[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[E. Points of Order]
[Â§ 20. Timeliness]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3432-3451]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                           E. POINTS OF ORDER
 
Sec. 20. Timeliness

    Points of order on general appropriation bills are usually reserved 
in the House at the time of reference to the Committee of the Whole (to 
the Union Calendar) to permit the Committee to strike

[[Page 3433]]

out portions in violation of the rules.(1~3~) This 
reservation is necessary only on general appropriation bills; 
(14) failure to reserve the point of order precludes a 
ruling on it because the Chairman may not take away from the Committee 
of the Whole a-portion of a bill committed to it by the 
House.(15) Not all points of order on appropriation bills 
must be reserved prior to reference to the Committee of the Whole, 
however. Points of order against the consideration of an appropriation 
bill, since made in the House, need not be reserved in advance. A point 
of order based on a rule which prohibits reporting of bills or joint 
resolutions carrying appropriations by committees which do not have 
jurisdiction to report appropriations may be made 
anytime.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6921-6925; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 3450.
            Points of order on appropriation bills generally, see Ch. 
        25, infra.
14. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6926.
15. Sec. 20.11, infra.
16. Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1979); and 7 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, points of order against a provision in a bill or 
amendment are properly made when that provision or amendment is reached 
in the reading. Points of order against bills in their entirety are 
normally in order when called up.
    Some points of order may not be raised in the Committee of the 
Whole. Those relating to a comparative print of proposed changes in 
law,(17) printing a bill and hearings prior to floor 
consideration,(18) and failure of a quorum to be present in 
a standing committee when a bill was reported (19) come too 
late in the Committee of the Whole; they should be raised in the House 
against consideration of the bill pending the motion to resolve into 
the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sec. Sec. 20.1-20.3, infra.
18. Sec. 20.4, infra.
19. Sec. 20.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A point of order against a bill or a portion thereof based upon 
lack of committee jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill 
comes too late when the bill is under consideration in Committee of the 
Whole, the proper remedy being the motion to correct an erroneous 
reference under Rule XXII clause 4 prior to the reporting of the 
bill.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979). See also 4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 4372; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2112, 
        2114, 2115.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Ramseyer Rule

Sec. 20.1 The point of order that a report fails to comply with

[[Page 3434]]

    the requirement that proposed changes in law be indicated 
    typographically is properly made when the bill is called up in the 
    House and before the House resolves into the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On June 13, 1959,(2) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that the point of order that a 
report fails to comply with the requirement that proposed changes in 
law be indicated typographically as required by the Ramseyer rule, Rule 
XIII clause 3,(3) is properly made when the bill is called 
up in the House and before the House resolves into the Committee of the 
Whole.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 13226, 13227, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. See 114 Cong. 
        Rec. 24245, 24252, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 30, 1968, for 
        another illustration of this principle.
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979).
 4. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2243 for another precedent which 
        states this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    6893) to amend the District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957. . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a 
    point of order against the consideration of the bill and the 
    report. When is the proper time to seek recognition for this 
    purpose?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is the proper time for the 
    gentleman to make this point of order.
        Mr. Gross: . . . I submit, Mr. Speaker, and make the point of 
    order, that this report No. 643, does not conform to rule XIII, 
    otherwise known as the Ramseyer rule.

Sec. 20.2 The point of order that a report fails to comply with the 
    Ramseyer rule comes too late after the House has resolved into the 
    Committee of the Whole for consideration of the bill.

    On Aug. 17, 1949,(5) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 339, amending an act making temporary appropriations for 
fiscal year 1950, as amended (continuing resolution), Chairman Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, indicated the time for raising a point of order 
that a report does not comply with the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 11654, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order. I was on my feet urging a point of order when the 
    motion was made to go into committee. I make the point of order 
    that this bill is not properly before the House, for the simple 
    reason that the report does not comply

[[Page 3435]]

    with the Ramseyer rule, and therefore the membership is not 
    properly informed as to what had obtained.
        The Chairman: Of course, that point of order would have to be 
    made in the House and not in Committee of the Whole. The point of 
    order comes too late, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 20.3 On appeal, the Committee sustained the Chair's ruling that a 
    point of order against a committee report comes too late after the 
    House has resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole.

