[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[D. Types of Special Orders]
[Â§ 23. Waiving and Permitting Points of Order]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4196-4262]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       D. TYPES OF SPECIAL ORDERS
 
Sec. 23. Waiving and Permitting Points of Order

    The Committee on Rules, pursuant to its jurisdiction over the rules 
and order of business, may report resolutions providing that during the 
consideration of a measure or measures, it shall be in order to proceed 
in a certain way notwithstanding the provisions of a House rule or 
rules which would otherwise prohibit proceeding in such 
manner.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. A special order reported from the Committee on Rules may waive all 
        rules or designated rules for a certain purpose. A motion to 
        suspend the rules and pass a bill, however, suspends all rules 
        in conflict with the motion (see Sec. 9, supra). A unanimous-
        consent request may also be used to suspend rules in conflict 
        with the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4197]]

Thus a point of order does not lie against a report from the Committee 
on Rules on the ground that it changes or violates the rules of the 
House by waiving the provisions of certain rules.(8) 
Provisions which the Committee on Rules may not by resolution waive are 
those relating to the right to offer a motion to recommit, and the 
requirement of a two-thirds vote to dispense with (Calendar Wednesday, 
both cited in Rule XI clause 23.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 5 23.1-23.3, 23.48, infra.
 9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [now Rule XI clause 4(b), 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reader is advised to consult other relevant sections of this 
chapter for the applicability of special orders waiving points of order 
to specific subject.(10)~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See in particular Sec. 21, supra, for resolutions making in order 
        and waiving points of order against designated amendments and 
        Sec. 27, infra, for resolutions waiving various points of order 
        in relation to Senate bills and amendments and conference 
        reports.
            For special orders affecting the motion to recommit, see 
        Sec. 26, infra The House may by unanimous consent dispense with 
        Calendar Wednesday. See Sec. 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Resolutions waiving points of order are strictly construed and 
points of order are deemed waived only to the extent of the specific 
language of the rule. Thus, a resolution waiving points of order 
against the text of a bill does not protect nongermane amendments 
offered from the floor.(11) Where a designated amendment is 
made in order and protected by a special order, parts of that amendment 
are not protected if offered as independent amendments.(12)~ 
And a resolution waiving points of order against specific amendments, 
such as committee amendments, does not extend to other amendments 
offered from the floor, although a floor amendment may be offered to a 
nongermane amendment protected by resolution, if germane to such 
amendment and otherwise in order under the rules of the 
House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 23.5, infra.
12. See Sec. 23.20, infra.
13. See Sec. Sec. 23.23, 23.24, 23.43-23.47, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules may recommend waiving points of order 
against bills or resolutions where defects in committee reports thereon 
would otherwise

[[Page 4198]]

prevent consideration if a point of order were raised. It is presently 
the practice to specifically waive such points of order by reference to 
a specific rule and clause thereof.(14) Or a resolution may, 
by providing that notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary 
it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill, waive all 
possible reporting defects which would prevent the consideration of the 
bill.(15) Where a resolution provides for the consideration 
of a bill not yet reported from committee, points of order do not lie 
that there is no committee report and that committee reporting 
requirements under the rules have not been met.(l6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 23.6, 23.13, infra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 23.7-23.12, infra. In an early ruling, no longer 
        valid, the Speaker held that a resolution simply making it in 
        order to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for 
        consideration of a bill, but not waiving points of order, cured 
        defects in reporting of the bill. See Sec. 23.11, infra
16. See, for example, Sec. 20.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Resolutions waiving points of order are often used in considering 
general appropriation bills, which under Rule XXI clause 2 
(17) are subject to points of order if containing 
unauthorized appropriations or legislation. In recent years the 
Committee on Rules has recommended specific waivers of points of order 
rather than complete waivers against appropriation 
bills.(18) A resolution waiving points of order against an 
appropriation bill or amendment thereto may waive all points of order, 
may waive points of order under Rule XXI clause 5 (19) 
(reappropriations in a general appropriation bill), may waive points of 
order under Rule XXI clause 2 only with respect to legislation in the 
bill or only with respect to unauthorized appropriations in the bill, 
or may restrict the waiver to certain language in the bill for any of 
the foregoing reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1979).
18. See Sec. 23.26, infra.
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1973). [Rule XXI clause 6, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1979).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A resolution which only waives points of order against the bill or 
a specific amendment does not protect amendments offered from the 
floor, which must be germane and may not add additional legislation or 
unauthorized appropriations to those contained in the bill, or 
amendment thereto, protected by a special order.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. Sec. 23.30, 23.31, 23.43-23.47, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a portion of an appropriation bill or an amendment

[[Page 4199]]

thereto is protected by a special order during its consideration in the 
House, the waiver carries over to identical provisions in the 
conference report on the bill, since under Rule XX clause 2, House 
conferees are only proscribed from agreeing to provisions in a Senate 
amendment which would have been subject to a point of order if 
originally raised in the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 23.37, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
As to appropriation bills and points of order, see Chs. 25, 26, infra.
As to amendments and the germaneness rule, see Ch. 28, infra.
As to points of order generally, see Ch. 31, infra.
As to suspension of rules as waiving all rules, see Sec. 9, supra.
As to the authority of the Committee on Rules to recommend changing or 
    waiving the rules of the House, see Sec. 16, supra.
As to committee procedure and reports and points of order against 
    consideration of bills improperly reported, see Sec. 17, supra.
As to making in order and waiving points of order against designated 
    amendments, see Sec.  21, supra.
As to waiving points of order against the motion to recommit, see Sec.  
    26, infra.
As to waiving points of order against conference reports and motions on 
    amendments in disagreement, see Sec. 27, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Authority to Waive Points of Order

Sec. 23.1 Rules of the House may be changed by a majority vote by the 
    adoption of a resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for 
    such a change, such as waiving points of order in the consideration 
    of a bill.

    On June 14, 1930,(2) Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 253, 
providing for the consideration of two conference reports on the same 
bill together as one, for the purposes of debate and voting. Speaker 
Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, overruled a point of order against the 
resolution, where the point of order was based on the fact that the 
resolution waived all points of order in the consideration of the 
reports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 72 Cong. Rec. 10694, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    make a point of order against the resolution.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: The resolution provides that ``in the 
    consideration of the reports all points of order shall be waived.'' 
    Points of order are based on the rules of the House, either the few 
    published rules or the

[[Page 4200]]

    precedents and rulings by presiding officers. This resolution 
    proposes to do in effect what should be done by a motion to suspend 
    the rules. The difficulty is, however, that to suspend the rules a 
    two-thirds vote is required. This is not a resolution brought in 
    for the purpose of obtaining by a majority vote the direct repeal 
    of all of the rules of the House but is intended to serve a certain 
    specific purpose in reference to only one measure of the House. For 
    instance, the rule relating to Calendar Wednesday requires that to 
    set that aside there must be a two-thirds vote. The rule 
    prohibiting legislation on an appropriation bill could not be set 
    aside, in my opinion, by this method, and that applies to other 
    rules of the House. Points of order being rules of the House, in my 
    opinion this resolution violates the rules of the House, in that it 
    sets aside all rules relating to points of order.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to argue the 
    point of order with the gentleman if I knew what his point of order 
    is, but from anything my friend has said so far, I am unable to 
    identify it.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state it is not necessary. This is 
    a very ordinary proceeding. It has been done hundreds of times to 
    the knowledge of the Chair. The Chair overrules the point of order.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(3) the House had under consideration 
House Resolution 661, reported from the Committee on Rules and 
providing for consideration of H.R. 7248, to amend and extend the 
Higher Education Act and for other purposes. The resolution waived 
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for failure to comply with Rule XVI clause 7 (germaneness) 
and Rule XXI clause 4 (Rule XXI clause 5 in the 1979 House Rules and 
Manual, appropriations in a legislative bill) and also provided that 
points of order could be raised against portions of the bill whose 
subject matter was properly within another committee's jurisdiction 
rather than within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and 
Labor, which had reported the bill. (Under normal procedure, a point of 
order based on committee jurisdiction cannot be raised after a 
committee to which has been referred a bill has reported it, the proper 
remedy being a motion to correct reference under Rule XXII clause 4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 37768, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, indicated that a majority vote, and not a two-thirds vote, 
would be required to adopt the resolution:

        Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Speaker, at this point is it proper for the 
    Speaker

[[Page 4201]]

    to determine whether a two-thirds vote would be required for the 
    passage of this resolution, House Resolution 661, or merely a 
    majority?
        The Speaker: The resolution from the Committee on Rules makes 
    in order the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7248) and a majority 
    vote is required for that purpose.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Even with the reference to the last section, Mr. 
    Speaker, relating to the raising of a point of order on a bill 
    which is properly reported out by a committee to which the bill was 
    referred, which would in effect contravene an existing rule of the 
    House?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules proposes to make in order 
    in its resolution (H. Res. 661) the opportunity to raise points of 
    order against the bill on committee jurisdictional grounds, but as 
    is the case with any resolution reported by the Committee on Rules 
    making a bill a special order of business, only a majority vote is 
    required.
        Mr. Matsunaga: I thank the Speaker.

Sec. 23.2 It is for the House, and not the Chair, to decide upon the 
    efficacy of adopting a special rule which has the effect of setting 
    aside the standing rules of the House insofar as they impede the 
    consideration of a particular bill; it is not within the province 
    of the Chair to rule out, on a point of order, a resolution 
    reported by the Committee on Rules which is properly before the 
    House and which provides for a special order of business 
    (abrogating the provisions of Rule XX clause 1).

    On Nov. 28, 1967,(4) the previous question had been 
moved on House Resolution 985, called up by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, providing for concurring in a Senate amendment to a House 
bill; the resolution was necessary in order to waive the requirement of 
Rule XX clause 1, that Senate amendments be considered in Committee of 
the Whole if, had they originated in the House, they would be subject 
to that procedure. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
overruled a point of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 34038, 34039, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against a vote on this resolution, and I make the point of 
    order based entirely on rule XX, which says that any amendment of 
    the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to a point of order 
    that it shall first be considered in the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union. If it originated in the House it 
    would be subject to that point of order. I believe there is no 
    question about it being subject to a point of order should it 
    originate here in this House. Until that issue is de

[[Page 4202]]

    bated in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
    I believe that we are violating rule XX of the House rules.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has previously 
    ruled on the point of order raised by the gentleman, and the matter 
    is one that is now before the House for the consideration of the 
    House, and the will of the House.
        For the reasons heretofore stated and now stated, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me under 
    what authority the House can consider this in the House rather than 
    in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, in 
    view of rule XX which says it shall first be considered in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House can change its 
    rules at any time upon a resolution that is properly before the 
    House reported by the Committee on Rules. The present resolution 
    has been put before the House by the Committee on Rules within the 
    authority of the Committee on Rules, therefore the matter presents 
    itself for the will of the House.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The reason I am making this is that I want to get some record 
    on this for this reason: The Chair has said that the Committee on 
    Rules may make a resolution which has not been adopted by the House 
    which summarily amends the Rules of the House which the Members of 
    the House are supposed to rely upon. This rule has not been adopted 
    as yet.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Committee on Rules 
    has reported the rule under consideration--
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: But it has never been voted upon.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that we are about to approach 
    that matter now.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: And I am challenging that, and the point 
    of order is made that we cannot vote on that because it says in 
    rule XX that this first shall be considered in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot be any more specific or clear in 
    responding to the point of order or in answering the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The matter is properly before the House and it is a matter on 
    which the House may express its will.

    The Speaker had previously, when the resolution was called up, 
overruled the same point of order: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 34032. 34033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has given serious 
    consideration to the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
    Missouri. The Committee on Rules has reported out a special rule. 
    It is within the authority of the rules, and a reporting out by the 
    Rules Committee is consistent with the rules of the House. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 4203]]

Sec. 23.3 It is the duty of the Chair to determine whether language in 
    a pending bill conforms to the rules of the House, but where the 
    House has adopted a resolution waiving points of order against 
    provisions in violation of the standing rules, the Chair will not 
    construe the constitutional validity of those provisions.

    On May 10, 1973,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment the bill H.R. 7447, making supplemental 
appropriations, where the House had previously adopted House Resolution 
389 waiving points of order against unauthorized appropriations, 
legislation, and reappropriations of unexpended balances in the bill. 
Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, made a point of order against 
language contained in the bill, appropriating moneys for the Department 
of Defense, on the grounds that such appropriation violated 
constitutional principles:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 15290, 15291, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order against the 
    language set forth in lines 10, 11, and 12, on page 6.
        Article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States 
    says:

            The Congress shall have the power to declare war.

        A Congress has not declared war against Cambodia or Laos or 
    against any other country in Southeast Asia for that matter. 
    Congress has not given the President any authority to use the 
    American Armed Forces in Cambodia and Laos. Nevertheless, on order 
    of President Nixon, American military planes are bombing in both 
    those countries. The appropriation contained in the transfer 
    authority includes funds to continue the bombing of Cambodia and 
    Laos. . . .
        Now, my argument, Mr. Chairman, will not relate to an 
    interpretation by the Chair of the Constitution. I want to make 
    that clear at this point.
        Rule XXI, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the House says:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill for any expenditure not previously 
        authorized by law.

        Mr. Chairman, under that rule it is not enough that there be 
    ordinary legislative authority which is required for other 
    appropriations. It is not enough that there be ordinary legislative 
    authority upon which to base an appropriation for American Armed 
    Forces to engage in war.
        There must be constitutional authority for that appropriation 
    as well, namely, there must be congressional approval for American 
    forces to engage in a war. Both authorizations are essential for 
    that kind of appropriation.
        Mr. Chairman, I am contending that there are two forms of 
    legislative authorization that are essential for military 
    appropriations which are to be used to carry on a war. as the 
    bombing is in Cambodia and Laos. One is the ordinary legislative 
    authorization, and

[[Page 4204]]

    the other, which is necessary, also, is a following of the 
    constitutional mandate as well.
        It will be argued, Mr. Chairman, what difference does that 
    make? Points of order have been waived by rule approved by the 
    House and granted by the Committee on Rules. That argument might be 
    appropriate with respect [to] the need for ordinary legislation 
    which would authorize the use of that transfer of authority, but, 
    as I pointed out, we have two forms of legislation. While that 
    waiver of points of order might apply to ordinary legislation, it 
    cannot apply to a waiver of the constitutional provisions, because 
    the Committee on Rules cannot waive any constitutional provisions. 
    The provisions of the Constitution cannot be waived by the 
    Committee on Rules, because to hold otherwise would be to authorize 
    any unconstitutional action by the House. This House cannot pass 
    any rule of procedure that would vitiate or violate any provision 
    of the Constitution. . . .
        I am asking the Chair for its ruling on two points. One, I ask 
    the Chair to rule with respect to military appropriations which 
    provide funds for American Armed Forces to engage in war under rule 
    XXI, section 2, of the Rules of Procedure of the House of 
    Representatives, which states there must be, as well as any other 
    legislation authorizing such action, compliance with article I, 
    section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the approval of 
    the Congress for American Armed Forces to engage in that war; and, 
    secondly, I am asking the Chair to rule that the requirements in 
    article XI, section 8, cannot be waived by any rule of the 
    Committee on Rules.
        Mr. Chairman, with your ruling, if favorable, the language 
    authorizing the transfer authority should be stricken.

    After further argument, Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, ruled as 
follows:

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has read the resolution, and the resolution adopted 
    by the House under which this legislation is being considered says 
    that--

            All points of order against said bill for failure to comply 
        with the provisions of clause 2 and clause 5 of rule XXI are 
        hereby waived.

