[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 8, Chapter 26]
[Chapter 26. Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills]
[A. Introductory Matters]
[Â§ 2. Points of Order; Timeliness]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5235-5264]
 
                               CHAPTER 26
 
    Unauthorized Appropriations; Legislation on Appropriation Bills
 
                        A. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS
 
Sec. 2. Points of Order; Timeliness

    As all bills making or authorizing appropriations require 
consideration in Committee of the Whole, it follows that the 
enforcement of Rule XXI clause 2 must ordinarily occur during 
consideration in Committee of the Whole, where the Chair, on the 
raising of a point of order, may rule out any portion of the bill in 
conflict with the rule. No report of parts of the bill thus ruled out 
is made to the House. It is the practice, therefore, for some Member to 
reserve points of order when a general appropriation bill is referred 
to Committee of the Whole, in order that portions in violation of the 
rule may be eliminated in the Committee. On one occasion where points 
of order were not reserved against an appropriation bill when it was 
reported to the House and referred to the Committee of the Whole, 
points of order in the Committee of the Whole against a proposition in 
violation of this clause were overruled, on the ground that the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole lacked authority to pass upon 
the question.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 2.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    General appropriation bills are read ``scientifically'' only by 
paragraph headings and appropriation amounts, and points of order 
against a paragraph must be made before an amendment is offered thereto 
or before the Clerk reads the next paragraph heading and amount. Where 
the bill is considered as having been read and open to amendment by 
unanimous consent, points of order against provisions in the bill must 
be made before amendments are offered, and cannot be reserved pending 
subsequent action on amendments.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See the discussion in House Rules and Manual Sec. 835 
        (1983).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reservation of Points of Order

Sec. 2.1 Since points of order had not been reserved on an 
    appropriation bill when it was reported to the House and referred 
    to the Committee of the Whole, points of order against a 
    proposition in violation of Rule XXI clause 2 were overruled on the 
    ground that the Chairman lacked authority to pass upon the 
    question.

[[Page 5236]]

    On Apr. 8, 1943, the Clerk read a provision of a bill containing 
legislative and judiciary appropriations for 1944,(9) as 
follows: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H.R. 2409.
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 3150, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Salaries of clerks of courts: For salaries of clerks of United 
    States circuit courts of appeals and United States district courts, 
    their deputies, and other assistants, $2,542,900: Provided, That 
    the positions of deputy clerk of the United States district court 
    at Springfield, Mass., Cumberland, Md. . . . and Pueblo, Colo., are 
    hereby abolished and such provisions of law as require offices of 
    clerks of courts to be maintained at such places are hereby 
    repealed.

    The following points of order were then made: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 3150, 3151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the material contained in line 20, page 55, 
    down to the end of the paragraph on page 56, line 11, is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that there was no reservation made when this bill 
    was introduced with reference to points of order, and the Record 
    will bear me out. Therefore a point of order against anything in 
    the bill now is not in order.
        The Chairman (12) subsequently ruled as follows: 
    (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. James P. McGranery (Pa.).
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 3153, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 5237]]

        Hopkins then held that he had no authority to sustain a point 
    of order against an item in the bill.
        The present occupant of the chair feels constrained to follow 
    the precedents heretofore established and sustains the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cochran).

    Note: On occasion, a Member has by unanimous consent reserved 
points of order against an appropriation bill already reported and 
referred to the Calendar.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See 86 Cong. Rec. 1991, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 26, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reservation of Points of Order Against Amendments

Sec. 2.2 The reservation of a point of order against an amendment to an 
    appropriation bill is within the discretion of the Chair. Thus, 
    even though a Member states that he ``will reserve a point of 
    order'' and then seeks the Chair's recognition to speak in 
    opposition to the amendment, the Chair may dispose of the point of 
    order first.

    On June 6, 1963,(15) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6754, a Department of Agriculture appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 10411, 10412, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Page 33, 
    after line 12, insert the following:
        ``Sec. 607. None of the funds provided herein shall be used to 
    pay the salary of any officer or employee who negotiates agreements 
    or contracts or in any other way, directly or indirectly, performs 
    duties or functions incidental to supporting the price of Upland 
    Middling Inch cotton at a level in excess of 30 cents a pound.''
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the amendment, but I will reserve the point 
    of order at this time.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    reserves the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak 
    on the point of order.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] 
    press his point of order?
        Mr. Whitten: I will not press it for the moment and yield to 
    the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Jones].
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri has indicated he 
    desires to be heard on the point of order which has not been made.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order, if I may.

[[Page 5238]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the 
    basis that the prohibition that would be set up here would require 
    new duties to be performed in determining who negotiates, whether 
    their actions constitute negotiations, or whether their actions in 
    any of these particulars are in such a manner as to have their 
    salaries not paid, particularly in view of other laws which require 
    that employees of the Federal Government be paid certain specified 
    sums.
        Mr. Chairman, it does call for new duties and there is no 
    limitation in its entirety.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Jones] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: I desire to be heard, Mr. Chairman, on 
    the point of order. . . . Mr. Chairman, I contend this is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill because it would prohibit the 
    Secretary from carrying out the duties and the authority that he 
    has under legislation that has not been changed. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Findley] has offered an 
    amendment which provides for the insertion of a new section, which 
    amendment provides in words that none of the funds provided in the 
    pending bill shall be used to pay the salary of any officer or 
    employee who does certain things.
        In the opinion of the Chair, that constitutes within the rules 
    of the House a limitation on the funds being appropriated and is a 
    proper form of limitation. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

Effect of Conceding Point of Order

Sec. 2.3 Where a point of order is made against language in an 
    appropriation bill and the point is conceded by the Member handling 
    the bill, the Chair normally sustains the point of order.