    On July 5, 1966,(6) during consideration of H.R. 14765, 
the Civil Rights Act of 1966, the Committee of the Whole on appeal 
sustained a ruling of Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, on the 
timeliness of a point of order that a committee report violates Rule 
XIII clause 3,(7) the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 16840, 16842, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    myself such time as I may care to use.
        Mr. Chairman, Negroes propose to be free. Many rights have been 
    denied and withheld from them. The right to be equally educated 
    with whites. The right to equal housing with whites. The right to 
    equal recreation with whites.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, point of order.
        Mr. Celler: Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, immediately before the House 
    resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House I was on my 
    feet on the floor seeking recognition for the purpose of making a 
    point of order against consideration of H.R. 14765 on the ground 
    that the report of the Judiciary Committee accompanying the bill 
    does not comply with all the requirements of clause 3 of rule XIII 
    of the rules of the House known as the Ramseyer rule and intended 
    to request I be heard in support of that point of order. I was not 
    recognized by the Chair. I realize technically under the rules of 
    the House at this point, my point of order may come too late, after 
    the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Williams: But I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I sought to 
    raise the point of order before the House went into session. May I 
    ask this question? Is there any way that this point of order can 
    lie at this time?
        The Chairman: Not at this time. It lies only in the House, the 
    Chair must inform the gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. Williams: May I say that the Parliamentarian and the 
    Speaker were notified in advance and given copies of the point of 
    order that I desired to

[[Page 3436]]

    raise, and I was refused recognition although I was on my feet 
    seeking recognition at the time.
        Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I appeal 
    the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to repeat that the gentleman 
    from Mississippi is well aware that this present occupant of the 
    chair is powerless to do other than he has stated.
        Mr. [Joseph D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    appeal the ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair 
    stand as rendered?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Williams) there were--ayes 139, noes 101.

        The decision of the Chair was sustained.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 18.4, supra, for a precedent relating to entertainment of 
        this point of order by the Speaker after the Committee of the 
        Whole rose on motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Printing of Bill and Hearings

Sec. 20.4 After the House has resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole it is too late to make a point of order that the bill and 
    hearings have not been printed and that minority views do not 
    accompany the report.

    On Nov. 4, 1943,(9) during consideration of H.R. 4598, 
the first supplemental national defense appropriations bill, Chairman 
John J. Sparkman, of Alabama, ruled untimely a point of order that a 
bill and hearings had not been printed and that minority views did not 
accompany the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 89 Cong. Rec. 9121, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl] Wilson [of Indiana]: Then, Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against further consideration of the bill on the 
    ground that it has not been printed and presented to the House, and 
    that the majority hearings have not been printed and presented to 
    the House 24 hours ahead of the time when the bill is called up. 
    Further, the minority views have not been printed.
        The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. The House has 
    already committed the bill to the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union and the bill is now properly before the 
    Committee for its consideration. The point of order does not lie at 
    this time.

Quorum in Standing Committee

Sec. 20.5 Points of order against a bill on the ground that a quorum of 
    the standing committee was not present when the bill was ordered 
    reported should be made in the House; such points come too late 
    after the House has resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    for consideration of the bill.

[[Page 3437]]

    On June 14, 1946,(10) during consideration of S. 524, 
the national cemetary bill, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, stated 
that points of order that a quorum of the standing committee was not 
present when the bill was ordered reported should be made in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 6961, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Forest A.] Harness of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harness of Indiana: At what time would a point of order lie 
    against the bill on the ground that the committee reporting it was 
    without jurisdiction because at the time it reported the bill there 
    was not a quorum present?
        The Chairman: Answering the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry 
    the Chair will state that such a point of order would be too late 
    now that the House is in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union. Such a point of order should be made in the 
    House before consideration of the bill.

Effect of Commencement of Debate

Sec. 20.6 A point of order in the Committee of the Whole against an 
    amendment to an appropriation bill comes too late if there has been 
    debate on the amendment.

    On Apr. 25, 1947,(11) during consideration of H.R. 3123, 
the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, 1948, Chairman Earl 
C. Michener, of Michigan, held that a point of order came too late 
after commencement of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 93 Cong. Rec. 4079, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. See 88 Cong. Rec. 754, 
        77th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 27, 1942, for another example of this 
        principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lowell] Stockman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Stockman: Page 34, line 11, strike 
        out ``$125,000'' and insert ``$2,500,000.''