        Under clause 2, which the Chair has read, the pending paragraph 
    would be subject to a point of order, as legislation, were it not 
    for this rule.
        The Chair is not in a position, nor is it proper for the Chair 
    to rule on the constitutionality of the language, or on the 
    constitutionality or other effect of the action of the House in 
    adopting the resolution of the Committee on Rules. In the headnotes 
    in the precedents of the House it very clearly states that it is 
    not the duty of a chairman to construe the Constitution as it may 
    affect proposed legislation, or to interpret the legality or effect 
    of language; and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order 
    raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).

Waiving All Points of Order Against Bill or Against Its Consideration

Sec. 23.4 Form of resolution providing ``that notwithstanding the 
    provisions of any other

[[Page 4205]]

    rule of the House'' it shall be in order to resolve into the 
    Committee of the Whole for consideration of a joint resolution.

    The following resolution was under consideration on July 1, 1946: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 689, 92 Cong. Rec. 8059, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of any other rule 
    of the House immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it 
    shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
    consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 371, extending the 
    effective period of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942), as 
    amended, and the Stabilization Act of 1942, as amended, and all 
    points of order against said joint resolution are hereby waived. 
    That after general debate, which shall be confined to the joint 
    resolution and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency, the joint resolution shall be 
    read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of 
    the consideration of the joint resolution for amendment the 
    Committee shall rise and report the same to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall 
    be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and amendments 
    thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
    motion to recommit.

Sec. 23.5 Waiving points of order against the text of a bill (through 
    adoption of a resolution making its consideration a special order 
    and waiving points of order against the bill) does not vitiate the 
    requirement in Rule XVI clause 7, that amendments from the floor 
    must be germane.

    On Aug. 22, 1963, the Committee of the Whole was considering for 
amendment the Foreign Assistance Act Amendments of 1963, pursuant to a 
special order (H. Res. 493) which made in order the consideration of 
said bill and waived all points of order against the bill. Chairman pro 
tempore Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, ruled that the waiver did not 
extend to nongermane amendments offered from the floor.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 15608, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman [Albert M. Rains, of Alabama]: The gentleman will 
    state the point of order.
        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the foreign aid 
    bill.

[[Page 4206]]

        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kansas will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that all points of order 
    have been waived on this bill?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, all points of order are waived as 
    to the text of the bill, as reported by the committee. Points of 
    order are not waived as to amendments that might be offered to the 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Dole] offers an amendment to the 
    bill which the Chair has had an opportunity to read and analyze. 
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] makes the point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to 
    the bill before the Committee. The Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Waiving Defects in Reporting of Bill

Sec. 23.6 Form of resolution waiving points of order against a bill on 
    the grounds of noncompliance with the Ramseyer rule (Rule XIII 
    clause 3).

    The following resolution was under consideration on Apr. 15, 1970: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 916, 116 Cong. Rec. 11863, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to 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. 16311) to authorize a family assistance plan 
    providing basic benefits to low-income families with children, to 
    provide incentives for employment and training to improve the 
    capacity for employment of members of such families, to achieve 
    greater uniformity of treatment of recipients under the Federal-
    State public assistance programs and to otherwise improve such 
    programs, and for other purposes, and any point of order against 
    said bill pursuant to clause 3, Rule XIII, is hereby waived. After 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
    continue not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said 
    bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means, and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of 
    the House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments offered by 
    direction of the Committee on Ways and Means may be offered to any 
    section of the bill at the conclusion of the general debate, but 
    said amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
    to

[[Page 4207]]

    final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.

Sec. 23.7 Despite certain defects in the consideration or reporting of 
    a bill by a standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a 
    special rule from the Committee on Rules

    On May 2, 1939,(10) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
made a point of order against an order of business resolution reported 
by the Committee on Rules and called up for consideration (H. Res. 
175), on the ground that the bill made in order by the resolution had 
been referred to, considered by, and reported from a committee (the 
Committee on the Judiciary) which had no jurisdiction over the subject 
matter involved (the special rule made in order a motion to resolve 
into the Committee of the Whole to consider the bill but waived no 
points of order). After extended argument on the point of order, 
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled the point of order 
on the ground that after a public bill has been reported it is not in 
order to raise a question of committee jurisdiction. The Speaker 
further commented that even if there were defects in the committee 
consideration and report, the rule from the Committee on Rules would 
have the effect of remedying such defects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052-55, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, in order to 
    protect the rights of the Committee on Rules, will the Chair permit 
    this observation? The gentleman from New York slept on his rights 
    further until the Committee on Rules reported a rule making the 
    consideration of this measure in order. Even though the reference 
    had been erroneous and the point of order had been otherwise made 
    in time, the Committee on Rules has the right to change the rules 
    and report a rule making the legislation in order. This point also 
    might be taken into consideration by the Speaker, if necessary.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the statement 
    made by the gentleman from Michigan, although not necessary to a 
    decision of the instant question, is sustained by a particular and 
    special decision rendered by Mr. Speaker Garner on a similar 
    question. The decision may be found in the Record of February 28, 
    1933. In that decision it is held, in effect, that despite certain 
    defects in the consideration or the reporting of a bill by a 
    standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a special rule 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion to consider 
    such bill. The Chair thinks that that decision by Mr. Speaker 
    Garner clearly sustains the contention made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For the Feb. 28, 1933, decision referred to by the Chair, see 
        Sec. 23.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4208]]

    On July 23, 1942,(12) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, made a point of order against a bill ``not legally before 
the House,'' on the grounds that the committee of jurisdiction, the 
Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives 
in Congress, had never reported the bill with a quorum present. Speaker 
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 88 Cong. Rec. 6541, 6542, 77th Cong. 21 Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        At this time there is no bill pending before the House. A 
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules will be presented to 
    the House, which, if adopted, will make in order the consideration 
    of H.R. 7416. If the Committee on Election of President, Vice 
    President, and Representatives in Congress had never taken any 
    action upon this bill and the Committee on Rules had decided to 
    report a rule making it in order and putting it up to the House 
    whether or not the House would consider the bill, they would have 
    been within their rights. Therefore, the Chair cannot do otherwise 
    than hold that there is nothing at the time before the House. It is 
    anticipated that a special rule will be presented, making in order 
    the consideration of H.R. 7416. If the House adopts the rule then 
    the House has decided that it desires to consider the bill at this 
    time, and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] and recognizes the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath].

    Parliamentarian's Note: It is the present practice to specifically 
waive points of order against consideration of bills because of defects 
in committee reports. For example, the failure of a committee to comply 
with the ``Ramseyer'' rule (Rule XIII clause 3) may be raised after the 
House agrees to a resolution making the consideration of the bill in 
order and before the House resolves itself into the Committee of the 
Whole to consider the bill, where the resolution does not waive that 
point, or all points of order.

Sec. 23.8 The Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that if a pending ``closed'' rule providing for the consideration 
    of the bill were rejected, the bill would not be called up since 
    the committee report did not comply with the ``Ramseyer'' rule and 
    could be considered only if the rule, waiving points of order, were 
    adopted.

    On May 21, 1970, there was pending before the House a ``closed'' 
rule (H. Res. 1022) providing for and waiving points of order against 
the consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on Ways and 
Means, amending the Social Security Act.

[[Page 4209]]

Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered parliamentary 
inquiries on the effect of rejection of the resolution: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 16554, 16555, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip] Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the 
    situation, if the rule is rejected, then that would leave us an 
    effective opportunity to restore the current Federal matching to 
    the States for certain nursing home care after 90 days; is that 
    correct, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The Chair understands the gentleman's question, 
    but the Chair must state that that is not a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bolling: As the manager of the rule, would I be correct in 
    stating that the parliamentary situation would be that if this rule 
    were defeated, the bill made in order by the rule, namely, the 
    increase in social security, could not come up?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that is a matter of 
    procedure and a question for the gentleman from Arkansas [Chairman 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means].
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bolling: If the rule making in order the bill which is 
    provided for by the rule were defeated, the bill would not be in 
    order?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state, without passing upon the 
    question at this point as to whether or not this would be a 
    privileged bill, that if the rule should be rejected the bill would 
    not come up at this time.
        Mr. [John W.] Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, will you permit 
    me to comment on the fact that the report on this bill did not 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule, so an objection could be made to 
    bringing up the legislation unless there is a rule waiving that 
    point of order.
        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: That is exactly the point 
    of the gentleman from Missouri.

Sec. 23.9 Where the House adopts a resolution providing that it shall 
    be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
    to move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole 
    for the consideration of a bill, such action waives the requirement 
    of compliance with the Ramseyer rule (Rule XIII clause 3).

    On Feb. 15, 1949, the House adopted a special order from the 
Committee on Rules providing for and waiving points of order against 
the consideration of an appropriation bill: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 99, 95 Cong. Rec. 1214-18, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 4210]]

        Resolved, That notwithstanding any rule of the House to the 
    contrary, it shall be in order on Tuesday, February 15, 1949, to 
    move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    2632) making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies for the 
    fiscal year 1949, and for other purposes, and all points of order 
    against the bill or any of the provisions contained therein are 
    hereby waived. That after general debate which shall be confined to 
    the bill and continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Appropriations, the bill shall be read for 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading 
    of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    same to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
    and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
    bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
    motion except one motion to recommit.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, then overruled a point of order 
against the consideration of the bill: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 1218, 1219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the report accompanying the bill, H.R. 2632, 
    does not comply with the so-called Ramsever rule.
        I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that although the 
    resolution which has been adopted waives points of order against 
    the bill by the provisions contained therein it does not 
    specifically waive or exempt the socalled Ramseyer rule which 
    requires that a report accompanying a bill, including appropriation 
    bills, shall set forth in appropriate type the text of the statute 
    it is proposed to repeal.
        In this connection I invite the Chair's attention to the fact 
    that on page 8 of the proposed bill, line 6, it is proposed to 
    repeal a title in a previous act of Congress, and again on page 16, 
    lines 15 and 16, the bill carries this language: ``and the first, 
    fourth, and fifth provisos under said head are hereby repealed.''
        I have diligently searched the entire report on the bill and 
    can find no citation of the statute to be repealed in order to 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule.
        I make the point of order which, if sustained, as I understand 
    it, would automatically recommit the bill to the committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule:

            Notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, it 
        shall be in order--

        And so forth--
        and all points of order against the bill or any of the 
            provisions contained therein are hereby waived.

        The Chair overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr Speaker, will the Chair indulge me 
    for a moment?
        The Speaker: The Chair will indulge the gentleman.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Under the rule in the House Manual, a 
    cita

[[Page 4211]]

    tion is made to a precedent in the Congressional Record of the 
    Seventy-first Congress, second session, page 10595. This citation 
    reads:

            Special orders providing for consideration of bills, unless 
        making specific exemption, do not preclude the point of order 
        that reports on such bills fail to indicate proposed changes in 
        existing law. (Cannon's, sec. 9220a; 71st Cong., 2d sees., 
        Congressional Record, p. 10595.)

        I fail to see any provision in the rule adopted which 
    specifically exempt clause 2a of rule XIII, the Ramseyer rule.
        The Speaker: The Ramseyer rule is a rule of the House, and this 
    resolution states ``all rules to the contrary notwithstanding,'' it 
    shall be in order to consider the bill.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 23.10 Where a special rule provides that ``upon the adoption of 
    this resolution it shall be in order to 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.--'' (an open rule), 
    the provisions of such rule do not prohibit the raising of a point 
    of order under the Ramseyer rule.

    On June 12, 1930, the House adopted a special order from the 
Committee on Rules (H. Res. 243) providing that ``upon the adoption of 
this resolution it shall be in order to 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. 12549.'' During debate on the 
resolution, Speaker pro tempore John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the proper time to raise a point of 
order against consideration of the bill on the grounds that the report 
thereon did not comply with the provisions of Rule XIII clause 2, the 
Ramseyer rule: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 72 Cong. Rec. 10593-96, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
            The Ramseyer rule was subsequently renumbered to become 
        Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [T. Jeef] Busby [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Indiana yield 
    for that purpose?
        Mr. [Fred S.] Purnell [of Indiana]: For a parliamentary 
    inquiry; yes.
        Mr. Busby: Mr. Speaker, the rule we are about to consider deals 
    with a legislative bill which was reported by the Committee on 
    Patents. The report of the committee does not comply with the 
    provisions of the Ramseyer rule. What I want to ask the Chair is 
    this: At what point in the proceedings it would be proper for me to 
    make a point of order against the consideration of this legislation 
    because the report does not comply with the Ramseyer rule? Should 
    it come before the rule is adopted?

[[Page 4212]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present impression of the Chair is 
    that such a point of order would be in order when the motion is 
    made to go into the Committee of the Whole under the rule.
        Mr. Busby: Then the rule does not automatically carry us into 
    the Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It does not. It makes it in order to 
    move to go into the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to 
    me that there might be another interpretation given the rule than 
    that indicated by the Speaker in his last statement. This 
    resolution makes it in order to move that the House consider this 
    particular piece of legislation, H.R. 12549. If this particular 
    piece of legislation is improperly on the calendar, a motion to 
    strike it from the calendar is in order at any time; but when the 
    Rules Committee by a special rule--which rule makes it possible to 
    consider the bill- provides that it shall be in order to move to 
    consider that bill, H.R. 12549, it seems to me that whether the 
    bill--was correctly reported or not has nothing to do with the 
    matter. The Rules Committee may report a rule providing for 
    consideration of a bill which has not even been reported. The 
    report has no place in the picture. The rule makes in order the 
    consideration of H.R. 12549, and not the report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It seems to the Chair that the Rules 
    Committee has it entirely within its own power. If the Rules 
    Committee by this rule, or by an amendment to this rule, should 
    make it in order, regardless of paragraph 2(a) of Rule XIII, it 
    would be in order; but as the rule now reads it occurs to the Chair 
    that it does not go far enough to mark it in order in contravention 
    of the general rules of the House.

    Following the adoption of the resolution, Mr. Albert H. Vestal, of 
Indiana, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of the bill, and the Speaker pro tempore 
sustained a point of order (raised by Mr. Busby) against the 
consideration of the bill: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 72 Cong. Rec. 10593-96, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Paragraph 2a of Rule XIII reads:

            Whenever a committee reports a bill or a joint resolution 
        repealing or amending any statute or part thereof, it shall 
        include in its report or in accompanying document--
            (1) The text of the statute or part thereof which is 
        proposed to be repealed; and
            (2) A comparative print of that part of the bill or joint 
        resolution making the amendment and of the statute or part 
        thereof proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through 
        type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate 
        typographical devices the omissions and insertions proposed to 
        be made.

        Section 64 of the bill provides:

            The provisions of this act apply to existing copyrights 
        save as expressly indicated by this Act. All other acts or 
        parts of acts relating to copyrights are hereby repealed, as 
        well as all other laws or parts of laws in conflict with the 
        provisions of this act.

[[Page 4213]]

        The gentleman from Indiana argues well that it would be a task 
    of considerable magnitude to do what is proposed here, and yet that 
    seems to be the purpose of the rule that the Member making the 
    report of the committee shall do the work of investigation and 
    submit to the House the information as to what statutes are to be 
    repealed.

