
        ``$30,950,000''. . . .

        The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 510, the amendments 
    en bloc are not subject to amendment or to a demand for a division 
    of the question, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
    amendment and if adopted, shall become original text for the 
    purpose of further amendment. . . .
        So the amendments en bloc were agreed to. . . .

                       amendment offered by mr. conte

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Conte: Page 14, line 18, strike 
        ``$30,950,000'' and insert ``$30,800,000''. . . .

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, I spoke before on this situation. It 
    has simply gotten out of hand: I'm talking about the garage 
    attendant problem. . . .

[[Page 12438]]

        Mr. [Harris W.] Fawell [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Fawell: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the Conte 
    amendment, and I am desirous, of course, of presenting that. I do 
    not want to be foreclosed from so doing.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman wish to offer his amendment?
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. I have 
    agreed with the chairman of the committee that I would go along 
    with this compromise. Can we not put that to a vote and get rid of 
    that?
        The Chairman: The Chair has to recognize that the gentleman 
    from Illinois [Mr. Fawell] rose, saying that he has an amendment to 
    the amendment. The Chair has to protect the right of the gentleman 
    from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
        Mr. Fawell: Mr. Chairman, in furtherance of my parliamentary 
    inquiry, as long as I am not foreclosed from presenting my 
    amendment to the amendment, I simply wanted to make sure that the 
    section does not close, and that I do have the right to present my 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: Once the figure in the bill is agreed to by the 
    adoption of the Conte amendment, the gentleman cannot then at that 
    time make another amendment to that figure. . . .

      amendment offered by mr. fawell to the amendment offered by mr. 
                                   conte

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fawell to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Conte: Page 14, line 18, strike ``$30,950,000'' and insert 
        ``$30,550,-000''.

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
        The Chairman: The gentleman may state his inquiry. . . .
        The Fawell amendment strikes $30,950,000 and inserts 
    $30,550,000.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, if the Fawell amendment is adopted, 
    therefore, my amendment is wiped out, because the gentleman does 
    not make the savings.
        The Chairman: The figure inserted by the Conte amendment would 
    be reduced by an additional $250,000.
        Mr. Conte: Well, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is for 
    $400,000 for the beauty shop and gym study.
        Mr. Fazio: Mr. Chairman, may I state further in this 
    parliamentary inquiry, we cannot do the Fawell and the Conte 
    amendments in their entirety simultaneously. One or the other is 
    out of order.
        Mr. Conte: That is right.
        The Chairman: The Chair can only read the figures in each 
    amendment.
        Mr. Conte: Well, Mr. Chairman, let us go over this again.
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot interpret those figures which 
    are to be a lump sum amount for the House Office Building. The 
    Chair can only read them in response to the gentleman's inquiry.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Chairman, may I further inquire, the gentleman 
    from Il

[[Page 12439]]

    linois is trying to cut $400,000, is that right?
        The Chairman: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Fawell] would cut an additional $250,000 from the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte].
        Mr. Conte: Which would leave no cut for the garage attendants.
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot interpret the effect of that. 
    The Chair can give the gentleman the arithmetic only.

Chair's Power of Recognition

Sec. 14.23 The Chair will not render an anticipatory decision on whom 
    he will recognize to offer a motion if the previous question on a 
    pending question is defeated but reserves the option of making that 
    determination after hearing debate and ascertaining to his 
    satisfaction who has ``led the opposition'' to ordering the 
    previous question.

    Where there was an effort to defeat the previous question on a 
pending motion to instruct conferees, the proponent of the pending 
motion asked who would have the right to offer an amendment if the 
previous question were defeated. The Chair's response, excerpted from 
the proceedings of Sept. 22, 1988,(15) is carried herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 134 Cong. Rec. 24868, 24869, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
    4776) making appropriations for the government of the District of 
    Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part 
    against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
    September 30, 1989, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
    thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
    conference asked by the Senate.
        The Speaker: (16) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

                        motion offered by mr. green

        Mr. [Bill] Green [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Green moves that the managers on the part of the House 
        at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
        the bill, H.R. 4776, be instructed to agree to the amendment of 
        the Senate numbered 25.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Green) is 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 12440]]

        Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, if the motion on the previous question 
    loses, may I inquire whether it is the motion of this gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Dannemeyer) or the more recent gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Dornan) that gets offered?
        The Speaker: The Chair will determine recognition priorities at 
    the appropriate time, ascertaining at such time who is entitled to 
    recognition.
        Does the gentleman have further comments on his motion?

Taking Parliamentary Inquiry Under Advisement

Sec. 14.24 The Chair may delay his response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    pending an examination of the precedents.

    A privileged disciplinary resolution, reported from the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct, was called up in the House on Oct. 
13, 1978.(17) Immediately after the reading of the 
resolution, a Member asked, as a parliamentary inquiry, whether the one 
paragraph resolution was divisible. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 37009, 37016, 37017, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              in the matter of representative edward r. roybal

        Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 1416) and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1416

            Resolved, That Representative Edward R. Roybal be censured 
        and that the House of Representatives adopt the Report of the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated October 6, 
        1978, In the matter of Representative Edward R. Roybal.

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is directed 
    toward the rules and the precedents of the House. I would propound 
    a question to the Chair in my parliamentary inquiry as to whether 
    the resolution is divisible when it comes to a vote.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman will have 
    to indicate how he wanted to divide the vote.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, the resolution says, ``That 
    Representative Edward R. Roybal be censured,'' which would seem to 
    be divisible under the precedents of the House. The resolution 
    calls upon the House of Representatives to adopt the report and to 
    censure Mr. Roybal. I wonder whether or not the resolution can, 
    therefore, be divided into two questions, one being censure and the 
    second being the adoption of the report, which could be by separate 
    votes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's rights will be protected. The 
    Chair will examine the precedents with regard to the gentleman's 
    point.

[[Page 12441]]

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for that 
    consideration.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Flynt) is 
    recognized for 60 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, earlier I propounded a parliamentary 
    inquiry to the Speaker as to whether or not, under the rules and 
    precedents of the House, House Resolution 1416, as it stands, would 
    be divisible.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to respond to the gentleman.
        Mr. Ashbrook: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) has 
    requested an opinion as to whether the question on House Resolution 
    1416 may be divided.
        To be the subject of a division of the question under the 
    precedents of the House, a proposition must constitute two or more 
    separate substantive propositions so that if one of the 
    propositions is removed, the remaining proposition constitutes a 
    separate and distinct question, and that test must work both ways.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the questions are substantially 
    equivalent questions. For that reason, the Chair holds that House 
    Resolution 1416 is not subject to a demand for a division of the 
    question.
        Mr. Ashbrook: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. Bob Wilson: [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Bob Wilson: I am.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bob Wilson moves to recommit the resolution, House 
        Resolution 1416, to the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct with instructions to report the same back forthwith 
        with the following amendment. Strike all after the resolving 
        clause and insert:
        That Edward R. Roybal be and he is hereby reprimanded.

        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Caputo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Caputo: Is time allowed for debate?
        The Speaker: The motion is not debatable.
        The question is on the motion to recommit with instructions.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        Mrs. [Millicent] Fenwick [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I object 
    to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

[[Page 12442]]

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    219, nays 170, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 40, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the 
    House, I report the resolution back to the House with an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flynt: Strike all after the 
        resolving clause and insert: That Edward R. Roybal be and he is 
        hereby reprimanded.