    On Apr. 12, 1960,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 11666, a State, Justice, and Judiciary Departments 
appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 7941, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For expenses necessary for permanent representation. . . 
    $1,850,000.
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the language on page 7 beginning with line 1 and 
    running through line 12 on the ground that it contains an 
    appropriation not authorized by law.
        Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to page 7 of the report on 
    the pending bill, H.R. 11666, which states:

            The following table sets forth the amounts allowed for each 
        organization.

        Item 7 provides $30,000 for the Interparliamentary Union.
        Mr. Chairman, I also call your attention to page 1035 of the 
    hearings and the justification for this appropriation, from which I 
    read as follows:

            The act of June 28, 1935, as amended by Public Law 409, ap

[[Page 5239]]

        proved February 6, 1948 (22 U.S.C. 276), authorizes an amount 
        of $15,000 to assist in meeting the expenses of the American 
        group of the Interparliamentary Union for each fiscal year.

        I further read from the justification to be found on the same 
    page:

            Although the enabling legislation authorizes an 
        appropriation of $15,000, there is included in this request 
        $30,000.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this violates rule 
    21, paragraph 2, of Cannon's Procedures which provides that no 
    appropriation shall be made without prior authorization.
        The Chairman: (18) Does the gentleman from New York 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: . . . It is the fact, and 
    we concede, that the Interparliamentary Union, which has been in 
    existence for some 70-odd years, does not have an authorization for 
    expenditure beyond $15,000 per annum, whereas the newly created 
    NATO Interparliamentary Union and the Canadian Interparliamentary 
    Union have authorizations for $30,000. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am now constrained to concede that the point of 
    order is well taken and I shall immediately offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded and sustained.

Point of Order Against Part of Paragraph

Sec. 2.4 Where a point of order is made against an entire paragraph in 
    an appropriation bill on the ground that a portion thereof is in 
    conflict with the rules of the House and the point of order is 
    sustained, the entire paragraph is eliminated.

    On July 23, 1970,(19) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 18515) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 25634, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I make a further point of order under 
    this title and under the heading ``Office of Economic 
    Opportunity,'' on page 38, lines 1 through 25, including the colon 
    after the word ``grant'', predicated upon the fact that this is 
    further legislation in an appropriation bill and that it involves 
    specifically, Mr. Chairman, the phrase on line 14 ``and for 
    purchase of real property for training centers:'' and other 
    legislation language which is foreign to an appropriation bill. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky will be heard.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the point of order 
    raised by

[[Page 5240]]

    the gentleman from Missouri, the gentleman moved to strike the 
    language on page 38 from what line through what line?
        Mr. Hall: The Chair has just repeated it. Line 1, including the 
    title and the heading, down through the colon following the word 
    ``grant.''
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard further, lines 1 
    through 5 including the amount authorized and appropriated, 
    $2,046,200,000, follows the language in the authorization bill. We 
    do have some new language commencing on lines 14 through 15 that is 
    not in the authorization bill presently, but this is the language 
    that has been carried on previous appropriation bills. The language 
    that I specifically refer to that is not in the authorization bill 
    is on line 14 after ``1964,'' commencing with ``and for purchase of 
    real property for training centers.''
        Now, this language is not in the authorization bill.
        The language commencing on line 18 and the rest of the 
    paragraph down to line 21 is language on an appropriation bill, in 
    my judgment, because there is nothing in the authorization bill. 
    But we certainly do not want the amount that is appropriated for 
    the economic opportunity act stricken from this bill. It is in 
    strict compliance with the authorization amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        There are ample precedents for ruling a complete paragraph out 
    of order, if any part of that paragraph is out of order. The 
    gentleman from Kentucky has conceded that part of it is not in 
    order, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hall).

Sec. 2.5 When part of a paragraph is subject to be stricken on a point 
    of order as being legislation, the entire paragraph is subject to 
    the point of order.