        Mr. Stockman: Mr. Chairman, the amount allowed by the budget 
    for this item----
        Mr. [Robert F.] Jones of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    make a point of order against this amendment, but will reserve it 
    for the moment.
        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that that comes too late.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio makes a point of order. 
    The gentleman from Oregon had already been recognized and had 
    started debate. The Chair wants to be extremely fair and not too 
    technical, but that is the situation. The Chair is constrained to 
    hold that the point of order comes too late.

Sec. 20.7 A Member who has shown due diligence has been recognized to 
    make a

[[Page 3438]]

    point of order against a proposed amendment even though the sponsor 
    of the amendment has commenced his remarks.

    On June 23, 1945,(12~) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 101, extending the Price Control and Stabilization 
Acts, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized a Member to make a 
point of order notwithstanding the fact that the sponsor of the 
amendment had commenced his remarks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 6597, 6598, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Case of South Dakota: Insert a new 
        section after section 2 to read as follows:
            ``The Secretary of Agriculture shall confer with the 
        Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy from time to 
        time on the supplies of meat, sugar, poultry, dairy and 
        vegetable products available in continental United States for 
        military and civilian needs and said Secretary of Agriculture 
        is authorized and directed to borrow or divert from military 
        channels for critical civilian needs such stocks or supplies as 
        he finds can be spared by the military and in such amounts as 
        he can certify to the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the 
        Navy can and will be restored by the time they are needed.''

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    proposes----
        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill; that it includes matters not 
    contemplated by the bill, and it goes far beyond the scope of the 
    bill.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's 
    point of order comes too late, because I had been recognized and 
    started to debate the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky was on his feet, and 
    the point of order does not come too late. Does the gentleman from 
    South Dakota desire to be heard on the point of order? . . .
        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.
        The Chairman: . . . [T]he Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is in order especially in view of the present form of the 
    pending bill at this stage. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Effect of Failure to Obtain Recognition to Debate

Sec. 20.8 Recognition of a Member by the Chair to offer an amendment 
    does not give such Member the privilege of debating his amendment; 
    consequently a point of order against an amendment may be made in a 
    proper case even though a Member has started debate thereon if he

[[Page 3439]]

    did not obtain recognition for that purpose (the Committee 
    overruling the Chair on appeal).

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(13) during consideration of amendments 
to H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriations bill of 1939, it 
was contended that a point of order against an amendment was untimely 
in that it had been made after debate had begun. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 83 Cong. Rec. 1372, 1373, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk reads as follows:

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

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    language that is incorporated in the amendment----
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment.
        Mr. Collins: Eliminates the language against which the 
    gentleman made the point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman's 
    point of order comes too late.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from Oklahoma makes 
    a point of order on the amendment, and the gentleman from 
    Mississippi makes the point of order that the point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Oklahoma comes too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order of the gentleman from Mississippi is 
    sustained. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: If the Chair did recognize the gentleman from 
    Mississippi I may say the Chair recognized him while I was on my 
    feet taking the only opportunity presented to me to address the 
    Chair, in order that I might direct my point of order to the Chair.
        The Chairman: That may be true. The Chair does not care to 
    indulge in any controversy on that question with the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma. The Chair is merely stating what occurred. The Chair may 
    state further to the gentleman from Oklahoma, in deference to the 
    situation which has developed here, that if that had been true, 
    under the rules it would have been the duty of the Chair to have 
    recognized a member of the committee in preference to any other 
    Member on the floor. The Chair was acting under the limitations of 
    the rule. . . .
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the rule, 
    as I un