        The amendment was agreed to.
        The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 14.25 Where a parliamentary inquiry does not relate to the 
    immediate proceedings of the House, the Chair may take the matter 
    under advisement, particularly where research is required into the 
    origins of a rule.

    On Apr. 7, 1992,(19) during a special order concerning 
the so-called ``banking scandal'' that preoccupied many Members of the 
House, a discussion involved the meaning of the admonition in Rule II 
that the officers of the House ``shall keep the secrets of the House.'' 
The Speaker took the matter under advisement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 138 Cong Rec. 8271-74, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Thoughts on the Scandal-ridden House

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Under a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is recognized 
    for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Richard Ray (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] DeLay [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I take this time in 
    the well and before the House to express my opinions about what has 
    been going on in this House or the lack of what has been going on 
    in this House over the last few years, particularly during the 
    scandal-ridden period of the last year or so. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman giving us that little 
    bit of history. I think it is very beneficial to the overall theme 
    of this special order. That is that this has been going on, this 
    lack of leadership, the mismanagement of the House, has been going 
    on for many years. It just points up that when someone is in power 
    for an inordinate amount of time, then this kind of oversight, this 
    kind of corruption, if you will, continues and builds upon itself 
    and sort of feeds on itself. . . .
        Mr. [Richard K.] Armey [of Texas]: . . . There is another 
    question I would have about the secrets of the House.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. DeLay: Would the gentleman hold right there?
        Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 12443]]

        Mr. DeLay: Mr. Speaker, I make an inquiry of what does it mean 
    when it says in the rules of the House that the House must keep the 
    secrets of the House, the officers must keep the secrets of the 
    House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is not prepared to respond 
    to that, and will be consulting with the gentleman. . . .
        The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Do I understand the 
    Chair correctly that the Chair is not prepared to rule at this time 
    on what the phrase ``secrets of the House'' means?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In reference to that question, the 
    Chair says to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the word ``secrets'' 
    has appeared in the rule for a great number of years. The Chair 
    will endeavor to try to find out for the gentleman what the word 
    ``secrets'' means.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule II provides for the election of 
officers of the House (other than the Speaker) by viva voce vote, 
``each of whom shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the 
United States . . . and to keep the secrets of the House.''
    In section 635 of the House Rules and Manual it is recited that the 
``requirement that the officers be sworn to keep the secrets of the 
House is obsolete'' (citing 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 187). In that 
precedent the origin of the oath of secrecy requirement in the rule is 
discussed only in relationship to secret sessions of the House, ``but 
inasmuch as no secret session has been held for about seventy years, 
the observance of this portion of the rule is naturally neglected.'' 
Thus, according to Asher Hinds, the oath of secrecy requirement had 
become obsolete at that time.
    As indicated in section 914 of the House Rules and Manual, the 
House conducted its first secret session since 1830 on June 20, 1979, 
and then conducted three subsequent secret sessions on July 17, 1979, 
Feb. 25, 1980, and July 19, 1983. On all of those occasions, the Manual 
and Record indicate that ``those officers and employees specified by 
the Speaker whose attendance was essential to the functioning of the 
secret session. . . would be required to sign an oath of secrecy.''

Sec. 14.26 The Chair may in his discretion defer a response to a 
    parliamentary inquiry pending his examination of the rule and the 
    amendments in question.
On Oct. 4, 1990,(1) the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 
1990 was being considered under the provisions of a complex special 
order which permitted consider

[[Page 12444]]

ation only of those amendments spelled out in the report of the 
Committee on Rules. The order of amendments was specified in the rule. 
When asked about the juxtaposition of two amendments to the same 
portion of the bill, the Chair needed to evaluate both the rule and the 
text of the amendments in order to respond to the parliamentary inquiry 
made by Mr. George W. Gekas, of Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 136 Cong Rec. 27511, 27512, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gekas: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Douglas H. Bosco (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gekas: There is a bit of confusion reigning in my mind, if 
    nowhere else, as to whether or not under previous instructions and 
    rules of this type as to whether or not the Hughes-Gekas amendment 
    is in the posture of king of the hill. Specifically, I would ask 
    the Chair to let me know, at this juncture, is it so that if both 
    pass, that the latter one, the Gekas amendment, would prevail?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman momentarily, 
    as the Chair must now be advised on this and review both 
    amendments.
        The Chair would advise the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
    Gekas] as soon as the Chair has examined the two amendments.
        Mr. Gekas: I thank the Chair. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the parliamentary 
    inquiry just posed.
        The Hughes amendments offered en bloc, if adopted, would insert 
    several new sections, sections 212 through 218, into title II, and 
    would make a minor change in title XXII. The Gekas amendment would 
    rewrite all of title II as amended by Hughes and insert a new 
    title.
        In effect, the Gekas amendment, if adopted, would replace most 
    of the Hughes amendment en bloc.
        Mr. Gekas: I thank the Chair. That was our suspicion, and we 
    wanted to have it confirmed from the summit itself.

Sec. 14.27 The Chair may take a certain parliamentary inquiry under 
    advisement, especially where the inquiry does not relate to the 
    immediate procedures of the House.

        On May 26, 1993,(3) a new Member-elect arrived at 
    the Capitol. A sitting Member inquired of the Chair whether the new 
    Member-elect would be permitted to take the oath, although his 
    credentials were not before the body. The Speaker Pro Tempore, Mr. 
    Jim McDermott, of Washington, suggested that the question should be 
    presented to the Speaker for his consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 139 Cong Rec. 11251, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner: [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for me to 
    ask

[[Page 12445]]

    unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca] who 
    has been elected to fill the vacant First District seat, be allowed 
    to take the oath of office, notwithstanding the fact that a 
    certificate of election for him has not arrived? The Republican 
    candidate has conceded and, to my knowledge, there is no objection 
    to Mr. Barca taking the oath of office from this side of the aisle.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would have to take that 
    under advisement with the Speaker of the House.

Sec. 14.28 The Chair may take a parliamentary inquiry under advisement, 
    particularly in a situation where a delay in responding to the 
    inquiry does not interfere with the pending business of the House.

    An inquiry of the Chair about the composition of the Congressional 
Record, and extensions of remarks therein, was taken under advisement, 
where the Chair did not have time to consult with the Official 
Reporters of Debates and the Government Printing Office during the 
proceedings. The pertinent excerpts from the Record of Feb. 11, 
1994,(4) are set out below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 140 Cong. Rec. 2244, 2245, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Under a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jolene Unsoeld (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Madam Speaker, I 
    would like to use my 5 minutes to begin with to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry relating to the matter of extensions of 
    remarks in the Congressional Record.
        In yesterday's Congressional Record, that would be February 10, 
    on pages H 460 to H 476, material was submitted to the 
    Congressional Record costing the taxpayers $6,132, where there was 
    not an announcement of that cost prior to the material being 
    submitted.
        My parliamentary inquiry is this, does the Chair have a 
    responsibility to ascertain the amount of taxpayer expense in 
    Extensions of Remarks.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In response to the inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Chair understands the situation to 
    be as follows: the gentlewoman from Colorado requested permission 
    to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend her remarks 
    and to include extraneous material. Due to the length of the matter 
    submitted, the material was moved by the official reporters from 
    the beginning of the day to appear following legislative business. 
    This normally is a signal to the Government Printing Office to 
    return the material to the Member should a printing estimate be 
    required, submissions in excess of two Congressional Record pages. 
    That apparently did not occur in this situation, so the submission 
    was printed. . . .
        Mr. Walker: So the Member has the responsibility, if they have 
    a large amount of material, to present that to the House prior to 
    asking the permission; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: To ask permission with the estimate of 
    the cost in hand.