        On March 17, 1930, a point of order was made against a bill in 
    very much the same situation as this bill, that it did not conform 
    to section 2a of Rule XIII. In that case the Speaker pro tempore, 
    who happened to be the gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell], 
    chairman of the Rules Committee, that reports this rule, sustained 
    the point of order. It seems to the Chair clear that the ruling 
    then made was correct and that no other ruling can be made here 
    than to sustain the point of order and send the bill back to the 
    committee for a report in accordance with the rule. The Chair 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

Sec. 23.11 In earlier practice, the Speaker held that defects by a 
    committee in reporting a bill to the House (sitting without 
    permission while the House was in session and failing to properly 
    vote on reporting the bill) could be remedied by a special order 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
    consideration of the bill but not specifically waiving points of 
    order.

    On Feb. 28, 1933, Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules a special order providing for the 
consideration of a bill:

        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, I call up a privileged resolution 
    from the Committee on Rules.
        The Clerk read the House resolution as follows:

                              House Resolution 397

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
        the consideration of S. 5122, ``An act to provide for the 
        purchase and sale of cotton under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of Agriculture.''
            That after general debate, which shall be confined to the 
        bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Agriculture, the bill shall be read 
        for amendment under the 6-minute rule. At the conclusion of the 
        reading of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and 
        report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
        been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage 
        without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit.

    Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, overruled a point of order 
against the resolution and against the bill: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 76 Cong. Rec. 5247-49, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point

[[Page 4214]]

    of order, first, that this bill, S. 5122, is not properly on the 
    calendar.
        In the first place, the committee was in session after the 
    House had been called to order, and they had not special permission 
    to be in session on that day, after the House was in session.
        Furthermore, there was no definite vote taken in the committee 
    reporting out the bill.
        In addition, the rule itself is not in proper order, 
    considering the fact that the bill is not properly reported and on 
    the calendar at the present time.
        If the Chair will look at Cannon's book of procedure, the Chair 
    will find that this is a regular rule taking up and giving 
    privilege to a bill that is properly on the House Calendar. Had the 
    Committee on Rules desired to take this bill away from the 
    committee and discharge the committee, it should have brought in a 
    different form of rule than is before us at the present time.
        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the bill was not 
    properly reported, because the committee was sitting at a time when 
    it had no right to sit; and, furthermore, the bill not being on the 
    calendar at the present time in accordance with the rules and the 
    precedents of the House, the rule itself is not in proper order. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: . . . With respect to the point that the committee 
    has not properly reported the bill, the Chair does not think it 
    necessary to go back of the rule to determine what is the condition 
    of the bill. The Rules Committee undoubtedly has authority to bring 
    in a rule providing for the consideration of a bill that has never 
    even been referred to a committee; or if it has been referred to 
    the committee, not reported; or if reported, improperly reported.
        As to the form of the rule, the resolution says:

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
        the consideration of S. 5122, ``An act to provide for the 
        purchase and sale of cotton under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of Agriculture.''

        Then the resolution goes on and lays down the conditions under 
    which the bill shall be considered.
        It occurs to the Chair that this form of resolution undoubtedly 
    gives the House the right and the power to consider S. 5122, under 
    the limitations laid down in the resolution. So if the House 
    adopted the resolution, it would make in order the consideration of 
    the bill which is the object of the rule.
        The third problem is one that the Chair can not rule upon until 
    the Chair knows the facts, and the Chair would have to make inquiry 
    of the individual member of the Rules Committee whether or not it 
    was properly reported. So far as appears on the face of the 
    resolution, it has been reported by the Rules Committee, but if, 
    indeed, and in fact, it is shown that it was not reported by the 
    Rules Committee, then the Chair would consider that fact in 
    reaching a decision.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion right here?
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, in order that we may clarify the 
    issue now pending, does the gentleman from New York challenge the 
    fact that the Rules Committee had a regular meet

[[Page 4215]]

    ing for the consideration of this resolution and reported it out in 
    the regular way?
        Mr. Snell: No, I do not; but I claim that the resolution 
    reported here is not in the form to do what the gentleman is 
    contending here he has the right to do. I maintain that the bill 
    itself was not properly on the House Calendar and under the 
    precedents prepared by Mr. Cannon himself there is shown one kind 
    of rule for a bill on the House Calendar and another kind of rule 
    for a bill that is not properly reported and on the House Calendar.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not understand that the philosophy 
    of that rule could possibly be that the Rules Committee is limited 
    as to the provisions of a rule that suspends all other rules of the 
    House of Representatives. All rules to the contrary, when this 
    resolution is adopted, if it is adopted by the House, it takes the 
    place of all other rules of the House of Representatives 
    inconsistent with its purpose.
        Mr. Snell: The Speaker does not entirely get my point. I claim 
    if they wanted to suspend the rules of the House and consider a 
    bill not properly reported by the committee, they should have 
    drafted a rule in different form from the one now before us.
        The Speaker: Let us see what the rule says.
        Mr. Snell: I know what the rule says.
        The Speaker: It says:

            Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
        to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union.

        For what? For the consideration of S. 5122.
        Mr. Snell: I am not arguing that point with the Chair. I am 
    simply making the point of order that the bill is not properly on 
    the House Calendar, and when a bill is not properly on the House 
    Calendar this rule does not apply to it.
        The Speaker: Suppose there was not any calendar at all?
        Mr. Snell: Then you would have to draft a different kind of 
    rule from the one you have now.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Suppose it was in Phil 
    Campbell's hip pocket?
        Mr. Snell: That does not make any difference, and has nothing 
    to do with the point under discussion.
        The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: For contemporary practice, see 
Sec. Sec. 23.9, 23.10, supra.

Sec. 23.12 A point of order that a committee in reporting a bill has 
    not complied with the provisions of Rule XIII clause 3 (the 
    Ramseyer rule) will not lie during consideration of a special rule 
    providing for the consideration of such bill and waiving all points 
    of order against the bill.

    On Mar. 11, 1933, there was pending before the House a resolution 
from the Committee on Rules, providing for the consideration of a bill 
and providing that ``all points of order against said

[[Page 4216]]

bill shall be considered as waived'' (H. Res. 32). Speaker Henry T. 
Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that under the provisions on the special 
order, a point of order against consideration of the bill for defects 
in the committee report could not be raised: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 77 Cong. Rec. 198. 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the bill is not in order at this time for the 
    reason that the report does not comply with the Ramseyer rule, with 
    which the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Byrns] is entirely 
    familiar. The bill changes existing law and the report does not set 
    out the existing law as provided in the Ramseyer rule and therefore 
    I make the point of order that it is not in order at this time.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Byrns [of Tennessee]: The point of order would 
    be against the bill and not against the resolution.
        Mr. Rankin: It is against consideration of the bill.
        Mr. Byrns: That would come later.
        Mr. Rankin: No; you shut me off from all points of order with 
    the passage of this resolution.
        The Speaker: The point of order is overruled.
        The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to make my point of 
    order against the bill now or shall I make it when the bill is 
    read? I do not want to waive my right to make the point.

        The Speaker: The gentleman can make the point when the bill is 
    called up.
        The resolution was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As with other waivers against defects in 
accompanying reports, waivers should be against consideration of a bill 
for failure to comply with the Ramseyer rule, rather than against the 
bill itself.

Sec. 23.13 The House rejected a resolution reported from the Committee 
    on Rules, providing for the consideration of a bill improperly 
    reported (failure of a quorum to order the bill reported).

    On July 23, 1973,(20) the House rejected House 
Resolution 495, called up by Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules and providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 8929 (to amend title 39, on the reduced mailing rate for 
certain matter). The resolution specifically waived Rule XI clause 
27(e) [now Rule XI clause 2(1)(2)(A) in the 1979 House Rules and 
Manual] in relation to the bill; that clause provided that a quorum 
must actually be present
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 25482, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4217]]

when a bill is ordered reported by a committee, a requirement that was 
not followed by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, in the 
reporting of the bill in question.

Waiving All Points of Order Against Certain Amendments

Sec. 23.14 Form of resolution providing for the consideration of a bill 
    and making in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, a certain type of amendment.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Dec. 5, 1945: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Res. 444, 91 Cong. Rec. 11477, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to 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. 4649) to enable the United States to further 
    participate in the work of the United Nations Relief and 
    Rehabilitation Administration. That after general debate, which 
    shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 day, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the bill shall 
    be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order 
    to consider, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
    an amendment prohibiting the use of funds involved in the bill (H. 
    R. 4649) in countries that refuse free access to examination of 
    United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration operations 
    by representatives of the United States press and radio. At the 
    conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment, the Committee 
    shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 23.15 Where a special rule provided that amendments relating to a 
    certain subject matter could be offered as substitutes for the 
    pending bill, notwithstanding any rules of the House to the 
    contrary, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole explained the 
    parliamentary situation.

    On Mar. 19, 1935, the House adopted House Resolution 165, reported 
from the Committee on Rules and providing for the consideration of a 
bill for the payment of world war adjusted service certificates:

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
    consideration of H.R. 3896, ``a

[[Page 4218]]

    bill to provide for the immediate payment of World War adjusted-
    service certificates, to extend the time for filing applications 
    for benefits under the World War Adjusted Compensation Act, and for 
    other purposes''; and all points of order against said bill are 
    hereby waived; that after general debate, which shall be confined 
    to the bill and continue not to exceed 10 hours, to be evenly 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be read for 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
    as substitute amendments for the bill any such amendments that 
    relate to the payment of World War adjusted-service certificates, 
    and such substitute amendments shall be in order, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding. At the conclusion of the 
    consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
    and report the same to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion, except two motions to recommit, with or without 
    instructions: Provided, however, That if the instructions in such 
    motions relate to the payment of World War adjusted-service 
    certificates, they shall be in order, any rule of the House to the 
    contrary notwithstanding.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 79 Cong. Rec. 3984, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 21, 1935, the bill was being considered pursuant to the 
special order in Committee of the Whole and all time for general debate 
had expired. Chairman Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, made a statement 
regarding the procedure under which the bill would be considered for 
amendment: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 4216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
    Vinson] has expired. All time has expired. The Chair will briefly 
    recapitulate the parliamentary situation.
        This is an unusual rule--but a very adequate one. The Chairman 
    of the Committee on Rules and his committee are to be congratulated 
    on the admirable manner in which they have met a difficult 
    situation.
        Under the special order, all amendments pertaining to the 
    payment of the adjusted-service certificates are in order, the 
    rules of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. At a time when 
    it is the vogue to term all special rules ``gag rules'', here is a 
    special order which liberalizes instead of restricts, the rules of 
    the House. As Chairman O'Connor well says, it is the antithesis of 
    a gag rule.
        Under the clause waiving the restrictions of the rules of the 
    House against any proposition to pay adjusted-service certificates, 
    it permits consideration of the Patman bill, the Cochran bill, the 
    McReynolds bill, the Andrew bill, and similar measures which 
    otherwise could not be considered because not germane. Accordingly, 
    after conference with the Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules, the majority leader, and the authors of the several bills, 
    the Chair will recognize Members who

[[Page 4219]]

    desire to offer major amendments in the following order:
        The first section of the pending bill, the Vinson bill, having 
    been read for amendment, the Chair will recognize the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Patman] to offer his bill as a substitute for the 
    Vinson bill. While it will be offered as a substitute, it will be, 
    technically speaking, an amendment. Then the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cochran] will be recognized to offer his bill as a 
    substitute for the Patman bill in the pending amendment to the 
    Vinson bill. If the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McReynolds] 
    desires, he will then be recognized to offer his bill as an 
    amendment to the Cochran bill or, if he prefers to await a vote on 
    the Cochran substitute and the Cochran substitute is disposed of 
    adversely, he may then offer his bill as a substitute for the 
    Patman bill in the amendment to the Vinson bill. We may have 
    pending at the same time an amendment, an amendment to the 
    amendment, a substitute for the amendment, and an amendment to the 
    substitute. All four forms of amendment may be pending 
    simultaneously. That is the limit, as any further proposal would be 
    an amendment in the third degree.
        Under the rules of the House, an amendment is perfected before 
    it is voted on. Any substitute is then perfected; and then, both 
    the amendment and the substitute for the amendment having been 
    perfected, the Committee takes its choice of the two. It should 
    also be borne in mind that the Committee, having chosen one of the 
    two, and having adopted either the amendment or the substitute for 
    the amendment, it is then too late to offer further perfecting 
    amendments.
        If the various bills are offered in the order indicated, the 
    Vinson bill comprises the text of the bill; the Patman bill is the 
    amendment to the text; the Cochran bill is the substitute for the 
    amendment to the text; and any further bill proposed is an 
    amendment to the substitute.
        The question will come first on perfecting amendments to the 
    Patman bill; second, on perfecting amendments to the Cochran bill. 
    The two bills having been perfected, the Committee will then vote 
    on substituting the Cochran bill--or the Cochran bill, as amended--
    for the Patman bill. The question will then recur on adopting the 
    prevailing bill as an amendment to the Vinson bill.

Sec. 23.16 Where a bill is being considered under the provisions of a 
    resolution which specifies that committee amendments shall be in 
    order ``any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding,'' 
    the issue of germaneness cannot be raised against a committee 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 8, 1960,(4) the House adopted House Resolution 
468, providing for the consideration of H.R. 5 and waiving points of 
order against certain amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 106 Cong. Rec. 4956, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be in order to consider without the intervention 
    of any point of order the substitute amendment rec

[[Page 4220]]

    ommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now in the bill and 
    such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered 
    under the five-minute rule as an original bill. No other amendment 
    to the bill or committee substitute shall be in order except 
    amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the 
    contrary notwithstanding, but such amendments shall not be subject 
    to amendment. . . .

    While the bill was being considered on May 18, 1960,(5) 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, stated in response to an 
inquiry that a point of order of germaneness could not be raised 
against such a committee amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 10575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana] (during the reading of the 
    amendment): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
    the further reading of the amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Louisiana?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right 
    to object, I would like to address a parliamentary inquiry to the 
    Chairman. Would the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana be subject to a point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair desires to inform the gentleman from 
    Iowa that under the resolution which we are considering this bill, 
    House Resolution 468, committee amendments shall be in order, any 
    rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Louisiana?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 23.17 Where a resolution under which a bill is being considered 
    makes in order, without the intervention of any point of order, a 
    specified amendment, the amendment may be offered as a new title, 
    and the amendment need not be germane to the title which it 
    supplants or to the title which it follows.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963, where the special 
order (H. Res. 616) adopted by the House made in 1963, without the 
intervention of any point of order, the text of another bill, to 
provide an ``Operation Bootstrap'' for the American Indian. Chairman 
Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, overruled a point of order against the 
amendment when it was offered as a new title VIII of the bill (the bill 
already contained a title VIII):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 2738-40, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York] (interrupting reading of the 
    bill):

[[Page 4221]]

    Mr. Chairman, enough has been read of the amendment to indicate 
    that it is subject to a point of order, and I make the point of 
    order that we have not completed the reading of the bill, therefore 
    this is not the proper place to consider the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair reminds the gentleman from New York 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota has 
    been made in order by the resolution under which this bill is being 
    considered. The gentleman is offering the amendment at this time, 
    and the Chair would be impelled to hold that the amendment is in 
    order.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to offer this 
    amendment to title VII, or must there be a new title read?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Dakota is offering his 
    amendment as a new title VIII to the bill.

Waiving Points of Order Against Nongermane Amendments

Sec. 23.18 Form of resolution waiving points of order against a 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute on the grounds of 
    germaneness (Rule XVI clause 7).