[[Page 3440]]

    derstand it, is that if any action is taken on the amendment, then 
    the point of order is dilatory. The only action that could have 
    been taken was recognition by the Chair of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi to debate his amendment.
        I want to call the attention of the Chair to the fact the only 
    manner in which the Chair can recognize a Member to be heard on 
    this floor is to refer to the gentleman either by name or by the 
    State from which the gentleman comes, and I call the attention of 
    the Chair to the fact that the Chair in this particular instance 
    did not say he recognized the gentleman from Mississippi or the 
    gentleman [Mr. Collins], and for that reason there was no official 
    proceeding and no official action taken between the time that the 
    amendment was offered and the time the gentleman from Oklahoma made 
    his point of order, and therefore the point of order was not 
    dilatory.
        The Chairman: The Chair desires, in all fairness, to make this 
    statement to the Committee, as well as directly to the gentleman 
    from Michigan. Not only was the gentleman from Mississippi 
    recognized, but he began an explanation of his amendment, and the 
    Chair certainly presumes that the gentleman being on the floor at 
    the time heard that; and when that occurred, the Chair does not 
    think the gentleman will disagree with the Chair about the fact 
    that the Chair is required, under the rules, to rule in deference 
    to the situation that developed. The Chair does not desire to 
    forestall proceedings and would be pleased to hear points of order, 
    but the Chair must act within the definition of the rule.
        Mr. Wolcott: If the Chair will indulge me for a moment in that 
    respect, the point I wish to make is this. The gentleman from 
    Mississippi had no authority to address this Committee until he had 
    been recognized by the Chair, and if the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    made his point of order during a brief sentence by someone which 
    had no right under the rules of this House even to be reported by 
    the official reporter, then he cannot be estopped, under those 
    circumstances, from making his point of order. The Chair of 
    necessity must have recognized the gentleman from Mississippi to 
    debate the amendment.
        The offering of an amendment is not a proceeding which will 
    estop the gentleman from Oklahoma from making his point of order. 
    It is recognition by the Chair of another gentleman to discuss the 
    amendment, and the gentleman could have discussed the amendment 
    only after recognition was given. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: If the Chair has made a final ruling, I would, in 
    the most respectful manner I know, request an appeal from the 
    decision of the Chair.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma appeals from the 
    decision of the Chair on the ruling of the Chair on the point of 
    order, as stated.
        The question before the Committee is, Shall the ruling of the 
    Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?
        The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the noes 
    had it.
        So the decision of the Chair does not stand as the judgment of 
    the Committee.

Appeal of Chair's Ruling on Timeliness

Sec. 20.9 A ruling of the Chairman that a point of order is

[[Page 3441]]

    untimely may be appealed to the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(15) during consideration of amendments 
to H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, 1939, the 
Committee of the Whole overruled a decision of the Chairman that a 
point of order had been made too late. The Chair invoked the principle 
that a point of order on an amendment is made too late after 
commencement of debate on the amendment. But the Committee took the 
view that recognition to offer an amendment did not automatically 
extend to the privilege of debating that amendment, so that a point of 
order would be timely if the proponent of the amendment had commenced 
debate without first receiving recognition to debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 20.8, supra, for the relevant proceedings of this date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Against Appropriation Bill

Sec. 20.10 The time for making points of order against items in an 
    appropriation bill is after the House has resolved itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole and after the paragraph containing such 
    items has been read for amendment.

    On July 5, 1945,(16) during consideration of a motion 
that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole for 
consideration of H.R. 3649, the war agencies appropriation bill, 1946, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated the rule as to the proper time to 
raise points of order against items in an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 7227, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3649), 
    making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1946, and for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. 
    Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with general debate in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, if, as in this case, the bill 
    contains many items that are subject to a point of order, is it not 
    in order to make a point of order against sending this bill to the 
    Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker: Under the rules of the House, it is not.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Then the procedure to make the point of order 
    is to make it as the bill is being read for amendment?

[[Page 3442]]

        The Speaker: As the paragraphs in the bill are reached.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Missouri?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill (H.R. 3649) with Mr. Sparkman in the chair.

Time to Reserve Point of Order of Legislation on Appropriation Bill

Sec. 20.11 Where points of order were not reserved on an appropriation 
    bill when it was reported to the House and referred to the 
    Committee of the Whole, points of order against a proposition in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2,(17) as legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, were overruled on the ground that the Chairman 
    lacked authority to pass upon that question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 8, 1943,(18) during consideration of H.R. 2409, 
the legislative and judiciary appropriation, 1944, Chairman James P. 
McGranery, of Pennsylvania, declined to rule on points of order that 
certain sections of a bill violated Rule XXI clause 2, allegedly 
legislation on an appropriation bill, because such points of order had 
not been reserved when the bill was reported to the House and referred 
to the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 89 Cong. Rec. 3150-53, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Salaries of clerks of courts: For salaries of clerks of 
        United States circuit courts of appeals and United States 
        district courts, their deputies, and other assistants, 
        $2,542,900. . . .