[[Page 12446]]

        Mr. Walker: And in this particular case, as I understand it, 
    that procedure was not followed; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman did not have an 
    estimate and, for that reason, the matter was held over until the 
    end of the Record.
        Mr. Walker: Is there a procedure for recovering the amount of 
    money spent that was spent and not properly agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would have to take that 
    under advisement.

Improper Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 14.29 The Chair will not respond to a parliamentary inquiry 
    whether a floor request conforms to ``committee policy'' where that 
    policy is not a rule of the House.

    On Apr. 29, 1988,(6) the House was considering a Defense 
authorization bill (fiscal 1989) under a series of complicated special 
orders. The rule under which the bill was being considered specified 
which amendments were to be in order, the order of their consideration, 
and their debate time. In the House, before resolving into the 
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the measure, 
Chairman Les Aspin, of Wisconsin, asked unanimous consent to change the 
order of amendments. Several parliamentary inquiries were directed to 
the Speaker, in an attempt to determine whether certain amendments had 
been submitted in a timely fashion, pursuant to the announced policy of 
the Committee on Rules. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 134 Cong. Rec. 9551, 9552, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Permission To Consider Amendment No. 20 Printed in Section 3 of 
     House Report 100-590 as Amendment No. 6 of Section 2 of Report on 
      H.R. 4264, National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989

        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
    No. 20, printed in section 3 of House Report 100-590 be considered 
    as if it were amendment No. 6 of section 2 of the report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James H. Bilbray (Nev.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [John R.] Kasich [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Kasich: What I do not quite understand, Mr. Speaker, is if 
    we are operating under a certain rule, somebody has got to know 
    what the rule is to find out whether the amendment being offered 
    should be accepted under the rule.

[[Page 12447]]

        I have no objection to the amendment from how I understand it. 
    I am just trying to understand if the rule is being followed here, 
    and if there is an ability to get unanimous consent to offer 
    something that did not follow within that deadline, then I would 
    like to reserve the ability to be able to ask for that unanimous 
    consent.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The amendment is in order. It is on 
    page 55 of House Report 100-590, an amendment offered by 
    Representative Pepper of Florida or Representative Lowry of 
    Washington or his designee, debatable for not to exceed 40 minutes, 
    to be equally divided between the proponent and opponent.
        Mr. Kasich: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. I am 
    not interested--if it is printed in there, I want to know if the 
    amendment was filed by the time that we were supposed to have had 
    these amendments filed. That is what I am inquiring.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is presumed that that is correct. 
    But again, it is something that has to be answered by the Rules 
    Committee.
        Mr. Kasich: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I do 
    not want us to presume anything. I want to know. I do not want to 
    presume.
        I do not have any objection, Mr. Speaker, to that amendment. It 
    is just that if we are not going to abide by those rules, there are 
    additional amendments that we would like to offer. I do not object, 
    necessarily to the substance of the amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Ohio will have to 
    accept that the Chair does not know the answer to the gentleman's 
    question, nor does the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Kasich: Then I will object, Mr. Speaker, until we get an 
    answer as to what the rule is, how it was filed.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman withhold his 
    objection for a moment?
        Mr. Kasich: Yes; I will withhold, and simply reserve the right 
    to object.
        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we will 
    deal with this amendment today, because we have to get the 
    unanimous consent in the House.
        Mr. Kasich: Then I will withdraw my objection so we can get 
    those questions answered.
        Mr. Aspin: The gentleman deserves an answer to his question, 
    but I do not think we can answer it today.

Sec. 14.30 The Chairman of Committee of the Whole does not respond to 
    inquiries about future legislative programs in the House.

    On Feb. 3, 1995,(8) Mr. John A. Boehner, of Ohio, was 
presiding in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Neil] Abercrombie [of Hawaii]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 12448]]

        Mr. Abercrombie: Mr. Chairman, is it the Chair's understanding 
    that a ruling was arrived at or an understanding was arrived at 
    with respect to the votes on Monday and the 2 o'clock versus 5 
    o'clock time? Because that is not clear to me.
        The Chairman: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is not 
    in a position to rule on that question.
        Mr. Abercrombie: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. 
    How might I go about making that inquiry? My understanding is that 
    issue was not settled.
        The Chairman: The gentleman should inquire of the leadership 
    who makes those decisions.

Sec. 14.31 Questions concerning informal guidelines of the Committee on 
    Rules for submission of amendments may not be raised as 
    parliamentary inquiries, since the Chair is not being called upon 
    to interpret any rule of the House.

    While the Chair responds to parliamentary inquiries concerning the 
application of House rules and precedents relating to pending business, 
he does not interpret committee policies or factual questions about 
matters not within his cognizance. The proceedings of May 5, 
1988,(9) are illustrative:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 134 Cong. Rec. 9938, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Duncan] Hunter [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 
    the Chair's admonition, and my only remarks with regard to the 
    point of order is I hope the Chairman would allow us to cure the 
    defect that he has pointed out in this particular package.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (10) Does the gentleman 
    from Arkansas (Mr. Robinson) desire to be heard on the point of 
    order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tommy F.] Robinson [of Arkansas]: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Arkansas is 
    recognized.
        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, we had a date certain deadline for 
    all amendments to the DOD bill to be submitted to the Rules 
    Committee.
        Parliamentary inquiry, was the Aspin amendment submitted to 
    meet the deadline initially when we all had to abide by the rules 
    to bring any amendment to this floor?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot answer that inquiry. 
    That is not a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Badham) desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: No, Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Badham: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is that 
    allusion was made to the fact that we had a deadline for submitting 
    amendments.

[[Page 12449]]

    Is it not true that there was no deadline for submitting 
    amendments?

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: That would be a question the 
    gentleman would have to ask the Rules Committee.
        Mr. Badham: I tried, Mr. Chairman, Lord knows I tried.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is not prepared to rule on 
    that question.

Sec. 14.32 A Member may not use the guise of a parliamentary inquiry to 
    register opposition to a unanimous-consent agreement already 
    entered into.

    On occasion, the Chair may feel an obligation to ``indulge'' a 
Member in stretching the use of a parliamentary inquiry to clarify a 
misunderstanding that has arisen in floor procedure. Such was the 
situation on Dec. 20, 1987,(11) when Mr. Dan Burton, of 
Indiana, felt his rights had been violated because of a scheduling 
agreement entered into by his leadership during special orders, a 
period when unanimous-consent requests relating to the business of the 
House are normally not entertained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 133 Cong. Rec. 36699, 36700, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: I hope all Members 
    realize that in attempts to reach a conclusion on the continuing 
    resolution and on the reconciliation bill, the joint leadership is 
    trying to accommodate Members as much as possible. We had hoped 
    that these bills might be ready today. . . .
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Foley: I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Speaker, we are going to be asked this evening at 5 p.m. to 
    vote on a 1-day CR so that the Government would not have to shut 
    down. What I would like to advise the leadership now is that this 
    gentleman intends to object unless we have some idea at that time 
    whether or not agreement has been reached between not only the 
    Republican and Democratic sides of both Houses, but also the White 
    House.
        If there is no agreement on that, I think we are----
        Mr. Foley: We have been advised by the representatives of the 
    President that if he receives before tomorrow morning an action of 
    the Congress extending for 24 hours until midnight tomorrow night 
    the temporary continuing resolution, the President will sign it.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: I am not talking about that, if the 
    gentleman will yield further.
        I am talking about the big CR and the budget reconciliation 
    act. If agreement has not been reached between both Houses and the 
    White House and we have some pretty concrete evidence that the 
    President is going to sign it, I intend to object this evening.