    The following resolution was under consideration on Oct. 13, 1970: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 36592, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See Rule XVI clause 7, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 794 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1251

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to 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. 17849) to provide financial assistance for and 
    establishment of improved rail passenger service in the United 
    States, to provide for the upgrading of rail roadbed and the 
    modernization of rail passenger equipment, to encourage the 
    development of new modes of high speed ground transportation, to 
    authorize the prescribing of minimum standards for railroad 
    passenger service, to amend section 13(a) of the Interstate 
    Commerce Act, and for other purposes, and all points of order 
    against said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of 
    clause 3, Rule XIII are hereby waived. After general debate, which 
    shall continue not to exceed three hours, two hours to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and one hour 
    to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall 
    be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
    order to consider without the intervention of any point of order, 
    under clause 7, Rule XVI, the

[[Page 4222]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now printed in the 
    bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
    five-minute rule, and said committee substitute shall be read by 
    titles instead of by sections. At the conclusion of the 
    consideration of title VIII of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for amendment, title IX of said substitute shall be 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendments shall 
    be in order to title IX of said substitute except amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and said 
    amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, but shall not be subject to amendment. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a 
    separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 
    with or without instructions.

Sec. 23.19 In ruling on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair 
    considers the purpose of the amendment with relation to the bill 
    under consideration, and is not bound by the fact that the 
    Committee on Rules, in reporting the resolution providing for the 
    consideration of the bill, specifically waived points of order 
    against the consideration of a similar amendment.

    On Mar. 15, 1960,(8) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
made a point of order, on the grounds of germaneness, against an 
amendment offered by Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, to H.R. 8601, 
to enforce constitutional rights and for other purposes. In argument on 
the point of order, Mr. Smith argued, in support of his contention that 
the amendment was not germane, that the Committee on Rules had reported 
a resolution for the consideration of the bill which resolution waived 
points of order against a specified amendment containing similar 
language (H. Res. 359). Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, and Mr. 
Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, argued that the action of the Committee 
on Rules in resolving any doubts about the nongermaneness of an 
amendment by waiving points of order should not indicate whether the 
amendment was in fact germane. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 106 Cong. Rec. 5655-57, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule.

[[Page 4223]]

        It is quite true that the rule, House Resolution 359, under 
    which H.R. 8601 is being considered, contains the language that the 
    gentleman from Virginia mentioned a moment ago, concerning putting 
    in order H.R. 10035 in order to eliminate any question of 
    germaneness of that particular proposal.
        The Chair dislikes to substitute the judgment of the Chair for 
    that of the distinguished Committee on Rules, but, frankly, the 
    Chair does not believe that including this language necessarily 
    binds the present occupant of the chair.
        It is quite true that the measure, H.R. 8601, deals with 
    Federal election records, and the Chair is quite certain that the 
    membership agrees with the Chair that the scope is rather narrow. 
    However, the Chair feels that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio has to do with the basic purpose of title 3 of 
    the bill H.R. 8601.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 23.20 Where a resolution providing for the consideration of a bill 
    makes in order (notwthstanding the rule of germaneness) the text of 
    a specific bill as an amendment, points of order are considered as 
    waived only against the complete text of the proposed bill and not 
    against portions thereof; and if parts of the text are offered as 
    independent amendments they must meet the test of germaneness under 
    Rule XVI clause 7.

    On Dec. 10, 1969, the House had under consideration a special order 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules by Mr. Ray J. Madden, 
of Indiana; the resolution made in order as an amendment to the bill 
the text of another bill, and waived points of order against the 
consideration of such amendment: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 714, 115 Cong. Rec. 38123, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to 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. 4249) to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
    with respect to the discriminatory use of tests and devices. After 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
    continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee of the Judiciary, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider, 
    without the intervention of any point of order, the text of the 
    bill H.R. 12695 as an amendment to the bill. At the conclusion of 
    the consideration of H.R. 4249 for amendment, the Committee shall 
    rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
    have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
    instructions.

[[Page 4224]]

    Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on whether portions of the bill made in order as 
an amendment could be offered to the bill: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 38130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, under the resolution (H. Res. 714), 
    if adopted, should the bill, H.R. 12695, be considered and 
    rejected, would it then be in order, following rejection of H.R. 
    12695, should that occur, to offer a portion or portions of H.R. 
    12695 as amendments to H.R. 4249?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that would be in 
    order subject to the rule of germaneness, if germane to the bill 
    H.R. 4249.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, should a portion of H.R. 12695 be 
    offered under the conditions set forth in my previous inquiry and 
    should it not be germane, a motion to that effect, to rule it out 
    of order, would be then in order and be sustained, I gather?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That, of course, would be a matter for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to consider when it is 
    before him.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, I have one additional parliamentary 
    inquiry. Under House Resolution 714, if adopted, would it be in 
    order to include in the motion to recommit a portion or portions of 
    H.R. 12695 which might otherwise be subject to a point of order on 
    the point of germaneness?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would not want to pass upon 
    that hypothetically. At the time the occasion arises the Chair 
    would pass upon it.

Sec. 23.21 The issue of germaneness cannot be raised against an 
    amendment when all points of order against it have been waived.

    On Feb. 10, 1964, the Committee of the Whole was considering for 
amendment H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963, pursuant to the 
provisions of House Resolution 616, a special order providing for the 
consideration of the bill, providing that the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute thereto be read as an original bill for 
amendment, and providing that ``it shall also be in order to consider, 
without the intervention of any point of order, the text of the bill 
H.R. 980, 88th Congress, as an amendment to the said committee 
substitute amendment.'' When title VII of the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute was pending, Mr. Ellis Y. Berry, of South 
Dakota, offered an amendment adding a new title VIII, con

[[Page 4225]]

sisting of the text of the bill H.R. 980 (which dealt with equal 
employment opportunity for Indians through industrial development); his 
amendment was related to the subject matter of neither title VII nor 
title VIII of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, overruled a point of order 
against the consideration of the amendment, since all points of order 
had been waived against its consideration and it was not required to be 
germane to either title VII or title VIII of the committee amendment: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 2738, 2739, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Manuel] Celler [of New York] (interrupting reading of the 
    bill): Mr. Chairman, enough has been read of the amendment to 
    indicate that it is subject to a point of order, and I make the 
    point of order that we have not completed the reading of the bill, 
    therefore this is not the proper place to consider the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair reminds the gentleman from New York 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota has 
    been made in order by the resolution under which this bill is being 
    considered. The gentleman is offering the amendment at this time, 
    and the Chair would be impelled to hold that the amendment is in 
    order.

Sec. 23.22 The House rejected the previous question on a resolution 
    reported from the Committee on Rules making the text of a bill in 
    order as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and then 
    adopted an amendment substituting another bill whose text would be 
    in order as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
    amendment to the resolution also struck out provisions in the 
    resolution waiving points of order against nongermane committee 
    amendments.

    On Apr. 16, 1973, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules the following resolution: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 12501, 93d Cong. Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to 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. 6168) to amend and extend the Economic 
    Stabilization Act of 1970. After general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency, the bill 
    shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. Immediately 
    after the reading of the first section of H.R. 6168 under the five-
    minute rule, it shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of

[[Page 4226]]

    any point of order the text of H. R. 6879 as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the bill. If said amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is not agreed to in Committee of the Whole, 
    it shall then be in order to consider the amendments recommended by 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency now printed in the bill 
    notwithstanding the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of H.R. 6168 for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
    to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit with or without instructions. After the passage of H.R. 
    6168, the Committee on Banking and Currency shall be discharged 
    from the further consideration of the bill S. 398, and it shall 
    then be in order in the House to move to strike out all after the 
    enacting clause of the said Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof 
    the provisions contained in H.R. 6168 as passed by the House.

    The House rejected the previous question on the resolution and 
adopted an amendment offered by the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Rules, Mr. David T. Martin, of Nebraska: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 12509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Martin of Nebraska: On page 2, 
        line 1, strike ``H.R. 6879,'' and insert in lieu thereof, 
        ``H.R. 2099.''
            On page 2, lines 2 through 7, strike the words: ``If said 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute is not agreed to in 
        Committee of the Whole, it shall then be in order to consider 
        the amendments recommended by the Committee on Banking and 
        Currency now printed in the bill notwithstanding the provisions 
        of clause 7. rule XVI.''

        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain 
    this amendment to the Members. The amendment makes in order the 
    consideration of the committee bill, H.R. 6168. Then it makes in 
    order the offering of H.R. 2099 as a substitute. This strikes out 
    the Stephens bill and substitutes H.R. 2099, which is a bill which 
    was jointly introduced by the chairman of the Banking and Currency 
    Committee and the ranking minority member, and provides for a 
    simple 12 months' extension of the Economic Stabilization Act.
        Then in addition it strikes from the original resolution (H. 
    Res. 357) the waiving of points of order in regard to germaneness. 
    In other words, those are stricken from the resolution. That is all 
    this amendment does.
        Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling).
        Mr. Boiling: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska 
    for yielding, but I see no purpose in debating the matter further. 
    I thank the gentleman again.
        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the 
    amendment, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on 
    the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.

[[Page 4227]]

        The Speaker: (14) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentle man from Nebraska (Mr. Martin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As indicated in notes to Sec. Sec. 18.22 
and 18.30, supra, an amendment to a special order reported from the 
Committee on Rules, to make in order the consideration of an amendment 
or of another bill unrelated to the measure made in order by the 
special order, may not be germane.

Amending Nongermane Amend
    ments Permitted to Remain by Special Order

Sec. 23.23 Where a special rule providing for consideration of a bill 
    permits the committee reporting the bill to offer nongermane 
    amendments, such amendments when offered are subject to amendments 
    germane to the committee amendment.

    On Sept. 3, 1940, the House was considering a special order (H. 
Res. 586) from the Committee on Rules providing for consideration of a 
bill and waiving points of order against committee amendments as 
follows:

        . . . It shall be in order to consider without the intervention 
    of any point of order the substitute amendment recommended by the 
    Committee on Military Affairs now in the bill, and such substitutes 
    for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute 
    rule as an original bill. It shall also be in order to consider 
    without the intervention of any point of order any amendment 
    offered by the direction of the Committee on Military Affairs to 
    the bill or committee substitute.

    Speaker pro tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on amendments which could be offered to such 
committee amendments:

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, the question 
    which I am trying to have clarified is this: It has been stated by 
    Members that the Committee on Military Affairs, as authorized to do 
    under the language of the pending rule, will offer substitute 
    language for what is commonly known as the Russell-Overton 
    amendment adopted in the Senate. No Member of the House could offer 
    a substitute, because it would not be relevant to the bill, and 
    under the rule an amendment not relevant to the bill could not be 
    offered by anyone except the Committee on Military Affairs. 
    Assuming that the Committee on Military Affairs does offer such 
    amendment, may Members of the House then offer amendments to the 
    committee amendment or substitutes for the committee amendment 
    which are relevant to the committee

[[Page 4228]]

    amendment but which would not be relevant to the bill without the 
    committee amendment?
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
    Tarver] and, earlier in the day, the gentleman from Mississippi 
    [Mr. Colmer], both of whom are interested in this subject, raised 
    the same point that the gentleman from Georgia now raises. Since 
    that time I have consulted with the Speaker and the 
    Parliamentarian, and I have made some investigation of the rules 
    and precedents of the House. Under the amendment that the committee 
    will offer in reference to this matter of drafting industry, it is 
    my opinion, and the opinion of those with whom I have consulted, 
    that relevant amendments to that would be in order. It is my 
    opinion that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole would in 
    all probability so hold.

        Mr. Tarver: I thank the gentleman from Texas, but I wonder if 
    that opinion of the gentleman from Texas may be confirmed by the 
    Chair?
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, of course, I cannot assure the 
    gentleman from Georgia what the Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union will do, but I think the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
    Union will in all probability consult with the same people I have 
    and will in all probability arrive at the same conclusion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In answer to the parliamentary inquiry 
    of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Tarver] the Chair may say that 
    while he does not feel it would be proper to undertake to make a 
    decision now which would bind the Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union when such question is 
    presented, the present occupant of the chair is of the opinion that 
    amendments offered by authority of the Committee on Military 
    Affairs would be subject to germane amendments offered by Members 
    of the House.
        Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boren: I may put it in the form of a question. I want to 
    know if the statement the Chair has just made would apply to an 
    amendment which might be offered in the form of a substitute to the 
    committee amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: A substitute is an amendment. The 
    present occupant of the chair does not feel compelled to further 
    amplify or to further express an opinion on these questions that 
    may properly be raised in the Committee of the Whole and which will 
    be passed upon by the Chairman of that Committee.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 11358, 11360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.24 Where the House has adopted a resolution waiving points of 
    order against committee amendments, no immunity is granted to 
    Members to offer amendments to the bill which are not germane.

[[Page 4229]]

    On June 17, 1948,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment H.R. 6401 (the Selective Service Act of 1948) 
pursuant to House Resolution 671, providing for consideration of the 
bill and waiving points of order against committee amendments reported 
by the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New 
York, made a point of order against an amendment offered by Mr. Leon H. 
Gavin, of Pennsylvania, to the bill, on the grounds it was not germane 
to the bill (the amendment proposed acceptance of aliens for enlistment 
and amended the naturalization laws). Mr. Gavin argued in support of 
his amendment that a similar amendment had been allowed in the Senate 
to a similar bill. Chairman Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, ruled as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 94 Cong. Rec. 8670, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania has suggested that in view of 
    the fact a similar amendment was adopted in another body it should 
    be permitted here. The Chair calls attention to the fact that the 
    House of Representatives has a rule on germaneness which does not 
    apply to a certain other body. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania includes a proviso which affects the 
    naturalization laws by establishing a new basis for eligibility to 
    citizenship. A bill proposing to amend the naturalization laws 
    would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Armed 
    Services. Under the rule which has been adopted no immunity was 
    granted to Members to offer amendments which are not germane; 
    consequently, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

    The Chairman delivered a similar ruling on the same bill on the 
same day: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 8686.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews] has made the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
    Rees] is not germane to the bill. Several of the Members who have 
    spoken have called attention to other provisions in the bill. The 
    Chair must remind the Committee that the provisions in the bill as 
    reported by the committee were made in order by a special rule 
    adopted by the House of Representatives. There may be provisions in 
    the bill which would not be germane if offered as an amendment by 
    individual Members, but are in order in the bill because they were 
    made in order by the rule adopted by the House.
        So every amendment offered must stand on its own bottom as to 
    whether or not it is germane.
        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment 
    includes such language as ``It shall be unlawful to maintain 
    certain institutions,'' and further on says, ``Any person, 
    corporation, partnership, or association violating any of the 
    provisions of this subsection

[[Page 4230]]

    shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' and so forth. In that 
    respect it seems to the Chair that the amendment goes beyond the 
    provisions of the bill, imposing penalties and sanctions on persons 
    outside the armed forces.

Waiving Points of Order Against Appropriation Bills Generally

Sec. 23.25 Form of resolution waiving points of order against the 
    consideration of a general appropriation bill (where the report has 
    not been available for three calendar days as specified in Rule XXI 
    clause 6).

    The following resolution was under consideration on Dec. 9, 1969: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 742, 115 Cong. Rec. 37948, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
            Rule XXI clause 6 has been renumbered and is now Rule XXI 
        clause 7, House Rules and Manual (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, 
    notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, it shall be 
    in order to 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. 15149) making appropriations for Foreign 
    Assistance and related programs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
    1970, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said 
    bill are hereby waived.