    On May 11, 1960,(1) During consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12117) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 10032, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 
        19726, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 15, 1961 (proceedings 
        relating to H.R. 9169); and 83 Cong. Rec. 652, 75th Cong. 3d 
        Sess., Jan. 17, 1938 (proceedings relating to H.R. 8947, a 
        Treasury and Post Office Departments appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Marketing services: For services relating to agricultural 
        marketing and distribution, for carrying out regulatory acts 
        connected therewith, and for administration and coordination of 
        payments to States, $26,838,000 . . . Provided, That the 
        Department is hereby authorized and directed to make such 
        inspection of poultry products processing plants as it deems 
        essential to the protection of public health and to permit the 
        use of appropriate inspection labels where it determines from 
        such inspection that such plants operate in a manner which 
        protects the public health, and not less than $500,000 shall be 
        available for this purpose.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a

[[Page 5241]]

    point of order against the language beginning in line 2, page 17, 
    commencing with the word ``Provided,'' right down through the end 
    of that paragraph on page 17, line 9.
        This constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Fred] Marshall [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the entire paragraph, beginning in line 15, 
    page 16, through line 9 on page 17, on the ground it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    committee does not care to oppose the point of order. I do not 
    think there is any question but what points of order lie.
        The Chairman:(2) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    concedes both points of order. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order of the gentleman from Minnesota and the entire paragraph is 
    ruled out as legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Paul J. Kilday (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.6 Where a point of order is made against an entire proviso on 
    the ground that a portion of it is subject to the point of order, 
    and the point of order is sustained, the entire proviso is 
    eliminated.

    On Apr. 16, 1943,(3) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2481, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 3491-94, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        To enable the Secretary to carry into effect the provisions of 
    sections 7 to 17, inclusive, of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
    Allotment Act . . . not to exceed $50,000 for the preparation and 
    display of exhibits. . . . Provided further, That in order to 
    effect (specified reductions) such part of the funds available for 
    salaries and administrative expenses shall be transferred under 
    section 11 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 
    February 29, 1936, as amended, to the existing extension services 
    of the land-grant colleges in the several States to enable them to 
    carry out all necessary educational, informational, and promotional 
    activities in connection with such programs in these States and no 
    other funds than those so transferred shall be expended for such 
    activities . . . Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
    provision of law, persons who in 1943 carry out farming operations 
    as tenants or sharecroppers on cropland owned by the United States 
    Government and who comply with the terms and conditions of the 1943 
    agricultural conservation program, formulated pursuant to sections 
    7 to 17, inclusive, of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment 
    Act, as amended, shall be entitled to apply for and receive 
    payments, or to retain payments heretofore made, for their 
    participation in said program to the same extent as other 
    producers. . . .
        Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fulmer: On Page 65, beginning in line 9, with the words 
    ``Provided further,'' I make a point of order against

[[Page 5242]]

    all of that section down to line 18, including the word 
    ``activities,'' the language reading, ``Provided further,'' That in 
    order to effect such 50-percent reduction such part of the funds 
    available for salaries and administrative expenses shall be 
    transferred under section 11 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic 
    Allotment Act of February 29, 1936, as amended, to the existing 
    extension services of the land-grant colleges in the several States 
    to enable them to carry out all necessary educational, 
    informational, and promotional activities in connection with such 
    programs in these States and no other funds than those so 
    transferred shall be expended for such activities''; that it is the 
    legislation on an appropriation bill without authorization. I make 
    that point of order. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman has other points of order against 
    the paragraph?
        Mr. Fulmer: Yes.

        The Chairman: Will the gentleman indicate those?
        Mr. Fulmer: On page 67, line 16, down to and including line 3 
    on page 68, which language is as follows: ``Provided further, That 
    notwithstanding any other provision of law, persons who in 1943 
    carry out farming operations as tenants or sharecroppers on 
    cropland owned by the United States Government and who comply with 
    the terms and conditions of the 1943 agricultural conservation 
    program, formulated pursuant to sections 7 to 17 inclusive, of the 
    Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, shall be 
    entitled to apply for and receive payments, or to retain payments 
    heretofore made, for their participation in said program to the 
    same extent as other producers: And provided further, That no part 
    of such amount shall be available for carrying out the provisions 
    of section 202 (a) to (f) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
    1938,'' on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill without any authorization in law. . . .
        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bland: Mr. Chairman, if a part of a paragraph or section in 
    a bill is subject to a point of order and a point of order is made 
    to the paragraph or section, does that not carry out the entire 
    paragraph or section?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, for 
    clarification, the point of order was not made against the entire 
    paragraph as I understand it.
        The Chairman: The entire proviso. That is what the gentleman 
    had in mind?
        Mr. Bland: Yes. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on the first point of 
    order submitted by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Fulmer]. 
    . .  .
        The gentleman from Illinois concedes that the point of order is 
    sound and well taken for that part of the proviso beginning after 
    the word ``States'' in line 15, as follows: ``to enable them to 
    carry out all necessary educational, informational, and promotional 
    activities, that it is subject to the point of order, being 
    legislation upon an appropriation bill.

[[Page 5243]]

        If any part of the proviso is subject to a point of order, the 
    whole proviso falls, therefore the Chair sustains the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Fulmer]. . . .
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    understood there was a point of order against another portion of 
    the paragraph, the concluding proviso. I only wish to be heard at 
    this time on the point of order as far as it relates to the 
    concluding proviso, that is, on page 68, line 1:

            That no part of such amount shall be available for carrying 
        out the provisions of section 202 (a) to (f) of the 
        Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

        Those are the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
    1938 which make available $4,000,000 from this fund for the 
    maintenance of the four regional laboratories. We have already 
    appropriated in a preceding paragraph of the bill $4,000,000, from 
    the Federal Treasury and not from this fund for those laboratories. 
    For that reason, it became necessary to provide that the same 
    amount should not again be made available from this particular 
    fund, which would result in $8,000,000 being made available to the 
    four regional laboratories when no such amount was estimated 
    therefor.
        This is a limitation under the Holman rule. This simply limits 
    the expenditures which are authorized under this paragraph, so that 
    this appropriation which has already been made in a preceding 
    paragraph of the bill cannot be duplicated from these funds.
        Mr. Fulmer: Mr. Chairman, after rereading this provision and 
    hearing the gentleman's argument, I confine my point of order to 
    the proviso on page 67 beginning in line 16 and running down 
    through line 25, ending with the word ``producers.'' . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from South Carolina makes the point of order 
    against the language beginning in line 16 and running down to and 
    including the word ``producers'' in line 25 that it is legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. With the information available to the 
    Chair, the Chair is of the opinion that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill, and sustains the point of order.