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the material contained in line 20, page 55, 
    down to the end of the paragraph on page 56, line 11, is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that there was no reservation made when this bill 
    was introduced with reference to points of order, and the Record 
    will bear me out. Therefore, a point of order against anything in 
    the bill now is not in order. . . .
        Mr. Walter: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walter: Is not the Chair in the position at this moment of 
    having to rule on the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Missouri?
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to rule unless the point of 
    order is

[[Page 3443]]

    withdrawn. In that case the Chair would not be required to rule.
        The Chair is prepared to rule, if there is no withdrawal of the 
    points of order.
        In this connection the Chair feels that there is a duty upon 
    all Members to read the rules, which are published. This is not 
    just mere custom, as the Chair sees it.
        The Journal discloses that there were no points of order 
    reserved on the pending bill when it was reported to the House on 
    April 6, 1943.
        The Chair has been very deeply impressed with the decisions on 
    this question which run back to 1837, particularly an opinion 
    expressed by Chairman Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, on March 31, 
    1896--Hinds' Precedents, volume V, section 6923--in which it was 
    stated:

            In determining this question the Chair thinks it is 
        important to take into consideration the organization and power 
        of the Committee of the Whole, which is simply to transact such 
        business as is referred to it by the House. Now, the House 
        referred the bill under consideration to this Committee as an 
        entirety, with directions to consider it. The objection raised 
        by the gentleman from North Dakota would, in effect, cause the 
        Chair to take from the Committee the consideration of part of 
        this bill, which has been committed to it by the House. The 
        Committee has the power to change or modify this bill as the 
        Members, in their wisdom, may deem wise and proper; but it is 
        not for the Chairman, where no points of order were reserved in 
        the House against the bill. . . . The effect would be, should 
        the Chair sustain the point of order made by the gentleman from 
        North Dakota, to take from the consideration of the Committee 
        of the Whole a part of this bill which has been committed to it 
        by the House without reservation of this right to the Chairman.

        Hopkins then held that he had no authority to sustain a point 
    of order against an item in the bill.
        The present occupant of the chair feels constrained to follow 
    the precedents heretofore established and sustains the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cochran].
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: For the sake of clarity and for the future, and 
    may I say I have great respect for the Chairman's ruling, will the 
    Chair differentiate between an appropriation bill in his final 
    decision as written, that is, differentiate between the Hopkins 
    decision which applies for all logical reasons to all legislative 
    committees the same as it does to the Appropriations Committee?
        The Chairman: The Chair thinks if the gentleman will read 
    clause 2 of rule XXI he will find that provision applies merely to 
    appropriation bills, while clause 4 of rule XXI applies to 
    legislative bills coming from committees not having appropriating 
    powers.
        Mr. Michener: That is the decision.
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. Walter: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walter. As I understood the Chairman, the point of order 
    was overruled?

[[Page 3444]]

        The Chairman: The Chair held that in the Chair's opinion he 
    cannot pass upon the question raised by the gentleman. The Chair 
    feels this bill was given to the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union in its entirety and that the Chair cannot 
    under the present circumstances sustain a point of order against an 
    item.
        Mr. Walter: I understand that, but does the Chair mean that the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Missouri is sustained?
        The Chairman: The Chair sustained the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri and overruled the point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. [Karl] Stefan [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stefan: May I ask the Chair if the ruling affects page 56, 
    line 12, down to line 25, the part of the bill which had not been 
    read?
        The Chairman: The Clerk has not read that part of the bill.
        Mr. Stefan: Then it has no effect upon the language appearing 
    on page 56, lines 1 to 11?
        The Chairman: The Chair's decision just now given will affect 
    every item in the bill.
        Mr. Stefan: In the entire bill?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case: Mr. Chairman, I note in reading the precedent to 
    which the Chair has referred, volume 5, Hinds Precedents, page 957, 
    that the Chairman at that time recognized that this was a very 
    close question. The Chair raised this question: ``The very most 
    that could be done would be to report the point of order back to 
    the House for its decision.''
        In other words, in taking the point of view that since the 
    House had referred the bill to the Committee, no such question 
    rose, the Chair might refer it back to the House for further 
    instruction, which would be within the ruling that the Chair cited.
        The Chairman: As the Chair read the particular case, that was 
    the suggestion made by the Chairman, but there is nothing in the 
    decision to show that that was actually done.