Sec. 23.26 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules waiving 
    points of order against any provision in an appropriation bill in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2, was amended to restrict the waiver 
    to appropriations in the bill not authorized by law, where the 
    Committee on Rules had intended to recommend a waiver of points of 
    order against unauthorized items but not against legislative 
    language in the bill.

    On July 21, 1970, Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, of the Committee on 
Rules called up a resolution waiving points of order during the 
consideration of an appropriation bill, and indicated his intention to 
offer an amendment to the resolution: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 25240, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
    I call up House Resolution 1151 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows.

                                  H. Res. 1151

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18515) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and 
        Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, for the 
        fiscal year ending

[[Page 4231]]

        June 30, 1971, and for other purposes, all points of order 
        against said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 2, rule XXI are hereby waived.

        Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Smith), pending which I yield myself 
    such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1151 is a resolution waiving 
    points of order against certain provisions of H.R. 18515, the 
    Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare and related 
    agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 1971.
        Legislative authorization for several activities, for which 
    funds are included in H.R. 18515, expired at the end of fiscal year 
    1970. These are all activities currently in progress; funds for all 
    are carried in the budget; legislation to extend them all is in the 
    legislative process. The activities involved are listed on page 42 
    of the report on the bill.
        Because the authorizations have not been enacted, points of 
    order are waived against the bill for failure to comply with the 
    first provision of clause 2, rule XXI. By mistake, the second 
    provision was covered by the rule-so I have an amendment at the 
    desk to correct the resolution.----
        Now, Mr. Speaker, as stated there is a clerical error in the 
    rule and at the proper time I shall send to the desk a committee 
    amendment to correct the clerical error. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I offer a committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young: Strike out lines 5 through 
        7 of the resolution and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
        ``purposes, all points of order against appropriations carried 
        in the bill which are not yet authorized by law are hereby 
        waived.''

        The amendment was agreed to.

    The House adopted the amendment offered by Mr. 
Young.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 25241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.27 On an occasion where the Committee on Rules failed to grant 
    a rule waiving points of order against provisions in an 
    appropriation bill, a member of the Committee on Appropriations 
    made points of order against practically every paragraph of the 
    bill as it was read for amendment, in order to show the House what 
    could occur if points of order are not waived in such cases.

    On July 14, 1955, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of H.R. 7278, making supplemental 
appropriations (Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, presiding). Mr. 
Louis C. Rabaut, of Michigan, a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, made the following remarks in relation to the bill and 
its susceptibility to points of order: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 10572, 10573, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, with malice toward nobody but with 
    deter

[[Page 4232]]

    mination to do my duty as I see it, I want to report to this House 
    that yesterday I appeared before the Committee on Rules, as was the 
    request of the full Committee on Appropriations. I told the 
    Committee on Rules that this bill was filled with paragraphs that 
    were subject to points of order; that the bill probably contained 
    very few pages where a ruling could be denied against points of 
    order, and the bill would be bad. I said there were so few pages 
    that I limited it to about four pages that would not be subject to 
    a point of order.
        I read to the committee a prepared statement and said the bill 
    contained many of the paragraphs that were in the final 
    supplemental bill as handled by the Committee on Appropriations 
    every year, and that a rule is usually granted.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Phillips], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
    Davis], were present and opposed a rule. Mr. Davis lent his moral 
    support.
        Past history always allowed a rule. . . .
        Rather than to have a field day on points of order I intend to 
    ask unanimous consent to ask for deletion from the bill of all the 
    paragraphs subject to a point of order so the House may work its 
    will on that part of the bill on which the decision of the Rules 
    Committee permits us to function. This will represent a big saving 
    in time and much useless talk.

    Mr. Rabaut's request (to strike from the bill the portions thereof 
subject to points of order on the ground that they were unauthorized by 
law or constituted legislation) was objected to. When the bill was read 
for amendment, Mr. Rabaut made points of order against such portions of 
the bill; many of the points of order were conceded by the Chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations and sustained by the 
Chair.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For the proceedings wherein such points of order were made, see 101 
        Cong. Rec. 10604-06, 10610, 10611, 10613-17, 10621, 10623-25, 
        84th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For a statement by Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
        Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, on the necessity 
        of resolutions from the Committee on Rules waiving points of 
        order against appropriation bills, see 91 Cong. Rec. 2671, 
        2672, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.28 On one occasion, the Chairman and members of the Committee 
    on Armed Services first opposed the adoption of a rule waiving 
    points of order against the Defense Department appropriation bill, 
    then agreed to support the rule after the Chairman of the Committee 
    on Appropriations announced that the appropriation bill would not 
    be called up pending final conference action on the authorization 
    measure.

    On July 26, 1968, Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, called

[[Page 4233]]

up by direction of the Committee on Rules and explained the purposes of 
a special order waiving points of order against the provisions of H.R. 
18707, making appropriations for the Department of Defense: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 23622, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 1273 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1273

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18707) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
        the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, 
        all points of order against said bill are hereby waived.

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I yield the usual 30 minutes to the 
    minority, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Latta], and 
    pending that, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.
        Mr. Speaker, this is a rather simple resolution, but it does 
    encompass a rather controversial matter in that it waives points of 
    order.
        Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply makes in order the 
    consideration of the appropriation bill for the Department of 
    Defense for fiscal year 1969. Of course, as the membership is 
    aware, the Appropriations Committee reports and bills are 
    privileged. They do not require ordinarily a rule to bring them to 
    the floor. But in this case a rule was requested and granted simply 
    because the authorizing legislation which ordinarily precedes the 
    reporting and consideration of an appropriation bill has not been 
    finally enacted.
        The matter is now in conference, and the Committee on 
    Appropriations, I understand, with the concurrence of the 
    leadership, came to the Committee on Rules and requested a rule 
    waiving points of order.

    The Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, L. Mendel Rivers, 
of South Carolina, along with other members of that committee, opposed 
the special order under consideration: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 23623.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . We are now tied up in a conference with the other body. 
    Indeed, we have already acted on two procurement sections for which 
    this bill makes money available.
        Now I do not think the great Committee on Appropriations--since 
    the objective of adjourning at the end of August is not to be 
    attained and since time is not of the essence--will really be 
    saving any time. Nobody knows when we will get away from here now. 
    We are not going to finish this month. I doubt that we will finish 
    next month.
        So, we are not going to finish this week. And we are not going 
    to finish next week. This appropriations bill will not even be 
    considered by the other body until sometime in September. I am 
    hopeful that the great chairman, with whom I have never had a 
    disagreement and with whom I have cooperated to the extent of 
    forgoing our committee jurisdiction on

[[Page 4234]]

    supplementals bills for Southeast Asia, will not insist on this 
    bill now. It is a bad precedent. I do not want to have a 
    misunderstanding now.
        I think the sound and considerate thing to do is to consider 
    the jurisdiction of a committee which has broken its neck to 
    cooperate with the great Committee on Appropriations. I do not want 
    to get into any controversy with them, but this bill could end up 
    as the authorization for the appropriation and, as the gentleman 
    from New York has said, the appropriation would really repeal the 
    jurisdiction of our committee.

    Mr. Rivers then withdrew his opposition to the resolution when 
George H. Mahon, of Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
announced his intention to refrain from calling up the appropriation 
bill until the conference report on the authorizing provisions was 
agreed to: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 23627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, this discussion has been altogether 
    unanticipated. We have always worked together with the Armed 
    Services Committee, and we have undertaken to do so in this 
    instance. The imminent consideration of this bill has been well 
    known to the Members of the House, and the House leadership on both 
    sides of the aisle for many days. In view of the discussion which 
    has taken place and in order to resolve the problem I have just 
    conferred on the floor here with the gentleman from Mississippi 
    [Mr. Colmer], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the 
    gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Rivers], the chairman of the 
    Armed Services Committee, and it occurs to me that our purposes 
    might best be served if we agree to the rule and agree not to take 
    the bill up for consideration in the House until after the 
    conference report on the authorizing bill has passed both Houses. 
    This would seem to be agreeable to all concerned. . . .
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, of course, there has been cooperation. 
    This is perfectly satisfactory. All we want is the opportunity to 
    work out our conference with the other body. Then the legislative 
    will and the regular procedure will be accomplished. I think this 
    will be a good solution. I do not want to do anything to any 
    committee. I have had fine relations with both committees.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina and 
    the gentleman from Texas agree that upon the adoption of the rule, 
    the bill will not be called up in the House by the Committee on 
    Appropriations until the conference report on the authorization 
    bill has been adopted by both bodies.
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable to me.

Sec. 23.29 A resolution waiving points of order against a certain 
    provision in a general appropriation bill was considered and agreed 
    to by the House after the general debate on the bill had been 
    concluded and reading for amendment had begun in Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 21, 1969, general debate had been concluded in Com

[[Page 4235]]

mittee of the Whole on H.R. 11400, the supplemental appropriations 
bill, and the first section of the bill had been read for amendment 
when the Committee rose.
    The House then adopted a special order from the Committee on Rules 
which waived points of order against one section of the bill:

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 414 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 414

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        11400) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, all points of 
        order against title IV of said bill are hereby waived.

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
    the minority, to the very able and distinguished gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Smith). Pending that I yield myself such time as I 
    may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, I shall not use all the time on this resolution. 
    This is a rather unusual situation that we find ourselves in, 
    parliamentarily speaking. We have debated the supplemental 
    appropriation bill at some length under the privileged status of 
    the Appropriations Committee. Now we come in with a resolution from 
    the Rules Committee for one purpose and one purpose alone; that is, 
    to waive points of order against a particular section of the 
    bill.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 13246-51, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver Against Appropriation Bill Does Not Apply to Floor Amendments

Sec. 23.30 Where the House had adopted a resolution providing that 
    ``during the consideration of'' a general appropriation bill ``the 
    provisions of clause 2, Rule XXI are hereby waived,'' the Chair 
    relied on the legislative history to rule that the waiver extended 
    only to provisions in the bill and not to amendments offered from 
    the floor.

    On June 22, 1973, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 8825, making appropriations for Housing and Urban 
Development and independent agencies. Mr. Robert O. Tiernan, of Rhode 
Island, offered an amendment, to which Mr. Edward P. Boland, of 
Massachusetts, raised a point of order on the grounds that the 
amendment constituted legislation on an appropriation bill. Mr. Robert 
N. Giaimo, of Connecticut, argued that the point of order had no merit 
because the House had ear

[[Page 4236]]

lier adopted a special order waiving points of order: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 20982, 20983, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from 
    Connecticut desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Giaimo: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        If the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island is 
    not admissible, it is because of the fact that it violates these 
    rules, rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        It seems to me, however, that if we read the rule of the 
    committee, House Resolution 453, which made in order this 
    legislation before us in this appropriation bill, the resolution 
    which this House passed says:

                                  H. Res. 453

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        8825) making appropriations for the Department of Housing and 
        Urban Development; for space, science, veterans, and certain 
        other independent executive agencies, boards, commissions, and 
        corporations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and for 
        other purposes, the provisions of clause 2, Rule XXI are hereby 
        waived.

        That means on the face of it that the Committee on Rules waived 
    the prohibition of the Holman rule, and rule XXI, clause 2, making 
    in order taking up matters which otherwise would be prohibited.
        Of course, it has been stated here on the floor today earlier 
    that the reason why the committee had to go to the Committee on 
    Rules for a waiver of points of order was because of the fact that 
    there was some legislation that we are appropriating for in this 
    bill which was, in fact, not as yet authorized by law. If that is 
    so, I suggest that the Committee on Rules should have worded their 
    language a little differently, but they did not. They said the 
    provisions of clause 2, rule XXI, are hereby waived. If we are 
    going to go by the written wording of the resolution and interpret 
    what in fact the chairman had in mind when the gentleman asked for 
    the waiver of rule XXI, that puts many of we Members of Congress in 
    a very difficult position because of the time that the resolution 
    was up for adoption we would have had the right to vote down the 
    previous question against the resolution of the Committee on Rules 
    and try to make in order what the gentleman from Rhode Island is 
    trying to do now. We did not do that, and one of the reasons why, 
    undoubtedly is because Members of the Congress had the right to 
    rely on the written wording which was before us, and the written 
    wording clearly says that the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI are 
    hereby waived.

        I submit, Mr. Chairman, since that is the situation before us 
    we should not go beyond the written wording of the waiver of the 
    provisions of rule XXI, but in fact it should be instead that rule 
    XXI is in fact waived in all its respects and in all of its 
    aspects, and the amendments offered by the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island (Mr. Tiernan) should be made in order.

    Chairman O'Hara ruled that the legislative history of the special 
order clearly indicated that the waiver of points of order was

[[Page 4237]]

intended to apply only to provisions in the bill and not to amendments 
offered from the floor: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 20983, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair feels that it will be necessary first to speak on the 
    contention raised by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Tiernan) 
    and amplified upon by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) 
    with respect to the provisions of the resolution under which the 
    bill is being considered, and whether or not the provisions of that 
    resolution have an effect on the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland).
        The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) is correct in 
    asserting that if the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island (Mr. Tiernan) is out of order at all it is out of order 
    because of the second sentence of clause 2 of rule XXI, which 
    contains the provisions that ``nor shall any provision in any such 
    bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in order,'' and 
    so forth, setting forth exceptions. But the gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) contends, and the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island (Mr. Tiernan) concurs, that the resolution providing for the 
    consideration of the bill waives the provisions of that rule. The 
    Chair has again read the rule. It says:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        8825) making appropriations for the Department of Housing and 
        Urban Development . . . the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI 
        are hereby waived.

        It does not say that points of order are waived only with 
    respect to matters contained in the bill. It says ``During the 
    consideration of the bill'' the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI 
    are waived.
        The Chair was troubled by that language and has examined the 
    statements made by the members of the Committee on Rules who 
    presented the rule to see if their statements in any way amplified 
    or explained or limited that language. The Chair has found that 
    both the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long) and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Latta) in their explanations of the resolution did, 
    indeed, indicate that it was their intention, and the intention of 
    the committee, that the waiver should apply only to matters 
    contained in the bill and that it was not a blanket waiver.
        Therefore whatever ambiguity there may have been in the rule as 
    reported, the Chair is going to hold, was cured by the remarks and 
    legislative history made during the presentation of the rule, which 
    were not disputed in any way by the gentleman from Connecticut or 
    anyone else. However, the Chair, recognizes that it is a rather 
    imprecise way of achieving that result and would hope that in the 
    future such resolutions would be more precise in their application.

Sec. 23.31 A resolution adopted by the House waiving points of order 
    against legislation contained in a general appropriation bill was 
    held not to apply to amendments offered to that bill from the 
    floor.

    On May 10, 1973, Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, an

[[Page 4238]]

swered a parliamentary inquiry in Committee of the Whole as to the 
effect of a special order (H. Res. 389) which waived points of order 
against provisions in a general appropriations bill containing 
legislation and unauthorized appropriations in violation of Rule XXI 
clause 2: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 15320, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See Rule XXI clause 2, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry, and I will make a point of order, if it is 
    in order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Collier: The parliamentary inquiry is this: Did we not 
    waive points of order by earlier action of this House? If we did, 
    how, then, is a point of order in order when points of order have 
    been waived?
        The Chairman: The rule only waived points of order against 
    provisions of the bill not against amendments offered from the 
    floor to that legislation.
        Mr. Collier: Mr. Chairman, would not the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long), be in and of itself under 
    that waiver, and, therefore, any subsequent point of order on an 
    amendment thereto would be equally out of order?
        The Chairman: Any amendment offered on the floor could be 
    subject to a point of order. No Member raised a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Long). A point of order was raised against an amendment to that 
    amendment. It was sustained. That is the situation existing at this 
    time.