[[Page 12450]]

        Mr. Foley: I do not think we intend to bring the matter by 
    unanimous consent. The gentleman may vote against the bill if he 
    wishes to.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Unanimous consent is not required?
        Mr. Foley: No.
        The Speaker: (12) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that unanimous consent would not be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair wishes to express along with the majority leader and 
    the minority leader a regret for any inconvenience that has been 
    caused to Members and their schedules, but as the majority leader 
    has explained, and the minority leader as well, the leadership has 
    been attempting to try to create a situation in which we can work 
    the will of the House and conclude the session of the Congress at a 
    minimum of inconvenience to the membership.
        In that regard, the Chair wants to thank the membership for 
    their understanding.

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know when 
    this rule was requested and granted. The Members when we left on 
    Friday were not aware, to my knowledge, that there was going to be 
    a rule requested for a 1-day CR. It seems like that is kind of 
    something that was sneaked in on us, at least as far as I am 
    concerned.
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the Rules 
    Committee was granted permission by this House, by unanimous 
    consent, a request offered by the majority leader and understood by 
    the minority leadership, they being present, that the Rules 
    Committee should have--until noon today, to file privileged 
    reports. And the Rules Committee has done so with respect to the 
    short-term continuing resolution.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: If I might further inquire of the Chair, 
    when did this take place, when did the leadership of both the 
    majority and minority, or when were they informed about this 
    requested rule?
        The Speaker: If the gentleman will be patient, the Chair will 
    examine the notes in the Journal and try to give the gentleman a 
    response as to when. It was sometime yesterday, approximately 5 
    p.m. yesterday afternoon.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Five p.m. on Saturday after everybody 
    had gone home?
        The Speaker: Well, the Chair will advise the gentleman that it 
    is the responsibility of the majority and the minority leadership 
    to try as best they can to accommodate the schedule of the 
    membership.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, where a unanimous consent 
    is required or requested, it is my understanding that it is the 
    entire body, not just the leadership that is supposed to be 
    involved. And to go ahead----
        The Speaker: If the gentleman will permit the Chair to respond, 
    it is a long--standing rule that unanimous consent requests-not by 
    the rules of the House, but by the comity and the courtesy that 
    exists between both sides--are cleared in advance of their

[[Page 12451]]

    being requested, usually, with the minority leadership, and that 
    they are not propounded unless someone representing the minority is 
    present in the Chamber. That is a matter of precedent.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Permit the Chair, please, to respond and the 
    gentleman will be recognized.
        There is no requirement that all Members be present. If there 
    were, the House might never achieve a unanimous consent request, 
    and I think the gentleman recognizes, as will all Members that the 
    minority and majority have tried very earnestly to work together in 
    a harmonious fashion. . . .
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Speaker, there was some discussion privately of a 1-day CR 
    on Friday, and, Mr. Speaker, when we left, it was the understanding 
    of this gentleman, and, I think, most Members on our side of the 
    aisle that no legislative action was going to take place that would 
    preclude our right to object to a unanimous consent request to go 
    to the Rules Committee or to pass a 1-day CR. Now, it did take 
    place in our absence, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that at least as 
    far as I was concerned, I was misled. I do not know whether it was 
    inadvertent or not, but I feel like I was misled because had I 
    known that you were going to ask unanimous consent to go to the 
    Rules Committee to get a special rule for a 1-day CR, a 1-day 
    extension, I would have been here to object.
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's point of order is well taken. The 
    gentleman was not stating a parliamentary inquiry, but the Chair 
    indulged him to make such statement as he desired to make.

Sec. 14.33 Although the Chair responds to parliamentary inquiries 
    concerning the amendment process, he does not: (1) rule on 
    hypothetical questions; (2) rule retrospectively on questions not 
    raised in a timely fashion; and (3) rule anticipatorily on 
    questions not yet presented.

    On June 6, 1990,(13) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Export Facilitation Act of 1990. An amendment 
dealing with Soviet Union-Lithuanian relationships was pending when a 
parliamentary inquiry was raised about the possibility of considering 
additional amendments, involving other international relationships. The 
proceedings were as shown herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 136 Cong. Rec. 13189, 13193, 13194, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Durbin: Page 48, insert the following 
    after line 11:
    sec. 124. exports to the soviet union.

            No exports to the Soviet Union otherwise permitted by 
        virtue of the amendments made by this title may be made until 
        the President certifies

[[Page 12452]]

        to the Congress that the Soviet Union is not imposing any 
        economic sanctions on Lithuania and has entered into 
        negotiations with the elected government of Lithuania for the 
        purpose of restoring the independence of Lithuania.

              modification of amendment offered by Mr. durbin

      amendment offered by Mr. levine of california to the amendment 
                     offered by Mr. durbin, as modified

        Mr. [Mel] Levine of California: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment as modified.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Levine of California to the 
        amendment as modified offered by Mr. Durbin:
            Insert ``(a) Exports.--'' before the first sentence.
            Add the following at the end of the amendment.
            (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
        that no reports to the Soviet Union otherwise permitted by 
        virtue of the amendments made by this title should be made if 
        the Soviet Union takes action to restrict the emigration of 
        Jews from the Soviet Union. . . .

        Mr. [Gerald B. H.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support the 
    statement of the gentleman from California, and I support his 
    amendment to the amendment.
        My parliamentary inquiry is that we have a Member, the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ritter), who would like to have 
    the opportunity to offer an amendment to the amendment to be 
    offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) on Cuba, and the 
    Ritter amendment would deal with Afghanistan along the same basis 
    that the gentleman from California has been speaking.
        I just question: what is the parliamentary procedure for the 
    recognition of the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Levine) and whether or not it would be in order at the appropriate 
    time for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ritter) to offer his 
    amendment to the amendment based on the same scenario?
        The Chairman: The pending situation has no bearing on what 
    might be the situation to what the Chair cannot anticipate, that 
    could develop subsequently on another amendment.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, on what basis is the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Levine) allowed to offer his amendment to the amendment? And, 
    again, I do not question the basis of his amendment, because I 
    support it. But I do not see it in the rule. That is why I was 
    asking.

        The Chairman: The rule does not prevent amendments to the 
    amendment, and no point of order with regard to its germaneness was 
    raised in a timely fashion. . . .
        Mr. [Doug] Bereuter [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    address my parliamentary inquiry to the Chair in this fashion: is 
    it still timely to object or to raise reservations under

[[Page 12453]]

    the point of nongermaneness to the amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair would respond in this fashion: it is 
    too late. That point of order would have to have come prior to the 
    time the gentleman from California (Mr. Levine) was recognized to 
    debate his amendment.