Effect of Failure to Raise Point of Order

Sec. 20.12 If no point of order is raised against an amendment 
    proposing legislation on an appropriation bill being considered in 
    the Committee of the Whole, the amendment may be perfected by 
    germane amendments which provide exceptions from the language 
    permitted to remain but do not add further legislation.

    On Jan. 31, 1938,(19) during consideration of amendments 
to H.R. 9181, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, 1939, 
Chairman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 83 Cong. Rec. 1309, 1312, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3445]]

William J. Driver, of Arkansas, stated that if no point of order is 
raised against it, an amendment proposing legislation on an 
appropriations bill may be perfected by germane amendments which do not 
add further legislation on an appropriations bill.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Millard F.] Caldwell [of 
        Florida]: Page 13, line 2, after the amendment offered by Mr. 
        Kennedy, insert a new paragraph, as follows:
            ``For a complete investigation of the administration of 
        public relief in the District of Columbia, to be made under the 
        supervision and direction of the Commissioners, including the 
        employment of personal services without reference to the 
        Classification Act of 1923, as amended, and civil-service 
        requirements, $5,000.''. . .

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Caldwell to the amendment pending: 
        After the word ``relief'' in the proposed amendment, insert 
        ``not including the activities of the Works Progress 
        Administration.''

        Mr. [Claude A. ] Fuller [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment for the reason that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill and, furthermore, that it 
    seeks to make an appropriation for an item not authorized by law. . 
    . .
        The Chairman: Objection is heard. The Chair is ready to rule. 
    The gentleman from Florida offers an amendment to the pending 
    amendment in the following language:

            After the word ``relief'' in the proposed amendment, insert 
        ``not including the activities of the Works Progress 
        Administration.''

        That is the amendment to the amendment offered and to which the 
    gentleman from Arkansas addresses his point of order. The original 
    amendment proposed legislation on an appropriation bill, but no 
    point of order was raised against it. That being so, an amendment 
    that would contain an exception would be germane and in order, 
    certainly. Therefore, the point of order that the gentleman directs 
    to the amendment to the amendment must be overruled.

Point of Order as to Diversion of Appropriated Funds

Sec. 20.13 A point of order against an amendment to a legislative bill 
    proposing an appropriation of funds that have already been 
    appropriated is in order even though debate has started on such 
    amendment, since Rule XXI clause 5 permits such a point of order 
    ``at any time.''

    On July 29, 1953,(1) during debate on an amendment to 
H.R. 6016, an emergency famine relief bill, Chairman Glenn R. Davis, of 
Wisconsin, sustained a point of order against the amendment to a bill 
reported from a committee not having authority to report 
appropriations, on the ground that it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 99 Cong. Rec. 10398, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3446]]

proposed an appropriation of funds previously appropriated for a 
specific purpose.

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman wild state it.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, would this be the proper 
    time to make a point of order against some wording in section [2]?

        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman to state the 
    point of order.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    suggest that the point of order comes too late, the section has 
    been read.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: We are debating on the whole bill, and I 
    suggest that we do not want to pass a bill without considering 
    every part of it.
        The Chairman: Section ( 2) is now under consideration.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, that is what I want to 
    make my point of order on.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the wording beginning on line 24:

            Any assets available to the Commodity Credit Corporation 
        may be used in advance of such appropriations or payments, for 
        carrying out the purposes of this act.

        Mr. Chairman, I make that point of order on the ground that 
    when I offered an amendment authorizing that the $100 million be 
    taken from funds heretofore appropriated for the Mutual Security 
    Administration, the point of order was sustained that those funds 
    were already appropriated for a specific purpose and that we could 
    not divert such funds. I am making the same point of order now that 
    any assets available to the Commodity Credit Corporation which have 
    heretofore been appropriated would be by the same token diverted to 
    this purpose for the use of the Mutual Security Administration. In 
    other words, the situation if this is permitted to stay in the bill 
    would be that we could not divert Mutual Security funds to carry 
    out this, but that we could divert agricultural funds to carry out 
    a mutual-security program. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Chairman, is it not the parliamentary situation 
    here that debate has commenced on section 2 at the particular time 
    when the point of order is being made by the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Jones]?
        The Chairman: The Chair is advised that this point of order may 
    be made at any time of the consideration of the section.
        The Chair is ready to rule. Since the previous point of order 
    was sustained on similar grounds, the Chair now sustains the point 
    of order of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Jones].