Waiving Points of Order Against Amendments to Appropriation Bill

Sec. 23.32 Form of resolution waiving points of order against a general 
    appropriation bill and making in order a certain type of amendment 
    containing legislative language.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 17, 1947: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 248, 93 Cong. Rec. 7166, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3839) 
    making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
    independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, 
    for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, and for other purposes, 
    all points of order against the bill or any provisions contained 
    therein are hereby waived; and it shall also be in order to 
    consider without the intervention of any point of order any 
    amendment to said bill prohibiting the use of the funds 
    appropriated in such bill or any funds heretofore made available, 
    including contract authorizations, for the purchase of any 
    particular site or for the erection of any particular hospital.

Sec. 23.33 The House, by resolution, gave the Committee on

[[Page 4239]]

    Appropriations authority to incorporate in, or offer amendments to, 
    any general or special appropriation measure a limitation 
    prohibiting expenditures in the pending or any other act for salary 
    or compensation to certain persons found by them to be subversive, 
    notwithstanding Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 17, 1943, Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, overruled a 
point of order against an amendment offered by the Committee on 
Appropriations to the urgent deficiency appropriation bill. The Chair 
based his ruling on the language of a resolution from the Committee on 
Rules (H. Res. 105), previously passed by the House, which had 
authorized the Committee on Appropriations to undertake certain 
investigations and which had authorized the committee to include 
certain limitations, related to such investigations, in appropriation 
bills:

        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, by 
    direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I offer the following 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kerr: On page 36, after line 23, 
        insert as a new section the following:
            ``Sec. 304. No part of any appropriation, allocation, or 
        fund (1) which is made available under or pursuant to this act, 
        or (2) which is now, or which is hereafter made available under 
        or pursuant to any other act, to any department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the United States, shall be used to pay any 
        part of the salary, or other compensation for the personal 
        services, of Goodwin B. Watson, William E. Dodd, Jr., and 
        Robert Morss Lovett: Provided, That this section shall not 
        operate to deprive any such person of payment for leaves of 
        absence or salary, or of any refund or reimbursement, which 
        have accrued prior to the date of the enactment of this act.''

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: I make a point of order against the language 
    in line 3 of the amendment just offered, as follows:

            Which is now, or which is hereafter made, available under 
        or pursuant to any other act, to any department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the United States--

        And so forth. This amendment seeks to limit an appropriation in 
    some other appropriation bill. It goes beyond this bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    is made in order by House Resolution 105, authorizing the 
    investigation, providing--as shown on page 2 of the report, House 
    Report No. 448--as follows:

            Any legislation approved by the committee as a result of 
        this resolution may be incorporated in any gen

[[Page 4240]]

        eral or special appropriation measure emanating from such 
        committee or may be offered as a committee amendment to any 
        such measure notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule 
        XXI.

        Under that provision, the amendment is in order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: May I say in reply, Mr. Chairman, that would 
    be true if the amendment offered were limited to this 
    appropriation, but the amendment offered extends to appropriations 
    not made by this bill.
        The Chairman: The language appears to be rather plain and 
    specific to the Chair, ``any legislation approved by the Committee 
    as a result of this resolution may be incorporated in any general 
    or special appropriation measure.''
        Therefore the point of order is overruled.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 4558, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The full text of House Resolution 105, Feb. 
9, 1943, 78th Congress, 1st Session, was as follows:

        Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations, acting through 
    a special subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman of such 
    committee for the purposes of this resolution, is authorized and 
    directed to examine into any and all allegations or charges that 
    certain persons in the employ of the several executive departments 
    and other executive agencies are unfit to continue in such 
    employment by reason of their present association or membership or 
    past association or membership in or with organizations whose aims 
    or purposes are or have been subversive to the Government of the 
    United States. Such examination shall be pursued with the view of 
    obtaining all available evidence bearing upon each particular case 
    and reporting to the House the conclusions of the committee with 
    respect to each such case in the light of the factual evidence 
    obtained. The committee, for the purposes of this resolution, shall 
    have the right to report at any time by bill, amendment, or 
    otherwise, its findings and determination. Any legislation approved 
    by the committee as a result of this resolution may be incorporated 
    in any general or special appropriation measure emanating from such 
    committee or may be offered as a committee amendment to any such 
    measure notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI.
        For the purposes of this resolution, such committee or any 
    subcommittee thereof is hereby authorized to sit and act during the 
    present Congress at such times and places within the United States, 
    whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, to 
    hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses, 
    and the production of such books or papers or documents or vouchers 
    by subpena or otherwise, and to take such testimony and records as 
    it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued over the signature of 
    the chairman of the committee or subcommittee, or by any person 
    designated by him, and shall be served by such person or persons as 
    the chairman of the committee or subcommittee may designate. The 
    chairman of the committee or subcommittee, or any member thereof, 
    may administer oaths to witnesses.

Sec. 23.34 Where a section in a bill pending before the Com

[[Page 4241]]

    mittee of the Whole was struck out on a point of order (as 
    constituting an appropriation on a legislative bill), the Committee 
    rose, the House took a recess, and the Committee on Rules met and 
    reported to the House a resolution which the House adopted, making 
    in order an amendment to such bill in Committee of the Whole to 
    reinsert the section which had been stricken out.

    On Mar. 29, 1933, the Committee of the Whole was considering S. 598 
(reforestation and unemployment relief) pursuant to a unanimous consent 
request that the Senate bill be in order for consideration, instead of 
a similar House bill (H.R. 3905) which had previously been made a 
special order of business for that day (also by unanimous consent).
    Chairman Ralph F. Lozier, of Missouri, sustained a point of order 
against section 4 of the Senate bill, on the grounds that it 
constituted an appropriation on a legislative bill in violation of Rule 
XI clause 4 [Rule XXI clause 5 in the House Rules and Manual, 1979], 
and section 4 was thus stricken from the bill. Immediately following 
the Chair's ruling, the Committee rose and a motion for a recess was 
adopted (at 5:42 p.m.).(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 77 Cong. Rec. 988-990, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recess having expired at 5:52 p.m., Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, called the House to order and Mr. William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, reported and called up by direction of the Committee on Rules 
(which had met during the recess) a special order making in order an 
amendment to the Senate bill pending before the Committee of the Whole: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at P. 990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The recess having expired (at 5 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.), 
    the House was called to order by the Speaker.
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I report a privileged resolution, which I send to the desk 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        Mr. [Joseph B.] Shannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, does not 
    the rule have to lie over for a day?
        The Speaker: It does not.
        The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 85

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to offer as an amendment in Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union to the bill S. 598 the 
        following language:
            ``Sec. 4. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 
        this act,

[[Page 4242]]

        there is hereby authorized to be expended, under the direction 
        of the President, out of any unobligated moneys heretofore 
        appropriated for public works (except for projects on which 
        actual construction has been commenced or may be commenced 
        within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for river and 
        harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as may be 
        necessary; and an amount equal to the amount so expended is 
        hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes for 
        which such moneys were originally appropriated.''
            All points of order against said amendment shall be 
        considered as waived in the House and in the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union. . . .

        The Speaker: It requires a two thirds vote to consider it. The 
    question is, Shall the House consider the resolution?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Snell) there were-ayes 189, noes 71.
        So (two thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House 
    determined to consider the resolution.
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    adoption of the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.

        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.

    The Committee of the Whole resumed its sitting and proceeded to 
consider the amendment: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill 
    (S. 598) for the relief of unemployment through the performance of 
    useful public work, and for other purposes.
        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 further 
    consideration of the bill S. 598, with Mr. Lozier in the chair. The 
    Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ramspeck: Page 3, after line 21, 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 4. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 
        this act there is hereby authorized to be expended, under the 
        direction of the President, out of any unobligated moneys 
        heretofore appropriated for public works (except for projects 
        on which actual construction has been commenced or may be 
        commenced within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for 
        river and harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as 
        may be necessary; and an amount equal to the amount so expended 
        is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes 
        for which such moneys were originally appropriated.''

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, this simply puts back in the bill 
    section 4 exactly, which was ruled out on the point of order.
        I move that all debate on this section do now close.

[[Page 4243]]

Waiving Points of Order Against Unauthorized Appropriations

Sec. 23.35 Form of resolution waiving points of order against 
    unauthorized items of appropriation in a general appropriation bill 
    (but not against legislative language).

    The following resolution was under consideration on May 17, 1972: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H. Res. 983, 118 Cong. Rec. 17760, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    14989) making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, 
    and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1973, and for other purposes, the provisions 
    of clause 2, rule XXI are hereby waived with respect to any 
    appropriation contained in such bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This form of resolution protects 
appropriations not authorized by law carried in the bill in violation 
of Rule XXI clause 2, but does not protect legislation in an 
appropriation bill, in violation of the same clause. Thus, a paragraph 
in the bill containing legislation as well as an unauthorized 
appropriation could be stricken on a point of order, and the 
unauthorized appropriation could not be reinserted (the special rule 
protecting provisions in the bill and not amendments). A special rule 
waiving all points of order under Rule XXI clause 2 protects both 
legislative language and unauthorized appropriations carried in the 
bill.

Sec. 23.36 Where an appropriation bill is considered under a rule 
    waiving points of order against the bill, such rule does not waive 
    points of order against amendments offered from the floor seeking 
    to appropriate funds for purposes not authorized by law.

    On June 5, 1942, the Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
an appropriation bill, where the House had adopted a special order from 
the Committee on Rules waiving points of order against unauthorzed 
appropriations in the bill (H. Res. 499). Chairman Howard W. Smith, of 
Virginia, sustained a point of order against an amendment containing an 
unauthorized appropriation, since the special order did not waive 
points of order against amendments: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 78 Cong. Rec. 4959, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 4244]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keefe: Page 25, after paragraph 
        (2), insert a new paragraph, as follows: ``To assist students 
        (in such numbers as the chairman of the War Manpower Commission 
        shall determine) participating in accelerated programs in 
        degree-granting colleges and universities in engineering, 
        physics, chemistry, medicine (including veterinary), dentistry, 
        and pharmacy and such other technical and professional fields 
        as said chairman may determine to be necessary in connection 
        with the national war effort, by providing part-time 
        employment, $5,000,000.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not authorized 
    by law.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York makes a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    on the ground that it is not authorized by law.
        Does the gentleman from New York desire to be heard on the 
    point of order?
        Mr. Taber: Merely to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is an activity 
    for which there is no authority whatever. It adds $5,000,000 to 
    this bill. That is about the size of it.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Keefe: I do not think it is necessary for me to be heard. 
    There is not any part of this appropriation that is authorized by 
    law, and points of order against them were waived, under the rule.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman point out any authority in law 
    for this appropriation?
        Mr. Keefe: The authority in law is to be found in the Executive 
    order of the President of the United States creating the National 
    Youth Administration, which sets up a student-aid program and which 
    has been carried out under a student-aid program by the 
    N. Y. A. since its inception. This simply adds $5,000,000 to the 
    same student-aid program, $5,000,000 for which is already carried 
    in this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        In the bill under consideration, which provides an 
    appropriation for the N. Y. A., there is no authority in law 
    setting up the N. Y. A.; and, therefore, in order that this 
    appropriation for that agency might not be thrown out on a point of 
    order it was necessary to have a special rule waiving points of 
    order against that particular appropriation. That rule waived 
    points of order on that clause in the bill.
        The gentleman's amendment undertakes to make another 
    appropriation which is to be administered under the Chairman of the 
    Manpower Commission. It is the opinion of the Chair that there is 
    no authority in law for the appropriation proposed in the amendment 
    and the Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

    On Oct. 18, 1966, Chairman James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, delivered 
a similar ruling: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 27417, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Texas has stated the content of the 
    resolution providing for the consideration of the bill

[[Page 4245]]

    before the Committee of the Whole correctly. The resolution waives 
    points of order against the bill but it does not waive points of 
    order against amendments to the bill.
        Inasmuch as there seems to be agreement between the gentleman 
    from Texas and the gentleman from California that the funds 
    contained in the amendment are not authorized by legislation 
    enacted into law, the point of order is sustained.

Sec. 23.37 Where a special rule in the House waives points of order 
    against portions of an appropriation bill which are unauthorized by 
    law, and the bill passes the House with those provisions included 
    therein and goes to conference, the conferees may report back their 
    agreement to those provisions (or modifications thereof, if amended 
    by the Senate) even though they remain unauthorized, since waiver 
    of points of order under Rule XXI clause 2, carries over to the 
    consideration of the same or perfected provisions when the 
    conference report is before the House.

    On Dec. 20, 1969, Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, called up 
conference report on H.R. 15149, making appropriations for foreign 
assistance. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled two 
points of order against the conference report, since the House had 
considered the bill originally pursuant to a special order (H. Res. 
742) waiving points of order against portions of the bill making 
appropriations not authorized by law: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 40445-48, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against that portion of the conference report which 
    provides funds for the purchase of planes for the Republic of China 
    on the ground that it is an appropriation that is not authorized by 
    law.
        I read from the conference report on the authorization bill 
    which appears in the Congressional Record of December 18 on page 
    39841 relating to the military assistance, section 504 of the act.
        The House bill authorized a total of $454,500,000 for military 
    assistance of which $350,000,000 was for worldwide allocation; 
    $50,000,000 for Korea; $54,500,000 for the Republic of China.
        The Senate amendment authorized a total of $325,000,000 without 
    any allocation to specified countries.
        The managers on the part of the House agreed to the 
    authorization of $350,000,000 without specifying any country 
    allocation. They found it impossible to obtain agreement to a 
    larger total for military assistance and believe that any specific 
    additional allocation for Korea or for the Republic of China would 
    result in a drastic curtailment of the worldwide authorization 
    which would be detrimental to our national security.

[[Page 4246]]

        So, in the basic law, in the authorization law there is no 
    allocation specifically of funds for any country and I suggest that 
    the appropriation of funds in a specific amount for military 
    assistance to a particular country is without authorization of law.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Passman) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Passman: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, first of all there is nothing in the military 
    assistance paragraph directing the purchasing of any type of 
    equipment. There is language appropriating a specific amount of 
    funds for China, but there is no language anywhere in the bill 
    stating the type of military equipment that will be provided to any 
    nation.
        Furthermore, the military assistance appropriation language is 
    within the jurisdiction of the conference committee because the 
    language was in the bill as it passed the House.
        As a matter of fact, everything in title I is not yet 
    authorized. . . .
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I rise 
    in support of the point of order and to express my strong 
    opposition to the conference report on foreign aid appropriations.
        This report contains a line item for foreign military 
    assistance of $404.5 million. That amount is $54.5 million more 
    than the amount which the House authorized yesterday by approving 
    the conference report on the foreign aid authorization bill.
        For that reason, I believe that this conference report is 
    completely and flagrantly out of order. Let me cite to this body 
    rule XXI, part 2, of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It 
    states:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriations bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, 
        for any expenditure not previously authorized by law.

        Let me also cite the interpretation which has been given to 
    this rule, an interpretation which may be found in paragraph 835 of 
    the rules:

            In the administration of the rule it is the practice that 
        those upholding the item of appropriation should have the 
        burden of showing the law authorizing it.