Sec. 2.7 A point of order may be made against part of a paragraph 
    which, if sustained, would not necessarily affect the remainder of 
    such paragraph unless a point of order were specifically made 
    against the entire paragraph.

    On Mar. 30, 1954,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8583, an independent offices appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 100 Cong. Rec. 4108, 4109, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Capital grants for slum clearance and urban redevelopment: For 
    an additional amount for payment of capital grants as authorized by 
    title I of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1453, 
    1456), $39,000,000, to remain available until expended: Pro

[[Page 5244]]

    vided, That no funds in this or any other act shall be available 
    for payment of capital grants under any contract involving the 
    development or redevelopment of a project for predominantly 
    residential uses unless incidental uses are restricted to those 
    normally essential for residential uses: Provided further, That 
    before approving any local slum clearance program under title I of 
    the Housing Act of 1949, the Administrator shall give consideration 
    to the efforts of the locality to enforce local codes and 
    regulations relating to adequate standards of health, sanitation, 
    and safety for dwellings and to the feasibility of achieving slum 
    clearance objectives through rehabilitation of existing dwellings 
    and areas: Provided further, That the authority under title I of 
    the National Housing Act shall be used to the utmost in connection 
    with slum rehabilitation needs.
        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the proviso appearing on page 28, lines 13 
    to 18, on the ground it is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: (6) Does the gentleman from California 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: No, Mr. Chairman. I think 
    we are compelled to concede the point of order and I submit an 
    amendment to replace it. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to make a point of 
    order to one part of a paragraph and have it limited to that 
    particular part?
        The Chairman: A Member may make a point of order to any 
    objectionable language in the paragraph.
        Mr. Whitten: Separating it from the remainder of the paragraph?
        The Chairman: Yes.

Timeliness--Objection to Consideration

Sec. 2.8 A point of order against consideration of a general 
    appropriation bill, on grounds that the total of proposed 
    appropriations exceeds the total amount authorized, will not lie in 
    the House. The proper time to demand enforcement of Rule XXI clause 
    2 (the rule against reporting appropriations not previously 
    authorized) is when such item is read for amendment in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 8, 1965,(7) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 111 Cong. Rec. 23140, 23141, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the

[[Page 5245]]

    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 10871) 
    making appropriations for foreign assistance and related agencies 
    for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes; 
    and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
    general debate on the bill be limited to 3 hours, one-half of that 
    time to be controlled by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Shriver] 
    and one-half to be controlled by myself.
        The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, at the proper time I shall ask for recognition to make a 
    point of order against consideration of the bill. I should like to 
    be advised as to that time.
        The Speaker: The Chair will say that if the unanimous-consent 
    request is granted the gentleman may then assert whatever he wants 
    to under the rules.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Louisiana?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against 
    consideration of this bill on the ground that in adoption of the 
    conference report by the Congress, and with the signature of the 
    President of the United States now a fact, and, therefore, the 
    authorization bill is law, it includes a new section, section 649, 
    which reads as follows:

            Limitation on aggregate authority for use in the fiscal 
        year 1966. . . .

        The Speaker: What is the number of that section?
        Mr. Gross: Section 649.
        The Speaker: Of the authorization bill?
        Mr. Gross: Of the authorization bill, which reads as follows:

            Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the 
        aggregate of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for 
        use during the fiscal year 1966 for furnishing assistance and 
        for administrative expenses under this act shall not exceed 
        $3,360 million. . . .

        The limitation contained in the conference report, which is now 
    law, is $3,360 million. The report accompanying this bill states 
    clearly there is sought to be appropriated by this bill 
    $3,630,622,000.
        Mr. Passman: . . . Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct 
    attention to the fact that the authorization bill limited new 
    appropriations to $3,360 million. We are only recommending new 
    appropriations in the amount of $3,285 million which is $75 million 
    below the amount authorized.
        Under section 645 of the basic act, and I quote:

            Unexpended balances: Funds made available pursuant to this 
        Act, the Mutual Security Act of 1955, as amended, Public Law 
        86-735, are hereby authorized to be continued available for the 
        general purposes for which appropriated and may at any time be 
        consolidated and in addition may be consolidated with 
        appropriations made available for the same general purposes 
        under the authority of this Act.