Chair Does Not Give Advisory Rulings

Sec. 14.34 The Chair may decline to indicate in advance whether a 
    suggested resolution would be privileged, since the Chair does not 
    give advisory opinions regarding parliamentary questions not 
    related to pending business.

    During the one-minute period at the beginning of the legislative 
day of Sept. 29, 1993,(15) two Members sought to suggest 
that an investigation into conduct by an executive branch official 
might be undertaken by a House committee. They pressed the Chair to say 
how such a resolution might be brought to the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 139 Cong. Rec. 22988-90, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Ly Binh To Be in My Office Tomorrow

        (Mr. Burton of Indiana asked and was given permission to 
    address the House for 1 minute.)
        Mr. [Dan] Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, the Clinton 
    administration has taken two giant steps toward normalizing 
    relations with Vietnam. . . .
        Now we find out that a Cabinet official, Mr. Ron Brown, the 
    Secretary of the Department of Commerce, is accused of taking 
    $700,000 to influence these decisions. . . .
        We have demanded an investigation into this, not unlike the 
    Watergate or the Iran-Contra investigations, because it involves 
    our foreign policy and a Cabinet official who may have influenced 
    these decisions even though there are 2,200 POW/MIA's still 
    unaccounted for in Vietnam. . . .

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I rise 
    to propound a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        By what process can the House of Representatives begin an 
    investigation of this very serious matter where we can be assured 
    that the investigation will take place?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair advises the 
    gentleman that committees of jurisdiction can initiate 
    investigations on matters such as this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Bill Richardson (N. Mex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Well, Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the 
    gentleman from Indiana has already written the committees of 
    jurisdiction and is being stonewalled. My question is:
        By what means can we ensure that, if the chairmen of those 
    committees refuse to hold hearings on this matter of major 
    significance, the House of Representatives can order such an 
    investigation to take place?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot respond more fully to 
    the

[[Page 12454]]

    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] at this time. . . .
        Mr. Walker: . . . and I am seeking to know whether or not there 
    is a resolution of some sort that can be brought to the floor that 
    would force this investigation to take place.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot respond beyond the 
    fact that a resolution can be introduced and referred to the 
    appropriate committee of jurisdiction.
        Mr. Walker: But there is no privileged resolution that can be 
    brought to the floor that would force the investigation to take 
    place, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot comment on such an 
    issue until seeing such a resolution.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] for his question.
        I sent a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs asking for an investigation. That appeared to me to be the 
    committee of jurisdiction. He has indicated that he did not think 
    he should do that, and he named a litany of other committees that 
    ought to be notified, and that is what prompted the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania to ask these questions, and so we just want to know, 
    if this merits an investigation, how do we do it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman wants to introduce a 
    resolution, the Chair will refer it to the appropriate committee.
        Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, we will do that.

Parliamentary Inquiry as to Legal Effect of Proposal

Sec. 14.35 Questions about the legal effect of a pending legislative 
    proposal are not entertained as parliamentary inquiries.

    On Jan. 25, 1995,(17) where the House had under 
consideration a resolution directing certain committees to take action 
to report legislation to achieve a balanced budget, the Chair declined 
to respond to parliamentary inquiries regarding the legal or binding 
effect of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael P.] Flanagan [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to House Resolution 44, as designee of the majority leader, I call 
    up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 17) relating to the 
    treatment of Social Security under any constitutional amendment 
    requiring a balanced budget, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration in the House.
        The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
        The text of House Concurrent Resolution 17 is as follows:

                                H. Con. Res. 17

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That, for the purposes of any constitutional 
        amendment requiring a balanced budget, the appropriate 
        committees of the House and the Senate shall report to their 
        respec

[[Page 12455]]

        tive Houses implementing legislation to achieve a balanced 
        budget without increasing the receipts or reducing the 
        disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
        Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund to 
        achieve that goal.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) Pursuant to the rule, 
    the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan] will be recognized for 
    30 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Jim Kolbe (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Flanagan].

                           PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

        Mr. [Chaka] Fattah [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fattah: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the legal effect 
    of the resolution in front of us. Is it binding?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is not stating a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

Not a Proper Inquiry-Meaning of an Amendment

Sec. 14.36 The construction or meaning of an amendment is not a proper 
    subject for a parliamentary inquiry as such matters are for the 
    House and not the presiding officer to determine.

    On Oct. 12, 1966,(19) Chairman John J. McFall, of 
California, pointed out that it was the duty of the proponent of an 
amendment to explain it to other Members, not the duty of the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 26205, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 51, the Indiana Dunes Lakeshore bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Edward] Roush [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Arizona [Mr. Udall].
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana 
    [Mr. Roush].
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for the purpose of propounding a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Roush: I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Indiana will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that all of the 
    units of this proposed national park are fixed by reference to a 
    map, is it in order to offer language in indefinite terms that 
    would undertake to alter that?
        The gentleman from Arizona offered an amendment which referred 
    to another map, which is a matter of record.
        I do not know and I do not know whether anybody else knows just 
    what is meant when reference is made to Ogden Dunes or Burns Bog 
    units.
        The Chairman: The Chair would reply that the Chair is not in a 
    position to construe the amendment. The amendment technically is in 
    order and it is up to the Member offering an

[[Page 12456]]

    amendment to construe the amendment for the benefit of the Members.

Anticipatory Rulings by Chair

Sec. 14.37 The Chair declines to anticipate whether an amendment not 
    yet offered might be precluded by adoption of a pending amendment.

    On June 26, 1979,(20) during consideration of the 
Defense Production Act amendments of 1979, a lengthy amendment was 
offered by Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, Chairman of the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs. When he asked that the reading of the 
amendment be waived, there was a reservation of objection and the 
following proceedings occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 16681-83, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. Udall: Page 8, after line 13 add 
        the following new subsection and renumber the subsequent 
        sections accordingly:
            (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy is hereby authorized to 
        designate a proposed synthetic fuel or feedstock facility as a 
        priority synthetic project pursuant to the procedures and 
        criteria provided in this section.
            (2) For the purposes of this section the term--
            (A) ``Synthetic fuel or feedstock facility'' means any 
        physical structure, including any equipment, building, mine 
        processing facility or other facility or installation used. . . 
        .
            (4) The Secretary shall keep apprised of the processing of 
        applications for priority synthetic projects by State and local 
        governments. If the Secretary determines that a priority 
        synthetic project is being delayed or threatened with delay by 
        the inability or unwillingness of any State or local government 
        to implement a schedule for timely review and decision, the 
        Secretary shall notify the Governor of such State and transmit 
        to the Congress a statement describing the delay and 
        recommending action to alleviate or prevent the delay.