        I would be pleased to know where the House conferees find 
    anything in the law which would authorize an additional $54.5 
    million in military assistance.
        Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that this conference report 
    stands in violation of the rules of this body.
        Let me call to the attention of my colleagues the debate in the 
    other body on Thursday in which the Members of that body only 
    belatedly discovered that the Comptroller General will approve the 
    expenditure of funds from the Treasury which have been appropriated 
    but not authorized by the Congress without previous authorization.
        Many of us in this body of the Congress have been aware of that 
    situation for some time.
        It is, nonetheless, a violation of both the spirit and the 
    letter of the Rules of the House for the Appropriations Committee 
    to appropriate funds which have not been authorized--just as it is 
    a violation for authorizing committees to attempt to appropriate 
    funds.
        If the Appropriations Committee can appropriate funds in 
    complete disregard of what has been authorized--

[[Page 4247]]

    as it does in the conference report now before us--then why have 
    authorizing committees?
        Those of us who serve on authorizing committees might just as 
    well stay home. The hours and days we spend in committee hearings 
    and markup sessions are simply an exercise, when our actions can be 
    honored, ignored, or abrogated at the whim of an Appropriations 
    subcommittee.
        Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today goes beyond the 
    $54.5 million which exceeds the authorization for military 
    assistance. It goes beyond the issue of whether the United States 
    should be providing a down payment on jet planes for the Republic 
    of China.
        Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge that this conference report be 
    defeated in order that the appropriation conference conform to the 
    authority approved yesterday by the House.
        Mr. Passman: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point 
    of order?
        Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the lateness of the 
    so-called authorization bill, which does not exist in fact, as yet, 
    and the very fact that the majority leader of the other body said 
    there would be no authorization bill, and the chairman of the 
    Foreign Relations Committee said there would be no authorization 
    bill, made it necessary for us to move this bill through the 
    Appropriations Committee, the Rules Committee, and the Rules 
    Committee gave us a rule waiving points of order. We have moved the 
    bill, as I understand it, according to the rules of the House, and 
    this appropriation bill became an authorization bill also, in the 
    absence of any authorization act. Even at this late hour we still 
    do not have an authorization bill because the conference report on 
    the authorization bill was only adopted yesterday by both Houses 
    and has not yet reached the President for his signature. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Speaker, does the rule waiving points of 
    order under which the House appropriation bill was considered by 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union continue 
    through conference report consideration? Would not the rule apply 
    only for consideration of the appropriation bill waiving points of 
    order during the time it was considered by the Committee of the 
    Whole? Certainly the rule should not carry over to the conference 
    report? If it does the Members of the House abrogate their 
    legislative prerogatives. If this is the case, the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin for one shall never vote for a rule waiving points of 
    order in the future.
        It has been cited that the appropriation bill came to this 
    House under a rule waiving points of order and therefore this 
    conference report would be in order. The gentleman from Louisiana 
    claims this appropriation conference report carries its own 
    authorization under the rule waiving points of order granted in 
    earlier consideration.
        My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is: Does the rule under 
    which the appropriation bill came to the House carry over and 
    continue into the conference report?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that will have a bearing on 
    the point of order that is raised at the present time. . . .
        The gentleman from Illinois has raised a point of order against 
    the conference report on the bill H.R. 15149.

[[Page 4248]]

        The Chair is aware of the fact pointed out by the gentleman 
    from Illinois--that the authorization bill for fiscal 1970, while 
    passed by both Houses, has not yet become law. As pointed out in 
    the debate on this point of order, the conference report now before 
    the House does carry an amount for military assistance that is 
    $54,500,000 above the figure which would be authorized by H.R. 
    14580, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969.
        However, the Chair recalls that when this appropriation bill 
    passed the House, it was considered under a rule waiving points of 
    order. The House agreed to a total figure for military assistance 
    of $454,500,000. The Senate reduced this figure to $350 million. 
    The conferees have reached an agreement between these two amounts, 
    as they had the authority to do.

        The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their 
    authority and overrules the point of order.
        The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Louisiana yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Passman: Mr. Speaker, I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order 
    against consideration of the bill.
        Mr. Passman: Mr. Speaker, I yielded to the gentleman for a 
    parliamentary inquiry, not for a motion.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I made a point of order against 
    consideration of the conference report in toto.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
    consideration of the conference report on the basis that none of 
    the appropriations contained in the bill H.R. 15149 have been 
    authorized by law.
        Mr. Passman: May I be heard on that, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: Of course, the Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Passman: It is my understanding that the Chair just ruled 
    on that specific point a moment ago. I ask for a ruling, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that it overrules the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross), on the ground 
    that the special rule waived points of order against the provisions 
    of the House bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The only restriction against inclusion of 
an unauthorized appropriation or of legislation in a conference report 
on a general appropriation bill is contained in clause 2, Rule XX, 
which prohibits conferees on the part of the House from agreeing to a 
Senate amendment which would have violated clause 2, Rule XXI if it had 
originated in the House, unless the House by a separate vote authorizes 
the conferees to agree to such a Senate amendment. The conferees may, 
however, agree to a Senate amendment which modifies a provision in the 
House bill, and that modification if offered in the House would have 
been in order as a germane perfection to legisla

[[Page 4249]]

tion or unauthorized appropriations permitted to remain in the House 
bill by a special rule waiving points of order. For example, an 
unauthorized appropriation appearing in a House general appropriation 
bill, but protected by a waiver of points of order, maybe amended by 
increasing or decreasing the amount of the unauthorized sum, since that 
type of amendment adds no further unauthorized appropriations. A Senate 
amendment of the same character may be agreed to by the House conferees 
without violating the provisions of clause 2, Rule XX. If the Senate 
amendment added another unauthorized appropriation, or legislative 
language, it would be subject to the restriction contained in that 
clause.
    If a conference report contains language not adopted by either 
House (whether or not constituting legislation or unauthorized 
appropriations on a general appropriation bill), the report would 
violate an entirely different provision of the House rules, prohibiting 
the inclusion by House conferees of matter not committed to conference 
(clause 3, Rule XXVIII).

Waiving Points of Order Against Legislation in Appropriation Bill

Sec. 23.38 Form of resolution waiving points of order against 
    legislative language in an appropriation bill and providing that 
    during the remainder of the session no amendment shall be in order 
    to any other general appropriation bill which conflicts with the 
    provisions of the language made in order by the special rule.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Jan. 11, 1934: 
(~2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Res. 217, 78 Cong. Rec. 479, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the consideration of H.R. 6663, a bill 
    making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
    independent bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1935, and for other purposes, all 
    points of order against title II or any provisions contained 
    therein are hereby waived; and no amendments or motions to strike 
    out shall be in order to such title except amendments or motions to 
    strike out offered by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, 
    and said amendments or motions shall be in order, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments shall not be in 
    order to any other section of the bill H.R. 6663 or to any section 
    of any general appropriation bill of the Seventy-third Congress 
    which would be in conflict with the provisions of title II of the 
    bill H.R. 6663 as reported to the House, except amendments offered 
    by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, and said

[[Page 4250]]

    amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Title II of the bill, entitled ``Economy 
Provisions,'' was entirely legislative in nature, amending a number of 
statutes relative to the salaries of public officials, pensions, and 
other allowances.

Sec. 23.39 Form of resolution waiving points of order against one 
    section of an appropriation bill which contained legislative 
    provisions in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    The following resolution was under consideration on May 27, 1969: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 424, 115 Cong. Rec. 14055, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Rule XXI 
        clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    11582) making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
    Departments, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
    independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and 
    for other purposes, all points of order against section 502 of said 
    bill are hereby waived.

Sec. 23.40 Form of resolution waiving all points of order against 
    consideration of a general appropriation bill not reported for 
    three days, and further waiving points of order against the bill 
    (except one section thereof containing legislation).

    The following resolution was under consideration on Sept. 13, 1972: 
(~4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Res. 1114, 118 Cong. Rec. 30524, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move, clause of 6 rule XXI to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, 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. 16593) making appropriations for the Department 
    of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and for other 
    purposes, and all points of order against said bill except against 
    section 743 are hereby waived.

Sec. 23.41 A resolution adopted by the House waiving points of order 
    against legislation contained in a general appropriation bill does 
    not apply to amendments offered to that bill, or to amendments 
    thereto, from the floor; and amendments adding further legislation 
    to that permitted to remain in the bill by the special rule, or 
    amendments adding further legislation to pending amendments, are 
    subject to a point of order under clause 2, Rule XXI.

[[Page 4251]]

    On May 10, 1973,(~5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment H.R. 7447 (supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal year 1973), where the House had adopted a special order (House 
Resolution 389) waiving points of order against said bill containing 
legislation and unauthorized appropriations in violation of clause 2, 
Rule XXI, and reappropriations in violation of clause 5 (now clause 6), 
Rule XXI. Mr. Clarence D. Long, of Maryland, offered the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 15318-20, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Maryland: on page 6, 
    immediately after line 12, insert the following paragraph:
        ``None of the funds herein appropriated to the Department of 
    Defense under this Act shall be expended to support directly or 
    indirectly combat activities in, over or from off the shores of 
    Cambodia by United States Forces.''

    Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, then offered an amendment to 
the amendment offered by Mr. Long, and Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of 
Texas, ruled that the amendment offered by Mr. Stratton was legislation 
and out of order:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton to the amendment offered by 
    Mr. Long of Maryland: At the end of the amendment, strike out the 
    period, insert a semicolon, and add the following words:
        ``Except that no such limitation shall take effect until after 
    the projected meeting between Dr. Kissinger and Le Duc Tho looking 
    toward improved cease-fire compliance has been held and a full 
    report on its results made to the Congress; or if such a meeting is 
    not held, until the President has reported fully to the Congress 
    the reasons therefore; but in no event shall such delay continue 
    for more than 3 months''.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland is a 
    limitation on expenditures. The amendment to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York is a time limitation, but it is also 
    legislation, in that it would require additional responsibilities 
    and duties. It would require individuals to report, and finally the 
    President to report. It would be legislation.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Chairman Brooks subsequently responded to a parliamentary inquiry 
on the effect of a special rule, waiving points of order against a 
general appropriation bill, on amendments offered to that bill or to 
amendments thereto:

        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry, and I will make a point of order, if it is 
    in order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 4252]]

        Mr. Collier: The parliamentary inquiry is this: Did we not 
    waive points of order by earlier action of this House? If we did, 
    how, then, is a point of order in order when points of order have 
    been waived?
        The Chairman: The rule only waived points of order against 
    provisions of the bill not against amendments offered from the 
    floor to that legislation.
        Mr. Collier: Mr. Chairman, would not the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long), be in and of itself under 
    that waiver, and, therefore, any subsequent point of order on an 
    amendment thereto would be equally out of order?
        The Chairman: Any amendment offered on the floor could be 
    subject to a point of order. No Member raised a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Long). A point of order was raised against an amendment to that 
    amendment. It was sustained. That is the situation existing at this 
    time.

Sec. 23.42 Where the House is considering a general appropriation bill 
    under a resolution waiving all points of order against the bill, a 
    paragraph enacting the provisions of several House-passed 
    resolutions as permanent law, though concededly legislative in 
    character, is not subject to a point of order.

    On Dec. 10, 1970,(~6) Chairman Claude D. Pepper, of 
Florida, overruled a point of order against a provision in a 
supplemental appropriation bill, where the House had adopted a special 
order (H. Res. 1303) providing that during the consideration of the 
bill all points of order against said bill were waived:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 40941, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Administrative Provisions

            The provisions of House Resolutions 1270 and 1276, relating 
        to certain official allowances; House Resolution 1241, relating 
        to compensation of the clerks to the Official Reporters of 
        Debates; and House Resolution 1264, relating to the limitation 
        on the number of employees who may be paid from clerk hire 
        allowances, all of the Ninety-first Congress, shall be the 
        permanent law with respect thereto.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order against the language beginning on line 23 of page 12 
    and running through line 4 of page 13 as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not a retrenchment.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahton [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman's point of order would be appropriate except, of course, 
    for the fact that we do have a rule waiving points of order against 
    the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. Does the gentleman 
    from Iowa care to be heard further?
        Mr. Gross: No, sir.
        The Chairman: Under the resolution the House adopted, points of 
    order against the bill are waived. The point of order is not 
    sustained.

[[Page 4253]]

Amending Legislation Permitted to Remain in Appropriation Bill by 
    Special Order

Sec. 23.43 A proposition in an appropriation bill proposing to change 
    existing law but permitted to remain by special order may be 
    perfected by germane amendments, provided they do not add 
    legislation.

    On Aug. 20, 1951, the Committee of the Whole was considering an 
appropriation bill, where the House had adopted a special order (H. 
Res. 394) from the Committee on Rules waiving points of order against 
the bill (including unauthorized appropriations and legislative 
language). Pending was a section of the bill, containing legislation, 
to authorize the Secretary of the Army to direct the preparation of 
planning reports for public works projects. Chairman Edward J. Hart, of 
New Jersey, sustained a point of order against an amendment adding 
further legislation to that contained in the bill (by giving such 
authority to the Secretary of the Interior as well): (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 10408, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford:
            Page 42, line 6, strike out the word ``is'' and insert 
        ``and the Secretary of the Interior are.''
            Page 42, line 7, after the word ``engineers'' insert the 
        following ``and the Commissioner of Reclamation.''
            Page 42, line 13, after the word ``Army'' insert the 
        following, ``and the Secretary of the Interior.''
            Page 43, line 23, after the word ``engineers'' insert the 
        following ``and the Commissioner of Reclamation.''
            Page 44, line 1, strike out the word ``him'' and insert the 
        word ``them.''
            Page 44, line 3, strike out the word ``is'' and insert 
        ``and the Commissioner of Reclamation are.''

        Mr. [John J.] Dempsey [of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dempsey: The amendment is not germane to this section, and 
    in addition to that, it is purely legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to 
    address himself to the point of order?
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from New Mexico, I would like to say first that under 
    the rule adopted at the time this legislation came to the floor all 
    points of order were waived. Secondly, I think that the amendment 
    is germane because it does apply to engineering and construction of 
    Federal projects, and section 1313 in itself applies to engineering 
    and construction of Federal projects.
        Mr. Dempsey: Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Rules, waived 
    points of

[[Page 4254]]

    order to the bill, but they certainly cannot waive points of order 
    to an amendment which might be offered, which the gentleman is 
    proposing to do.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        With respect to the question of waiving all points of order, 
    that runs only to the provisions of the bill and not to amendments 
    offered to the bill. A proposition in an appropriation bill 
    proposing to change existing law but permitted to remain, may be 
    perfected by germane amendments, provided they do not add further 
    legislation. The Chair is of the opinion that this amendment does 
    add further legislation, and, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 23.44 A proposition in a general appropriation bill proposing a 
    change in existing law, which was made in order by a special rule, 
    may not be amended by inserting additional legislation even though 
    such additional legislation be germane.