        Mr. Speaker, this is the basic legislation.
        If I may make one further observation, Mr. Speaker, a good part 
    of the section that the gentleman is referring

[[Page 5246]]

    to has to do with no-year funds anyway. The no-year funds in which 
    the appropriation or unexpended balance is automatically carried 
    forward would be $120,978,000. We have moved on the premise that 
    the original basic act authorized the continuation of the 
    unexpended or unobligated funds from previous years. . . .
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I would point out the new section 
    inserted in the authorization bill which has been read, and I am 
    sure the Speaker understands it thoroughly, makes no provision for 
    new funds. It says explicitly, ``notwithstanding any other 
    provision of this Act, the limitation is $3,360 million.''
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Without passing upon the question, that might arise later on, 
    if it does, the Chair is of the opinion that the point of order 
    should be made against the item or items in the appropriation bill 
    which the gentleman from Iowa might claim to be in excess of the 
    amount authorized by law, and not against the consideration of the 
    bill itself.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.
        The question is on the motion.

Sec. 2.9 A point of order against an unauthorized appropriation does 
    not lie in the House against consideration of a special 
    appropriation bill made in order pursuant to a rule reported from 
    the Committee on Rules.

    Where the House had agreed to a resolution providing for 
consideration of a joint resolution making temporary appropriations, an 
objection to consideration of the joint resolution on the ground that 
the authorization for the appropriations therein had expired was held 
not to be in order. The proceedings on Aug. 21, 1951,(9) 
during which the House was considering House Resolution 397, making in 
order the consideration of House Joint Resolution 320, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 10479-81, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. See also Sec. 2.8, 
        supra. The point of order based on lack of authorization only 
        lies against an item in a general appropriation bill when that 
        item is read for amendment in Committee of the Whole under the 
        five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    resolution (H. Res. 397) which I submitted earlier in the day, 
    making in order House Joint Resolution 320, and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

            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 the joint resolution (H.J. 
        Res. 320) amending an act making temporary appropriations for 
        the fiscal year 1952, and for other purposes. . . . At the 
        conclusion of the consideration of the joint resolution for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the joint 
        resolution to

[[Page 5247]]

        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.

        The Speaker: (10) The question is, Will the House 
    consider the resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the House decided to consider the joint resolution. . . .
        [The resolution was subsequently agreed to.] (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 97 Cong. Rec. 10481, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 320) amending an act making temporary 
    appropriations for the fiscal year 1952, and for other purposes.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against consideration of the joint resolution on the 
    ground that the authorization has expired, and that there is no 
    authorization for this appropriation.
        The Speaker: The resolution just adopted makes in order the 
    consideration of the joint resolution, and, therefore, the point of 
    order does not lie.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Point of Order During Reading

Sec. 2.10 A point of order against a paragraph of a general 
    appropriation bill on the ground that it is legislation will not 
    lie until the paragraph is read; and such a point of order is not 
    precluded by the fact that, by unanimous consent, an amendment was 
    offered to the paragraph before it was read.

    On July 31, 1969,(12) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 13111) the following 
proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 21677, 21678, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 409. No part of the funds contained in this Act shall 
        be used to force busing of students, the abolishment of any 
        school or the attendance of students at a particular school as 
        a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise 
        available to any State, school district, or school.

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I raise 
    the point of order on section 409 on page 56 of the bill that this 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill. It violates section 834 of 
    the House rules. It does not comply with the Holman rule. It is not 
    a retrenchment. In fact, it adds additional burdens and additional 
    duties, just as the Chair ruled against my amendment to section 408 
    because it would require additonal personnel to determine whether 
    busing has been

[[Page 5248]]

    used, one, for the abolishing of any school and, two, to require 
    the attendance of any student at any particular school. You would 
    have to have investigators there to determine this as a condition 
    precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise available to any 
    State school district or school. No. 1, for the abolition of any 
    school, and No. 2, whether the attendance of any student at any 
    particular school could be investigated there to determine this as 
    a condition precedent to obtaining Federal funds otherwise 
    available to any State, school district or school.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge the Chairman to sustain the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) Does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I raised the point awhile ago that the gentleman, 
    having asked unanimous consent that the amendments to the two 
    sections be considered en bloc and having obtained that unanimous-
    consent request, and after having the amendments considered en bloc 
    in connection with the two sections, that the House has already 
    considered section 409 and the point of order comes too late. That 
    is the situation on the one hand.
        Second, a reading of the section clearly shows that the House 
    has already considered section 409 in connection with the prior 
    amendments. In addition to that, this is clearly a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill and does not have to conform to the Holman rule. 
    . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The objection of the gentleman from Mississippi which has been 
    made to the effect that this section had been considered when, by 
    unanimous consent amendments to the two sections were considered, 
    does not nullify the fact that section 409 had not been read. 
    Therefore, when section 409 was read it was subject to points of 
    order.

Sec. 2.11 A point of order against a paragraph of a general 
    appropriation bill is not in order until that paragraph is read; 
    and the Chairman has declined to recognize a Member to make a point 
    of order against both paragraphs of a particular section when only 
    the first of such paragraphs has been read.