        Mr. Udall (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arizona?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I wish to make a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the 
    amendment which I had offered and had printed in the Record would 
    be an appropriate substitute amendment for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall). Under the time limitation, 
    if I understand correctly, I have 5 minutes to offer that 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct if offered in the proper form.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: But if this amendment is not amended by my 
    amendment and succeeds, then I may be precluded from offering that 
    amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: It would be difficult for the Chair to rule on 
    that without having seen the gentleman's amendment.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The question I would put to the Chair as a 
    parliamen

[[Page 12457]]

    tary inquiry is: Does, then, my amendment become appropriate to 
    this amendment and give me the right to 5 minutes to discuss my 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: If the gentleman were to offer his amendment as a 
    substitute for this amendment in the form printed in the Record, he 
    would, indeed, have the 5 minutes guaranteed to him under the rule.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Then, Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall).
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that it is 
    not yet in order.
        Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the 
    gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall)?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object 
    in order to make an inquiry of the Chair.
        The amendment of the gentleman from Arizona now pending and in 
    the process of being read, I think the Chair advised me, was 
    amendable by the gentleman from Ohio who has an amendment printed 
    in the Record.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that any 
    proper substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona 
    would be in order.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: And the order of recognition for that 
    purpose, may I inquire of the Chair, does not relate to the 
    establishment of the fact that there was an amendment that is 
    appropriate?
        The Chairman: The order of recognition, the Chair will say to 
    the gentleman, depends on the discretion of the Chair, given which 
    Members are seeking recognition at the time.

Chair Does Not Rule on Hypothetical Questions on Scope of Conference

Sec. 14.38 The Chair does not advise, in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry, whether the failure of conferees to abide by the terms of 
    a motion to instruct would go beyond the scope of their authority.

    While the Chair must rule under Rule XXLVIII clause 3, on a point 
of order that a specific motion to instruct goes beyond the scope of 
conference, he does not speculate about whether modification of the 
language to which the motion is directed would cause a violation of 
clause 3. The proceedings of Oct. 29, 1981,(2) illustrate 
the Chair's reluctance to get involved in such speculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 127 Cong. Rec. 26046, 26049, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The Clerk will report 
    the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mrs. Schroeder moves that the managers on the part of the 
        House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
        Houses on the House amendments to the bill S. 815 be instructed 
        to agree to the provisions contained in section 922 of the 
        Senate bill.

[[Page 12458]]

                  motion to table offered by mr. dickinson

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dickinson moves to lay on the table the motion of the 
        gentlewoman from Colorado.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The motion is not debatable.
        The question is on the motion to table offered by the gentleman 
    from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Dickinson) there were--yeas 28, nays 18.
        Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present. . . 
    .
        So the motion to table was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. 
    Schroeder) is recognized for 1 hour.
        Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if my 
    understanding of the parliamentary procedure is correct.
        The gentlewoman from Colorado has succeeded against the motion 
    to table, in which case she has a privileged motion now pending. It 
    is my understanding she will have 1 hour to debate the motion now 
    pending, and is in control of that entire time. Is this correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman stated the issue 
    correctly. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, the motion 
    offered by Mrs. Schroeder was that the managers on the part of the 
    House at the conference of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
    to the bill S. 815 be instructed to agree to the provisions 
    contained in section 922 of the Senate bill.
        My inquiry is to what extent does that motion allow the House 
    conferees to deviate in any way from the specific provisions of 
    section 922 of the Senate bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises the gentleman that 
    no point of order would lie against the conference report if the 
    House conferees do not follow the instructions of the House, should 
    the House agree to the motion of the gentlewoman from Colorado.
        Mr. Stratton: In other words, we could accept a provision on 
    limiting cost growth that does not follow the precise wording of 
    section 922 of the Senate bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is not going to rule on what 
    will be in the scope of the conference. The Chair is advising only 
    as to the effect of the motion.

[[Page 12459]]

        Mr. Stratton: Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that if the 
    gentleman from Alabama and I, who have been working on a substitute 
    for the Nunn amendment, come up with something that does not have 
    one or two of the provisions of the Nunn amendment in it, we are 
    not in violation of the motion offered by the gentlewoman from 
    Colorado?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would restate the 
    parliamentary situation; that no point of order would lie for the 
    reason that the conferees have not followed the instructions should 
    the House adopt the motion of the gentlewoman from Colorado.
        The motion to instruct is advisory.

Offering Amendment With Inquiry

Sec. 14.39 A Member recognized to propound a parliamentary inquiry may 
    not, having secured the floor for such limited purpose, offer an 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(4) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, recognized Mr. August E. Johansen, of Michigan, to pose a 
parliamentary inquiry, not to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 5140, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration was 
        H.R. 8986 dealing with salary increases for federal officers 
        and employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Johansen: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Johansen: I direct this inquiry to the Chair as to whether 
    it will be in order if I secure recognition to offer an amendment 
    to the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chairman: Of course, the gentleman, if he is recognized, 
    may offer an amendment.
        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman secured recognition first and 
    asked the parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has not been recognized, except for 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Morrison: The gentleman has a substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman made the parliamentary inquiry as 
    to whether he could offer an amendment and the Chair responded that 
    the gentleman could offer an amendment if he was recognized.

Proper Forum for Inquiry

Sec. 14.40 The question of the vote required to adopt a special rule in 
    the House is not properly addressed to the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole as a parliamentary inquiry but should be 
    addressed to the Speaker in the House.

    On June 13, 1946,(5) Chairman William M. Whittington, of 
Mis

[[Page 12460]]

sissippi, declined to answer an inquiry concerning matters that were 
the responsibility of the Speaker of the House to determine:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 92 Cong. Rec. 6877, 6878, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 6777, the Government Corporations appropriation bill 
        for 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Would it be possible to get a rule 
    making in order a paragraph which had previously been stricken from 
    the bill on a point of order, unless that rule was adopted by a 
    two-thirds vote?
        The Chairman: The Chair may say to the gentleman that that 
    inquiry is not one that can be answered in the Committee of the 
    Whole. It is a matter that would have to be determined by the 
    Speaker of the House.

Inquiries Properly Submitted to Chairman of Committee of the Whole 
    House

Sec. 14.41 The Speaker in reply to a parliamentary inquiry will not 
    anticipate a ruling by a Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 11, 1935,(6) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, declined to anticipate a ruling by a Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 79 Cong. Rec. 5457, 5458, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H. Res. 197, providing for the consideration of H.R. 7260, 
        social security legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Monaghan [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Montana 
    rise?

        Mr. Monaghan: For the purpose of submitting a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Monaghan: Is not the statement that was made by the 
    gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Mott] correct, that if this rule passes, 
    then only one particular plan, the plan that we now have under 
    discussion, may be passed upon by the Congress?
        The Speaker: The Chair is not in position to answer that 
    parliamentary inquiry. That is a matter which will come up 
    subsequently under the rules of the House. The Chair would not seek 
    to anticipate what the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
    rule or what the Committee itself may do. The Chair feels very 
    certain that the Chairman of the Committee will be governed, as all 
    chairmen of committees are, by the rules and precedents of the 
    House. Certainly the Chair would not anticipate his ruling; and in 
    addition to this, the Chair cannot pass upon any particular 
    amendment until it has been presented in all its phases.

Sec. 14.42 It is the responsibility of the Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole to preserve decorum in that forum; and the Speaker will 
    not render an anticipatory rul

[[Page 12461]]

    ing on what exhibits might be in violation of proper decorum after 
    the House resolves itself into the Committee.