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 846 (1979) provides:

        No bill or joint resolution carrying appropriations shall be 
    reported by any

[[Page 3447]]

    committee not having jurisdiction to report appropriations, nor 
    shall an amendment proposing an appropriation be in order during 
    the consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a 
    committee not having that jurisdiction. A question of order on an 
    appropriation in any such bill, joint resolution, or amendment 
    thereto may be raised at any time.

Point of Order as to Germaneness

Sec. 20.14 A point of order as to the germaneness of an amendment may 
    be reserved when the amendment is read, and the Chairman rules on 
    the point of order when the sponsor of the amendment ends his five-
    minute debate.

    On Apr. 13, 1946,(2) during consideration of H.R. 6064, 
extending the Selective Service and Training Act, with Chairman Alfred 
L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, presiding, the following proceedings 
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 92 Cong. Rec. 3660-63, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross] Rizley [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rizley: On page 2, line 18, after 
        the word ``months'' and before the word ``unless'', insert the 
        following: ``except that every individual heretofore inducted 
        under the provision of subsection (a) who has a wife and one or 
        more legitimate children, shall upon his request in writing be 
        excused from further service and shall be separated from the 
        service within 60 days from and after the effective date of 
        this act.''

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. May: Having reserved a point of order on the amendment, Mr. 
    Chairman, does that point of order have to be ruled upon when the 
    party offering it finishes his debate?
        The Chairman: It should be. The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. May: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that this amendment 
    has the effect of requiring the Army to discharge a certain group 
    of people that are already in the service. The statute under 
    consideration to which the gentleman's pending amendment is offered 
    is an induction statute and not a discharge law.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to speak 
    on the point of order?
        Mr. Rizley: I think certainly the amendment is pertinent to 
    this very section of the bill. The bill provides that no one can be 
    taken into the service for more than 18 months, and I simply 
    offered an amendment which excepts married men already in the 
    service and says that they shall be discharged within 60 days from 
    the effective date of this act.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.

[[Page 3448]]

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma relates to 
    the discharge of men. It is not germane either to the section or to 
    the bill. The Chair sustains the point of order.

Effect of Agreement to Dispense With Reading

Sec. 20.15 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees that the remainder 
    of an appropriation bill be considered as read and open at any 
    point to points of order and amendments, the Chair asks if there 
    are any points of order and then if there are any amendments; 
    points of order against portions of the bill made subsequent to the 
    offering of amendments are not recognized.

    On Aug. 19, 1949,(3) during consideration of H.R. 6008, 
the supplemental appropriations bill, 1950, Chairman Aime J. Forand, of 
Rhode Island, declined to entertain a point of order against a portion 
of the bill after an amendment was offered. The Chairman noted that he 
had requested that points of order be raised when the further reading 
of the bill was dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 11870, 11876, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as 
    read and be open at any point to points of order and amendments.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order?
        If not, are there any amendments?
        Mr. [William M.] Wheeler [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wheeler: On page 6, line 17, 
        strike out all the paragraph to and including all of lines 16 
        on page 7. . . .

        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Sutton: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language on page 19 that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. At the time 
    the further reading of the bill was dispensed with, the Chair 
    requested Members desiring to make points of order to do so at that 
    time.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Miller].

Report on Striking Language From Senate Bill

Sec. 20.16 Where language in violation of Rule XXI clause 5 
    (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1979), which makes subject to 
        points of order appropriation measures reported from committees 
        that do not have jurisdiction over appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3449]]

    is stricken from a Senate bill in the Committee of the Whole by a 
    point of order, the Chairman reports that fact to the House when 
    the measure is reported to the House.