    On June 4, 1970,(14) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 17867) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 18403, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 107. (a) No assistance shall be furnished under the 
        Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to any country 
        which sells, furnishes, or permits any ships under its registry 
        to carry to Cuba, so long as it is governed by the Castro 
        regime, in addition to those items contained on the list 
        maintained by the Administrator pursuant to title I of the 
        Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951, as amended, any 
        arms, ammunition, implements of war, atomic energy

[[Page 5249]]

        materials, or any other articles, materials or supplies of 
        primary strategic significance used in the production of arms, 
        ammunition, and implements of war or of strategic significance 
        to the conduct of war; including petroleum products.

        Mr. [Peter H. B.] Frelinghuysen [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I make a point of order against section 107(a) on the ground that 
    it is legislation in an appropriations bill.
        The Chairman: (15) Does the gentleman make his point 
    of order against the entire section?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frelinghuysen: When I get the opportunity, I shall 
    certainly make the point of order against section (b) also. If it 
    is in order, I shall be glad to make the point of order against 
    both sections (a) and (b) at this time.
        The Chairman: The Chair would prefer to rule on the sections 
    separately. The gentleman has made a point of order against section 
    107(a). The Chair will hear the gentleman.

Sec. 2.12 A point of order against language in a general appropriation 
    bill comes too late after the reading of the subsequent paragraph.

    On June 6, 1963,(16) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Agriculture Department appropriation bill 
(H.R. 6754) proceedings occurred as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 10398, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 
        24752, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 16, 1963 (H.R. 9499).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language on page 17, line 5, beginning 
    with the word ``and'' and all that follows through the period on 
    line 11, on the ground it is legislation on a general appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair may say to the 
    gentleman from Illinois that his point of order comes too late. The 
    Clerk has reached page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Considered as Read

Sec. 2.13 Where all of a general appropriation bill (and not just the 
    portion not yet read), was, by unanimous consent, considered as 
    read and open to points of order and amendment at any point, the 
    Chairman sustained a point of order against a provision conceded to 
    be legislation in a paragraph which had been passed in reading for 
    amendment when the unanimous-consent request was agreed to.

    On June 7, 1972,(18) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
(H.R. 15259), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 19900, 19901, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           General Operating Expenses

            General operating expenses, $65,029,000, of which $629,700 
        shall

[[Page 5250]]

        be payable from the highway fund (including $72,400 from the 
        motor vehicle parking account), $94,500 from the water fund, 
        and $67,300 from the sanitary sewage works fund. . . .

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered 
    as read, open to amendment at any point, and subject to any points 
    of order.
        The Chairman: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, my point of order should lie on page 3, 
    line 8, following the colon, against the phrase:

            Provided, That the certificates of the Commissioner (for 
        $2,500) and of the Chairman of the City Council (for $2,500) 
        shall be sufficient voucher for expenditures from this 
        appropriation for such purposes, exclusive of ceremony 
        expenses, as they may respectively deem necessary:

        In other words, Mr. Chairman, I am raising a point of order 
    against all after the colon on line 8, through the colon on line 
    13.
        This was not authorized, and it is an appropriation bill 
    without authorization.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Missouri that that part of the bill to which the gentleman has 
    raised his point of order was previously read prior to the 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Hall: But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the unanimous-
    consent request was granted to the entire bill, that it be open to 
    amendment and open for points of order at any point. This request 
    was granted and therefore I have gone back to this point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky desire to be 
    heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri?
        Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Hall] is correct, and we concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the point of 
    order is sustained.

        Are there any further points of order?
        Are there any amendments to be proposed?

Bill Opened for Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 2.14 Where an appropriation bill partially read for amendment is 
    then opened for amendment ``at any point'' (rather than for ``the 
    remainder of the bill''), points of order to paragraphs already 
    read may yet be entertained.

    On June 7, 1972,(20) in a paragraph appropriating funds 
for

[[Page 5251]]

general operating expenses for the District of Columbia, a proviso 
stating that certificates of the Commissioner and Chairman of the City 
Council shall be sufficient vouchers for expenditure from that 
appropriation was conceded to be legislation in violation of Rule XXI 
clause 2 and was ruled out on a point of order. The part of the bill 
against which the point of order was directed had been read prior to a 
unanimous-consent request that the bill be open for amendment at any 
point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 19900, 19901, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I raise a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (1) The gentleman from Missouri will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dante B. Fascell (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, my point of order should lie on page 3, 
    line 8, following the colon, against the phrase:

            Provided, That the certificate of the Commissioner (for 
        $2,500) and of the Chairman of the City Council (for $2,500) 
        shall be sufficient voucher for expenditures from this 
        appropriation for such purposes, exclusive of ceremony 
        expenses, as they may respectively deem necessary. . . .