    Pending consideration of the National Foundation on Arts and 
Humanities Amendments of 1990, the Speaker was asked a series of 
parliamentary inquiries concerning what exhibits might be used in the 
debate. The Speaker elaborated on the concept of ``freedom of speech,'' 
the constitutional right of the House to make its own rules, and the 
duty of the Presiding Officer to maintain decorum in debate. The 
Speaker outlined the authority and responsibility of the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole but refused to anticipate his ruling. The 
proceedings of Oct. 11, 1990,(7) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 136 Cong. Rec. 28629, 28630, 28650, 28651, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Dennis M. Hertel (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is with 
    regard to the debate on the bill that is about to come up. Under 
    the Rules of the House of Representatives, is the right to free 
    speech protected as defined in the first amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Yes, clearly it is, consistent with 
    the rules of the House.
        Mr. Walker: Consistent with the rules of the House. Some of the 
    artwork that we are about to discuss has been ruled by the courts 
    as being perfectly appropriate for public display. My parliamentary 
    inquiry is, will that artwork be permitted under the rules of the 
    House and under the provisions of free speech to be brought to the 
    floor for display to the membership during the upcoming debate?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will make a determination 
    based on the decorum of the House.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary 
    inquiry. Does the decorum of the House override the provisions of 
    free speech?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Order has to be maintained in the 
    House to conduct the business of the House.
        Mr. Walker: But that is my question, Mr. Speaker. When it comes 
    to the question of artwork, which has been declared by the courts 
    as being appropriate artwork, and while being so referred to by 
    proponents in this debate, will it be violative of the decorum of 
    the House for such artwork to be brought to the House floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules of the House, the 
    Chair makes the determination as to whether decorum is proper in 
    the House, and the Chair will make that determination at the proper 
    time.
        Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker. So the Speaker is saying that the right to free speech on 
    the House floor can in fact be limited by the Chair, at the

[[Page 12462]]

    Chair's discretion, despite the fact that there are court rulings 
    that indicate that the artwork is perfectly appropriate for public 
    display?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman knows that the Chair has 
    the responsibility for the House to be in order, and that includes 
    the decorum in the House. The gentleman from Pennsylvania knows 
    that. The Chair will enforce that. . . .
        Mr. Walker: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Since a jury has interpreted that this artwork is 
    appropriate for public display, is the Chair going to permit such 
    artwork to be displayed on the floor during the course of the 
    debate?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has already ruled and 
    explained to the gentleman. The Chair will make sure that there is 
    decorum in the House. The Chair will rule at any appropriated time 
    that there will be decorum in the House. That is the Chair's 
    ruling.
        Pursuant to House Resolution 494 and rule XXIII, the Chair 
    declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4825.
        [In Committee.]
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, am I permitted to show such 
    photographs on the House floor?
        The Chairman: The first amendment to the Constitution provides 
    that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. 
    The Chair notes, however, the Constitution also provides that the 
    House may determine the rules of its proceedings, and in clause 2 
    of rule I, the House has assigned to the Speaker the sole 
    responsibility to preserve order and decorum.
        In similar circumstances on September 13, 1989, the Chair 
    advised he would prevent the display of exhibits that in his 
    judgment might disrupt order or impair decorum in the Chamber. The 
    current occupation of the Chair would intend to apply that 
    standard.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, how are we going to make that 
    determination about what interferes with the decorum of the House?
        The Chairman: The Chair would not entertain any exhibits in 
    this debate.

Chair Does Not Speculate on Future Recognition

Sec. 14.43 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not 
    speculate, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, as to whom the 
    Speaker might recognize to offer a motion in the House.

    Pending a preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
and report the bill back to the

[[Page 12463]]

House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, the 
Chair refused to advise what Member might be given recognition back in 
the House to offer a motion to refer before the question would be put 
on the recommendation to strike the enacting clause. The pertinent 
proceedings of Apr. 14, 1994,(10) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 140 Cong. Rec. 7453, 7454, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] McCollum [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. McCollum of Florida moves that the Committee do now 
        rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. . . .

                          parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. McCollum: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. If 
    I would yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] for the 
    purposes of one, am I using my time up on the debate we are 
    involved with here for purposes of this privileged motion?
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman would be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Robert G. Torricelli (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCollum: Mr. Chairman, another parliamentary inquiry:
        Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to reserve time or on this 
    motion do I have to consume all my 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: Under the rules of this House, the gentleman does 
    not have the right to reserve time.
        Mr. McCollum: I do not?
        The Chairman: The gentleman does not.
        Mr. McCollum: Then I do not wish to yield at this point, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time I have remaining.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has 5 
    minutes remaining.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, would 
    the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. McCollum: I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, am I correct that should the motion 
    carry, and this is not a motion to kill the bill, this is simply a 
    motion for the Committee to rise, and it can at that point decide 
    that another amendment can be made in order, is that right?
        The Chairman: The motion is to report to the House with a 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out, an action 
    that would reject the bill if carried in the House.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry:
        Mr. Chairman, as we established in the previous colloquy, I 
    think that there is also an action available to the House at that 
    point to further amend the bill, is that correct?
        The Chairman: A motion to refer would be in order.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, it would be in order, and it could be 
    a motion to refer and report back forth

[[Page 12464]]

    with, which would in effect at that point allow an amendment on the 
    floor?
        The Chairman: The Chair would say that a motion to refer could 
    include that instruction.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, that has precedence over the motion 
    to strike the enacting clause, is that correct?
        The Chairman: A motion to refer would be in order pending the 
    question of the House's concurrence in the recommendation to strike 
    out the enacting clause.
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    McCollum] has expired.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Chairman, in the event that the motion 
    presently pending by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
    would prevail, would any Member then be eligible for recognition to 
    make a motion to refer, or is the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    McCollum] the only one that can make that?
        The Chairman: At that point we would be proceeding in the House 
    and it would be for the Speaker to recognize.
        Mr. Volkmer: I would ask the Chair, the Speaker could recognize 
    any Member?
        The Chairman: The Speaker would have his usual power of 
    recognition under the precedents.

Parliamentary Inquiries Regarding Budget Act Scorekeeping and Points of 
    Order

Sec. 14.44 The Speaker has responded to parliamentary inquiries 
    concerning the application of section 311 (the mechanism for 
    enforcement of budget aggregates) of the Congressional Budget Act 
    and the most recent concurrent resolution on the budget to upcoming 
    appropriation measures prior to their actual consideration in the 
    House.

    On Mar. 6, 1984,(12) the Speaker,(13) in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry, informed the House the sources of 
information on which he would rely in deciding points of order raised 
against a bill on the ground that it would cause the budget ceilings 
detailed in Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act to be exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 1130 Cong. Rec. 4620-22, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
13. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Section 312(a), the Chair must rely on estimates and 
information provided by the Committee on the Budget in determining the 
current levels of new budget authority or outlays. In the instance 
shown below it was

[[Page 12465]]

the interrelationship between those estimates and the mandates of the 
latest concurrent resolution on the budget that created the need for an 
explanation by the Chair.