    On July 31, 1957,(5) after the Committee of the Whole 
rose and reported a bill, Chairman George H. Mahon, of Texas, reported 
that language in violation of then Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5), 
had been stricken from the bill by the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 103 Cong. Rec. 13182, 13183, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. The point of 
        order against the language in question, as being an 
        appropriation on a legislative bill, is at p. 13056 (July 30 
        1957).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
    expired.
        All time has expired.
        The Committee will rise.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Mahon, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, stated that that Committee having had 
    under consideration the bill (S. 1856) to provide for the 
    development and modernization of the national system of navigation 
    and traffic-control facilities to serve present and future needs of 
    civil and military aviation, and for other purposes, pursuant to 
    House Resolution 361, he reported the same back to the House.
        The Chairman also reported that the language in the bill on 
    page 7, line 12, reading as follows: ``and unexpended balances of 
    appropriations, allocations, and other funds available or'' was 
    stricken out on a point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the Senate bill passes the House in this 
form, it is messaged to the Senate as having been passed with an 
amendment, although the House does not vote separately on the language 
stricken in Committee of the Whole on a point of order.

Points of Order Against Measure Committed to Conference

Sec. 20.17 Where a House bill with Senate amendments has been sent to 
    conference and the stage of disagreement reached, it is too late to 
    raise a point of order that the amendments of the Senate should 
    have been considered in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to Rule 
    XX clause 1.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 20, 1966,(7) during consideration of Conference 
Report
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 28240, 28241, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3450]]

No. 2327, on H.R. 13103, the Foreign Investment Tax Act of 1966, 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that a point of 
order under Rule XX clause 1, that a particular Senate amendment should 
have been considered in the Committee of the Whole, comes too late 
after conferees have reported.

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 13103) to amend the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954 to provide equitable tax treatment for foreign 
    investment in the United States, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu 
    of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Arkansas?
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    make a point of order against title III of the conference report.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, this point of order is 
    directed at title III of the conference report. That title is the 
    one that provides for the contribution of $1 apiece from any 
    taxpayer who wishes to do so, to be used as a fund to be divided 
    between the political parties in Presidential elections. The title 
    itself has never been before the House. This is a Senate amendment 
    to the bill that the gentleman from Arkansas has just called up. It 
    is not germane to that bill itself and comes under the prohibition 
    of rule XX of the rules of the House. . . .
        If that amendment had been offered when the bill was under 
    consideration in the House it would have had to be under rule XX, 
    and considered under rule XX that I have just read.
        Now, because it is a bill which is an appropriation bill we 
    cannot consider it except in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union. This rule provides that if there is put on 
    it a Senate amendment and it comes hack it is subject to a point of 
    order that it has not been considered in the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Virginia makes the point of order that title 
    III of the conference report contravenes the first sentence of rule 
    XX:

            Any amendment of the Senate to any House bill shall be 
        subject to the point of order that it shall first be considered 
        in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
        if, originating in the House, it would be subject to that 
        point:

        Without passing upon the germaneness of the amendment, because 
    that point was not raised, the Chair calls attention to the fact 
    that the Senate amendment went to conference by unanimous consent. 
    Where unanimous consent was obtained, the effect of that is to 
    circuit rule XX, in other words, to waive or vitiate that portion 
    of rule XX.
        If objection had been made at the point when the unanimous 
    consent request was made to send the bill to conference, then the 
    bill could have been

[[Page 3451]]

    referred to the proper standing committee, and then, if and when 
    reported out of the committee would have been brought up for 
    consideration in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
    the Union.
        At this point, and under the parliamentary situation, the bill 
    was sent to conference by unanimous consent; and this applies to 
    all bills that go to conference by unanimous consent, if there be 
    provisions therein that might be subject to the first sentence of 
    rule XX. If there is no objection made at that time, the bill goes 
    to conference; which in this case had the effect of suspending that 
    portion of rule XX. Therefore, it is properly before the House at 
    the present time as part of the conference report and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, may I add one comment since 
    this is a very important question.
        The Speaker: The Chair will, of course, hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, this did not go to 
    conference by unanimous consent because it was never in the House 
    bill. It was in the Senate bill and it never got in the House bill 
    until last night.
        The Speaker: The Chair will call to the attention of the 
    gentleman from Virginia that the unanimous consent request was made 
    to take a bill from the Speaker's desk with Senate amendments 
    thereto, and disagree to the Senate amendments and request a 
    conference.