        In other words, Mr. Chairman, I am raising a point of order 
    against all after the colon on line 8, through the colon on line 
    13.
        This was not authorized, and it is an appropriation bill 
    without authorization.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Missouri that that part of the bill to which the gentleman has 
    raised his point of order was previously read prior to the 
    unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Hall: But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the unanimous-
    consent request was granted to the entire bill, that it be open to 
    amendment and open for points of order at any point. This request 
    was granted and therefore I have gone back to this point of order.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Kentucky desire to be 
    heard on the point of order raised by the gentleman from Missouri?
        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hall) is correct, and we concede the 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The point of order is conceded, and the point of 
    order is sustained.
        Are there any further points of order?
        Are there any amendments to be proposed? (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 20068, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1973 
        [H.R. 8658].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.15 Where the Committee of the Whole has granted unanimous 
    consent that the remainder of a general appropriation bill be 
    considered as read and open to points of order or amendment at any 
    point, the Chair first inquires whether any Member desires to raise 
    a point of order against any portion of

[[Page 5252]]

    the pending text, and then recognizes Members to offer amendments 
    to that text.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(3) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 15931) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 4019, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 2.22, infra, 
        as to the proper time for making points of order against 
        provisions of the bill where the bill is considered as read and 
        open to points of order and amendments at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the 
    bill be considered as read and open to points of order or amendment 
    at any point.
        The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order?
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a point of order against the language contained in section 
    411, beginning on line 12, through line 20 on page 61, which reads 
    as follows:

            Sec. 411. In the administration of any program provided for 
        in this Act, as to which the allocation, grant, apportionment, 
        or other distribution of funds among recipients is required to 
        be determined by application of a formula involving the amount 
        appropriated or otherwise made available for distribution, the 
        amount available for expenditure or obligation (as determined 
        by the President) shall be substituted for the amount 
        appropriated or otherwise made available in the application of 
        the formula.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the ground that the 
    section in question constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
    bill and does not come within the exception.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Chairman, the language is patently legislation 
    on an appropriation bill. I concede the point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania concedes the 
    point of order, and the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the language on page 57, lines 9 through 16, which reads as 
    follows:

            Provided further, That those provisions of the Economic 
        Opportunity Amendments of 1967 and 1969 that set mandatory 
        funding levels, including mandatory funding levels for the 
        newly authorized programs for alcoholic counseling and recovery 
        and for drug rehabilitation, shall be effective during the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1970: Provided further, That of the 
        sums appropriated not less than $22,000,000 shall be used for 
        the family planning program.

        Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order on the ground that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.

[[Page 5253]]

        Mr. Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that it 
    is legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Flood: Not on this point, Mr. Chairman; no.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan seek recognition 
    on this point of order:
        Mr. O'Hara: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the amendment simply restates 
    existing law in the authorizing legislation, and if that is indeed 
    the case, I do not think it is subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will say that if this restates existing 
    law, there is no point in it being in the bill, and the fact that 
    it is in the bill on its face would indicate there must be 
    legislation in it in addition to that contained in existing law. 
    The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order.
        Are there any further points of order?
        The Chair will recognize at this time Members who wish to offer 
    amendments.

Sec. 2.16 A point of order against language in an appropriation bill 
    comes too late when the Committee of the Whole has granted 
    unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as 
    read and open at any point to points of order or to amendments and 
    the Chairman has asked for amendments after having asked for points 
    of order.

    On Aug. 19, 1949,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6008, a supplemental appropriation bill. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 11870, 11876, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. See also 
        Sec. 2.22, infra, as to the proper time for making points of 
        order against provisions of the bill where the bill is 
        considered as read and open to points of order and amendments 
        at any point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis C.] Rabaut [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as 
    read and be open at any point to points of order and amendments.
        The Chairman: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order?
        If not, are there any amendments?
        Mr. [William M.] Wheeler [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Sutton: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    language on page 19 that it is legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.

[[Page 5254]]

        The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. At the time 
    the further reading of the bill was dispensed with, the Chair 
    requested Members desiring to make points of order to do so at that 
    time.

After Request for Additional Debate

Sec. 2.17 After an amendment to an appropriation bill has been read by 
    the Clerk and a reservation of objection has been made against a 
    unanimous-consent request for an additional five minutes' debate, 
    it has been held to be too late to raise a point of order against 
    the amendment.

    On Feb. 1, 1938,(7) The Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9181, a District of Columbia appropriation bill. The 
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 83 Cong. Rec. 1364, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: On 
    page 57, in line 19, strike out ``$900,000'' and insert in lieu 
    thereof ``$1,900,000.''
        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed 
    for an additional 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object----
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make the point 
    of order against the amendment that this increase is not authorized 
    by law.
        The Chairman: (8) The point of order of the 
    gentleman from New York comes too late. A request has already been 
    presented, and there has been a reservation of objection to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William J. Driver (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Withdrawal of Reservation

Sec. 2.18 A point of order against an amendment to an appropriation 
    bill does not come too late if made immediately after the 
    withdrawal of a prior reservation of a point of order since the 
    initial reservation of a point of order inures to all Members.

    On Mar. 27, 1962,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 10904, a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriation bill. The Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued 
as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 108 Cong. Rec. 5164, 5165, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Hospital Construction Activities

        To carry out the provisions of title VI of the Act, as amended, 
    $188,572,000. . . .
        Mr. [William Fitts] Ryan of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 5255]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan of New York: On page 25, line 
        21, immediately before the period insert the following: 
        ``Provided further, That no part of the amounts appropriated in 
        this paragraph may be used for grants or loans for any 
        hospital, facility, or nursing home established, or having 
        separate facilities, for population groups ascertained on the 
        basis of race, creed, or color.''