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the order of the House of Wednesday, February 29, 1984, I call 
    up for consideration in the House as in the Committee of the Whole 
    the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 492) making an urgent supplemental 
    appropriation for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1984, for 
    the Department of Agriculture.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

                           parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Loeffler: Mr. Speaker, I make this parliamentary inquiry 
    because the bills under consideration today--House Joint Resolution 
    492 and House Joint Resolution 493, which provide for urgent 
    supplementals for the Public Law 480 program and low income energy 
    assistance--are the first appropriations bills to come before the 
    House this year. It is my purpose to be certain that I and other 
    Members fully understood the procedures that will be used in 
    scorekeeping for these and future appropriations bills.
        In particular, my inquiry relates to the enforcement of section 
    311 of the Congressional Budget Act. I have several questions, so 
    if the Chair will bear with me, I will proceed as expeditiously as 
    possible.
        Mr. Speaker, I note that the Parliamentarian's status report on 
    the current level of total Federal spending, printed in the 
    Congressional Record of February 22, indicates that there are 
    $3,079 million in budget authority and only $16 million in outlays 
    remaining under the aggregate spending ceilings set forth in the 
    concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1984.
        Under section 311 of the Budget Act, once Congress has 
    completed a second budget resolution, bills, resolutions or 
    amendments providing new budget authority or new spending authority 
    as described in section 401(c)(2)(C) of the Budget Act, would be 
    subject to a point of order against their consideration in the 
    House if their adoption would cause the aggregate budget authority 
    or outlay ceilings in the most recently agreed to budget resolution 
    to be exceeded.
        For fiscal year 1984, as was the case in fiscal year 1983, the 
    first budget resolution included language which allows enforcement 
    of section 311 after October 1 of the fiscal year, if Congress does 
    not adopt a second budget resolution by that date.
        As reported by the Appropriations Committee, both bills under 
    consideration would cause the aggregate outlay ceilings under the 
    first budget resolution to be breached--although not the aggregate 
    budget authority ceiling--which, under enforcement provisions in 
    effect for fiscal year 1983, would have resulted in these bills 
    being subject to a point of order under section 311.
        Is my understanding correct that this year the operation of 
    section 311 has been further modified by a provision, section 5(B), 
    contained in House

[[Page 12466]]

    Concurrent Resolution 91, the first concurrent resolution on the 
    budget for fiscal year 1984--the so-called Fazio language?
        Further, could the Chair explain how section 5(B) of House 
    Concurrent Resolution 91 affects the applicability of section 311 
    points of order to spending bills, including those before us today, 
    and to any amendments that may be offered to such bills?
        Is it correct that neither the total level of outlays nor a 
    committee's outlay allocation under section 302(A) of the Budget 
    Act would be considered in determining whether a section 311 point 
    of order would apply to spending bills or amendments thereto?
        Could the Chair explain the basis upon which it makes a 
    determination regarding the discretionary budget authority 
    remaining available to committees of the House?
        Further, is it not the case that once the Congress adopts a 
    second budget resolution for fiscal year 1984, updating and 
    revising the first budget resolution, that the provisions of 
    section 5(B) in House Concurrent Resolution 91 would no longer be 
    in effect, and section 311 would operate as set forth in the Budget 
    Act, based on the newly established aggregate ceilings and 
    provisions in the second budget resolution? Finally, can one assume 
    that the Appropriations Committee's discretionary budget authority 
    allocation will be reduced by the amounts in these bills plus any 
    amendments adopted that increase spending, once they are enacted? . 
    . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will respond to the inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Texas.
        The gentleman from Texas has requested the Chair to interpret 
    the relationship between bills providing new spending for fiscal 
    year 1984 and the provisions of the most recently agreed to budget 
    resolution for that fiscal year.
        As the gentleman has pointed out in his inquiry. The first 
    concurrent resolution the budget for fiscal year 1984 (H. Con. Res. 
    91), adopted by the House and Senate on June 23, 1983, provided, in 
    section 5, that it would become the second concurrent resolution on 
    the budget for the purpose of section 311 of the Budget Act. 
    Failing actual adoption of a second budget resolution by October 1, 
    1983. However, section 5(b) of the budget resolution provided for a 
    more limited application of section 311 than would apply if a 
    second budget resolution had actually been adopted. The Speaker 
    received today from the chairman of the Committee on the Budget a 
    revised status report on the current level of spending under the 
    budget resolution. The status report indicates that any measure 
    providing budget in excess of $6 million would cause the total 
    level of outlays under the budget resolution to be exceeded. The 
    chairman of the Committee on the Budget included in that letter a 
    summary and explanation of the operation of section 5 of the budget 
    resolution once outlays are exceeded, and the Chair will now read 
    that statement, which is responsive to much of the gentleman's 
    inquiry: ``The procedural situation with regard to the spending 
    ceiling will be affected this year by section 5(b) of House 
    Concurrent Resolution 91. As I explained during debate on the 
    conference report on that resolution, enforcement against

[[Page 12467]]

    breaches of the spending ceiling under section 311(a) of the Budget 
    Act will not apply where a measure would not cause a committee to 
    exceed its appropriate allocation pursuant to section 302(a) of the 
    Budget Act. In the House, the appropriate 302(a) allocation 
    includes ``new discretionary budget authority'' and ``new 
    entitlement authority'' only. It should be noted that under this 
    procedure neither the total level of outlays nor a committee's 
    outlay allocation is considered. This exception is only provided 
    because an automatic budget resolution is in effect and would cease 
    to apply if Congress were to revise the budget resolution for 
    fiscal year 1984.
        The intent of the section 302(a) discretionary budget authority 
    and new entitlement authority subceiling provided by section 5(b) 
    of the resolution is to protect a committee that has stayed within 
    its spending allocation--discretionary budget authority and new 
    entitlement authority--from points of order if the total spending 
    ceiling has been breached for reasons outside of its control. The 
    302(a) allocations to House committees made pursuant to the 
    conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 91 were printed in 
    the Congressional Record, June 22, 1983, H4326.
        The Chair has been advised that each of the supplemental 
    appropriation joint resolutions scheduled for today, House Joint 
    Resolution 492 and House Joint Resolution 493, provides more than 
    $6 million in budget outlays for fiscal year 1984 and would thus 
    cause the total level of outlays to be exceeded. The Committee on 
    Appropriations has, however, a remaining allocation of $2 billion, 
    $351 million in discretionary budget authority, according to tables 
    prepared by the Budget Committee, inserted in the Congressional 
    Record of March 1, 1984, and included in today's status report. The 
    amount of budget authority contained in the joint resolutions 
    scheduled for today is well within that allocation. As to 
    amendments to those joint resolutions, or to other spending 
    measures for fiscal year 1984, germane amendments which increase 
    budget authority are in order as long as they do not cause the 
    measure, as amended, to exceed the total remaining allocation of 
    discretionary budget authority to the committee with jurisdiction 
    over the measure or amendment.
        The Chair's determination, whether a measure or amendment 
    thereto, violates section 311 as made applicable by the budget 
    resolution, is based upon estimates made by the Committee on the 
    Budget, pursuant to section 311(b) of the Budget Act, of the 
    remaining allocation to each committee. Once a bill providing new 
    budget authority or entitlement authority is enacted, the remaining 
    allocation of the committee with subject matter jurisdiction will 
    be changed by the net amount of new budget authority contained in 
    the measure, and the Chair is confident that the Committee on the 
    Budget will keep the Chair currently informed as to the status of 
    each committee.
        The Chair would finally point out that the provisions of 
    section 5 of the current budget resolution would cease to apply if 
    Congress does adopt a second concurrent resolution on the budget 
    for fiscal year 1984. In that event, the actual prohibition 
    contained in section 311 of the Budget Act would take effect, 
    unless modified by any special procedures contained in a second 
    budget resolution.

[[Page 12468]]