    On June 21, 1935, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the second deficiency appropriation bill. The House had 
adopted a special order (H. Res. 266) waiving all points of order 
against said bill during its consideration. Chairman Franklin W. 
Hancock, Jr., of North Carolina, ruled out of order an amendment 
offered to the bill because, although germane to the bill, it added 
additional legislation to that contained in the bill: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 9853, 9854, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald H.] McLean [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McLean: On page 48, line 16, after 
        the figures ``1936'', insert the following:
            ``All moneys of the Corporation of whatsoever nature 
        hereafter re- ceived by or for the Corporation shall be 
        immediately and without diminution deposited and covered into 
        the Treasury of the United States, and such portion thereof as 
        is authorized by the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as 
        amended, or other law, to be used by said Corporation in 
        carrying out the provisions of said act, as amended, shall be 
        transferred to an appropriate appropriation account, 
        withdrawable only on warrant as are other appropriated public 
        moneys, and subject to authority specifically granted by the 
        Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, and as amended, all 
        laws regulating the obligating or expenditure of other public 
        moneys shall be applicable thereto: Provided, That the 
        provisions of section 3709, Revised Statutes, shall be 
        applicable to purchases of supplies and equipment necessary for 
        dam construction. Accounts of all transactions involving 
        receipts or disbursements of the Corporation shall be duly 
        rendered to the General Accounting Offlce at such times and in 
        such substance and form as may be prescribed by the Comptroller 
        General of the United States, and said accounts and such claims 
        as may arise shall be settled and adjusted by the General 
        Accounting Of

[[Page 4255]]

        fice under and pursuant to the provisions of title III of the 
        Budget and Accounting Act approved June 10, 1921: Provided, 
        That the expenses of such portion of the audit as the 
        Comptroller General may authorize to be done in the field shall 
        be paid from moneys advanced therefor by the Corporation, or 
        from any appropriation or appropriations for the General 
        Accounting Offlce, and appropriations so used shall be 
        reimbursed promptly by the Corporation as billed by the 
        Comptroller General. In such connection the Comptroller General 
        and his representatives shall have free and open access to all 
        papers, books, records, files, accounts, plants, warehouses, 
        offices. and all other things, property, and places belonging 
        to, under the control of, or used or employed by the 
        Corporation, and shall be afforded full facilities for counting 
        all cash and verifying transactions with the balances in 
        depositaries. The officers of the Corporation to whom moneys 
        may be advanced on accountable warrant shall each give a bond 
        to the United States for the faithful discharge of the duties 
        of his office according to law in such amount as shall be 
        directed by the Comptroller General. Should there be any 
        administrative delinquency in the rendering of the accounts as 
        directed, or any unsatisfactory condition of the accounts, 
        requisitions for funds shall be disapproved by the Comptroller 
        General unless, for good cause shown, he shall elect to 
        withhold such disapproval.''

        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and changes existing law. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: This amendment is not only a 
    limitation upon the funds carried in this bill which are in effect 
    reappropriated, but it is also germane to the language of the bill 
    covering the full appropriations that have been made for this 
    purpose into one fund. It is, also, a direction as to how and in 
    what manner the funds shall be accounted for.
        By the rule under which we are proceeding in the consideration 
    of this bill, anything germane to the language of the bill is made 
    in order, and I believe the gentleman's amendment in its entirety 
    is in order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the point of 
    order is well taken. The Chair bases this conclusion upon a ruling 
    handed down by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Tilson], while 
    presiding over a Committee of the Whole. At that time and in a 
    similar case it was held that although the amendment then offered 
    was germane it contained additional legislation beyond the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations.
        The Chair believes that this amendment is germane but that it 
    proposes additional legislation which is a subject matter 
    ordinarily coming within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Military Affairs.
        The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 23.45 A legislative provision in a general appropriation bill, not 
    subject to a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2 because the 
    House has adopted a resolution waiving points of order against that 
    portion of the bill, may be perfected by germane amend. meet.

[[Page 4256]]

    On May 21, 1969, Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, overruled 
a point of order against an amendment to a supplemental appropriation 
bill, where the House had adopted a special order (H. Res. 414) waiving 
all points of order against title IV of said bill and where the 
amendment was offered to title IV of the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 13270, 13271, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Title IV

               limitation on fiscal year 1970 budget outlays

        Sec. 401. (a) Expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) of 
    the Federal Government during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, 
    shall not exceed $192,900,000,000: Provided, That whenever action, 
    or inaction, by the Congress on requests for appropriations and 
    other budgetary proposals varies from the President's 
    recommendations thereon, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget 
    shall report to the President and to the Congress his estimate of 
    the effect of such action or inaction on expenditures and net 
    lending, and the limitation set forth herein shall be 
    correspondingly adjusted.
        (b) The Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall report 
    periodically to the President and to the Congress on the operation 
    of this section. The first such report shall be made at the end of 
    the Srst month which begins after the date of approval of this Act: 
    subsequent reports shall be made at the end of each calendar month 
    during the first session of the Ninety-first Congress, and at the 
    end of each calendar quarter thereafter. . . .
        Mr. [Jeffery] Cohelan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cohelan of California: On page 62, 
        line 3, add the following as a new section:
             ``(c) The limitation set forth in subsection (a), as 
        adjusted in accordance with the proviso to that subsection, 
        shall be increased by an amount equal to the aggregate amount 
        by which expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) for the 
        fiscal year 1970 on account of items designated as ``Open-ended 
        programs and fixed costs'' in the table appearing on page 16 of 
        the Budget for the fiscal year 1970 may be in excess of the 
        aggregate expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) 
        estimated for those items in the April review of the 1970 
        budget.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment in that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the rule pertaining to title IV only protects 
    what is in the bill, not amendments to the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined title IV. This is a new subparagraph to 
    title IV. Title IV is legislation in a general appropriation bill, 
    and all points of order have been waived in title IV, as a result 
    of it being legislation. Therefore the Chair holds that the 
    amendment is germane to the provisions contained in title IV and 
    overrules the point of order.

Sec. 23.46 A legislative provision in a general appropriation

[[Page 4257]]

    bill, not subject to a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2 
    because the House had adopted a resolution waiving points of order 
    against the bill, may be perfected by germane amendment; but such 
    amendment may not add additional legislation. Thus to a provision 
    in the foreign aid appropriation bill, prohibiting assistance under 
    the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to any nation which sells to 
    North Vietnam, an amendment broadening this prohibition to 
    foreclose aid under any act, was held to be additional legislation 
    and not in order.

    On Nov. 17, 1967, Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, sustained 
a point of order against an amendment offered to the foreign aid 
appropriation bill, where the House had adopted a special order (H. 
Res. 978) waiving all points of order against the bill during its 
consideration, but where the amendment, offered by Mr. H. R. Gross, of 
Iowa, sought to attach additional legislation to the bill: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. 113 Cong. Rec. 32966, 32967, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. For the ruling 
        referred to by Mr. Gross in his remarks on the point of order, 
        see 113 Cong. Rec. 32887, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 116. No assistance shall be furnished under the 
        Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to any country that 
        sells, furnishes, or permits any ships under its registry to 
        carry to North Vietnam any of the items mentioned in subsection 
        107(a) of this Act.

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

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page 13, strike all of 
        lines 4 through 8, and insert the following:
            ``Sec. 116. No loans, credits, guaranties, or grants or 
        other assistance shall be furnished under this or any other 
        Act, including the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
        to any country which sells or furnishes to North Vietnam, or 
        which permits ships or aircraft under its registry to transport 
        to or from North Vietnam, any equipment, materials, or 
        commodities, so long as North Vietnam is governed by a 
        Communist regime.
            ``Notwithstanding section 640 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961, as amended, no defense articles or defense services 
        shall be acquired from, or provided to, any such country by any 
        means under this or any other Act. Nothing in this or any other 
        Act shall be construed to authorize the President to waive 
        these provisions.'' . . .

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I insist 
    upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. Passman: Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes further than the 
    provision in the bill, and refers to funds provided in this or any 
    other act presently on the statute books.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?

[[Page 4258]]

        Mr. Gross: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Gross Mr. Chairman, on yesterday the present Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union ruled as 
    follows:

            The section of the bill to which the amendment is offered 
        is legislation which has been permitted to remain by waiver of 
        points of order. Such legislative provisions can be perfected 
        by germane amendments.

        The Chair then ruled:

            The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the 
        gentleman from Missouri is germane and therefore overrules the 
        point of order.

        I would say to the Chairman, this is an amendment providing a 
    limitation to a provision of this bill which has been made in order 
    by a rule waiving points of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Iowa correctly states the ruling of the 
    Chair on yesterday. That ruling indicated that the Chair held in 
    order an amendment which was ruled to be a perfecting amendment to 
    a paragraph in the bill that was conceded to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill but on which points of order had been waived in 
    a rule adopted by the House.
        The Chair holds that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa is additional legislation on this bill not covered by the 
    points of order that were waived.
        The Chair holds that the amendment adds additional legislation 
    on an appropriation bill; and therefore sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 23.47 A legislative provision in a general appropriation bill, not 
    subject to a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2, because the 
    House had adopted a resolution waiving points of order against the 
    bill, may be perfected by germane amendment.

    On Nov. 16, 1967, Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, overruled 
a point of order against an amendment offered to the foreign aid 
appropriation bill, where the House had adopted a special order (H. 
Res. 978) waiving all points of order against the bill during its 
consideration: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 32886, 32887, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            International organizations and programs: For expenses 
        authorized by section 302(a), $125,000,000: Provided, That the 
        President shall seek to assure that no contribution to the 
        United Nations Development Program authorized by the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, shall be used for projects 
        for economic or technical assistance to the Government of Cuba, 
        so long as Cuba is governed by the Castro regime: Provided 
        further, That no part of this appropriation shall be used to 
        initiate any project, activity, or program which has not been 
        justified to the Congress.

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Missouri: On page 3, line 
        5, delete

[[Page 4259]]

        the words ``That the President shall seek to assure that''; and 
        further, on line 10, after the word ``regime'' add a comma and 
        the words ``or to any country which has severed diplomatic 
        relations with the United States.''. . .

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not in order.
        If I may speak on it briefly?
        The Chairman: The gentleman may be heard on his point of order.
        Mr. Fraser: Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not serve just to 
    perfect a legislative provision that might be protected by the rule 
    adopted earlier, but it seeks to expand into a whole new area not 
    contemplated in the present legislative provision and purports to 
    deal with countries with which we have broken diplomatic relations. 
    We would be adding a whole new section since the amendment is not 
    limited to funds appropriated under this Act. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman offered an amendment to line 5 which would strike 
    out the words ``that the President shall seek to assure that'' and 
    on line 10 strike out the colon and insert a comma after the word 
    ``regime'' and after the comma add the words ``or to any country 
    which has severed diplomatic relations with the United States.''
        The section of the bill to which the amendment is offered is 
    legislation which has been permitted to remain by waiver of points 
    of order. Such legislative provisions can be perfected by germane 
    amendments.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Missouri is germane and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Waiving Points of Order Against Appropriation in a Legislative Bill

Sec. 23.48 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution waiving 
    points of order against provisions in a bill in violation of Rule 
    XXI clause 4, and it is not in order to make such points of order 
    when the resolution and not the bill is before the House.

    On Aug. 1, 1939,(12) there was pending before the House, 
House Resolution 286 reported from the Committee on Rules providing for 
the consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on Banking and 
Currency and waiving points of order against the bill (certain sections 
of the bill contained appropriations in a legislative bill). Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled a point of order against the 
resolution where the point of order was directed against those sections 
of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 10710, 10711, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against certain sections of the bill referred to in the rule.

[[Page 4260]]

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman desire to make a point of order 
    against the resolution?
        Mr. Taber: Against certain sections of the bill referred to in 
    the resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair will not entertain that point of order, 
    because the matter now pending before the House is whether or not 
    it should agree to the resolution making a certain bill in order. . 
    . .
        The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The Chair has no disposition to limit the argument of the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], but the Chair is very clearly 
    of the opinion that the points of order the gentleman seeks to 
    raise against certain provisions of the bill are not in order at 
    this time. The House is now considering a resolution providing for 
    the consideration of the bill against which the gentleman desires 
    to raise certain points of order. The resolution which is now being 
    considered itself provides, if adopted, that all points of order 
    against the bill are waived. This is no innovation or new matter. 
    Time after time the Committee on Rules has brought to the House 
    resolutions waiving points of order against bills. Under the 
    general rules of the House, the Chair will say to the gentleman, 
    aside from the consideration which the Chair has mentioned, points 
    of order cannot be raised against the bill until the section is 
    reached in the bill which attempts to make appropriations and 
    against which the point of order is desired to be made.
        For those reasons the Chair does not feel like recognizing the 
    gentleman at this juncture to state points of order against the 
    proposed bill.
        Mr. Taber: May I call the attention of the Chair to the last 
    sentence in clause 4 of rule XXI:

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

        There have been decisions holding that the point of order would 
    not lie to the bill or to its consideration, but I have cited to 
    the Chair cases where such points of order have been made and have 
    been sustained when the bill itself was not under consideration.
        The Speaker: The Chair has undertaken to make it plain that the 
    Chair's decision is based very largely upon the proposition that 
    the resolution now being considered specifically waives all points 
    of order that may be made against the bill, and includes those 
    matters evidently against which the gentleman has in mind in making 
    points of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The provision in Rule XXI and clause 5 
(clause 4 at the time of this precedent) House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 846, 1979, allowing a point of order at any time has been 
interpreted to require the point of order to be raised when the section 
of the bill has been read, or the amendment is pending, under the five-
minute rule.

Sec. 23.49 Form of resolution waiving points of order against a 
    legislative bill and committee amendments (containing 
    appropriations in violation of Rule XXI clause

[[Page 4261]]

    4) insofar as they pertain to a prior public law.

    The following resolution reported from the Committee on Rules was 
under consideration on June 19, 1962: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Res. 678, 108 Cong. Rec. 10950, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. See also H. 
        Res. 727, 108 Cong. Rec. 14142, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 
        1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to 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. 11222) to improve and protect farm income, to 
    reduce costs of farm programs to the Federal Government, to reduce 
    the Federal Government's excessive stocks of agricultural 
    commodities, to maintain reasonable and stable prices of 
    agricultural commodities and products to consumers, to provide 
    adequate supplies of agricultural commodities for domestic and 
    foreign needs, to conserve natural resources, and for other 
    purposes, and points of order against said bill as they pertain to 
    Public Law 480, Eighty-third Congress, are hereby waived. After 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue 
    not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and controlled by 
    the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
    Agriculture, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
    minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the amendments recommended by 
    the Committee on Agriculture now printed in the bill as they 
    pertain to Public Law 480, Eighty-third Congress. At the conclusion 
    of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
    rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
    have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit. After the passage 
    of the bill H.R. 11222, it shall be in order in the House to take 
    from the Speaker's table the bill S. 3225 and to move to strike out 
    all after the enacting clause of said Senate bill and to insert in 
    lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 11222 as passed by 
    the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Public Law No. 83-480 was the Agricultural 
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954; H.R. 11222 allowed the 
use of funds already appropriated under that act for new purposes, 
which would be construed as a violation of Rule XXI clause 5, House 
Rules and Manual, 1979.

Designated Points of Order Permitted

Sec. 23.50 Form of a resolution making in order and waiving points of 
    order against a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
    to be read as an original bill for the purpose of amendment,

[[Page 4262]]

    and allowing points of order (on the grounds of committee 
    jurisdiction) to be raised against any portion of said amendment.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(14) the House adopted House Resolution 
661, providing for the consideration of H.R. 7248 (to amend the Higher 
Education Act and for other purposes). The resolution contained a 
provision allowing points of order to be raised against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 37765, 37766, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education 
    and Labor now printed in the bill as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, said substitute 
    shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections, and 
    all points of order against said substitute for failure to comply 
    with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 4, rule XXI 
    are hereby waived, and further, all titles, parts, or sections of 
    the said substitute, the subject matter of which is properly within 
    the jurisdiction of any other standing committee of the House of 
    Representatives, shall be subject to a point of order for such 
    reason if such point of order is properly raised during the 
    consideration of H.R. 7248.