        Mr. [John E.] Fogarty [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve the point of order.
        Mr. Ryan of New York: Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I 
    rise to support an amendment which would provide a limitation upon 
    the appropriations for hospital construction activities: that is, 
    relating to page 25 of the bill.
        Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the use of funds 
    appropriated under the Hill-Burton Act for hospital construction 
    for segregated facilities.
        The Hill-Burton program has provided Federal financing to help 
    construct more than 2,000 medical care facilities in 11 Southern 
    States. Since the inception of the Hill-Burton program these States 
    have received $562,921,000 for hospital construction. Authorities 
    have pointed out that virtually all of these institutions 
    discriminate in various ways against Negro citizens. . . .
        Mr. James C. Davis [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, is it in order 
    for me at this time to make a point of order against the amendment?
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman from Rhode Island 
    has reserved his point of order. Does the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island insist on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Omar T. Burleson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fogarty: Mr. Chairman, I waive the point of order. I have 
    stated my reasons as to why the amendment should be defeated and I 
    ask the committee to vote down the amendment.
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, is it in order for me to make 
    a point of order against the amendment?
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, does not the 
    point of order come too late?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia is making a 
    parliamentary inquiry at the present time.
        Mr. Yates: I beg pardon.

        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time 
    the gentleman from Rhode Island was recognized and I was on my feet 
    for the purpose of making a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Rhode Island being a member of 
    the committee, the custom is that he be recognized first.
        The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, has not the point of order been waived 
    by the gentleman from Rhode Island speaking to the question?
        The Chairman: The Chair understood that the gentleman from 
    Rhode

[[Page 5256]]

    Island was speaking to his point of order and insisted then on the 
    defeat of the amendment.
        Mr. Yates: That is correct, Mr. Chairman, and, therefore, no 
    point of order is proper at this time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. James C. Davis] 
    now states he was on his feet attempting to press a point of order 
    against the amendment, but the Chair had understood that the 
    gentleman from Rhode Island did insist on his point of order. 
    However, the Chair was in error as to that and the gentleman from 
    Georgia is now recognized to make his point of order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, one final parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, does not the point of order by the 
    gentleman from Georgia come too late?
        The Chairman: Not under the circumstances. The Chair would 
    assume there is a possibility of more than one point of order being 
    made and for more than one reason.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. James C. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
    against the amendment on the ground that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . The gentleman from New York has offered an 
    amendment to which a point of order has been made. The language of 
    the amendment to which a point of order has been raised is as 
    follows:

            Provided further, That no part of the amounts appropriated 
        in this paragraph may be used for grants or loans for any 
        hospital, facility, or nursing home established, or having 
        separate facilities, for population groups ascertained on the 
        basis of race, creed, or color.

        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is a proper 
    limitation under the rules of the House and, therefore, overrules 
    the point of order.

Upon Third Reading

Sec. 2.19 A point of order against language in an appropriation bill is 
    not in order at the third reading of the bill in the House.

    On June 6, 1963,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6754, an Agriculture Department appropriation bill. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 10398, 10399, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the language on page 17, line 5, beginning 
    with the word ``and'' and all that follows through the period on 
    line 11, on the ground it is legislation on a general appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair may say to the 
    gentleman from Illinois that his point of order comes too late. The 
    Clerk has reached page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 5257]]

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to make a point 
    of order on the third reading of the bill?
        The Chairman: No, it would not.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to 
    page 17 for the purpose of making a point of order.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.

Various Grounds for Objection

Sec. 2.20 Points of order were made against an entire title in an 
    appropriation bill for the Atomic Energy Commission which included, 
    in part, provisions for (1) the employment of aliens; (2) rental of 
    space upon a determination of need by the Administrator of General 
    Services; (3) use of unexpended balances of previous years; (4) 
    transfer of sums to other agencies; (5) a sum to remain available 
    until expended; (6) reappropriation of funds for plant and 
    equipment; and (7) a power reactor project not authorized by law 
    and the title was held to be in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    On July 24, 1956,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the second supplemental appropriation bill, a 
point of order was raised against a title containing provisions as 
described above. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 102 Cong. Rec. 14289, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Clarence Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and now be 
    open to points of order and amendments to any part of the bill.
        The Chairman: (14) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against title 
    I and also the item for the Bureau of Reclamation on page 7.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman making a point of order against 
    the entire title I?
        Mr. Cannon: Title I and the material indicated as well as on 
    page 7.
        The Chairman: Let us pass on one point of order at a time, 
    please. Does anybody wish to be heard on the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] against title I?
        Mr. [Walter H.] Judd [of Minnesota]: On what basis is the point 
    of order made?
        Mr. Cannon: Not authorized by law and is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.

[[Page 5258]]

        Mr. Judd: A lot of it is authorized by law.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, the items in 
    title I, with the exception of the several provisos, are entirely 
    within the statute and are authorized. I thought I had an 
    understanding that the only item to go out was the $400 million 
    item, but as long as the point of order is made on that, I will 
    offer an amendment to cover everything except that last proviso 
    after the point of order is disposed of.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Chairman, title I, in its entirety, is subject 
    to a point of order. Part of the paragraph being subject to a point 
    of order, the entire paragraph is subject to a point of order.
        Title I is subject to a point of order on the ground that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    Missouri makes the point of order against title I of the pending 
    bill on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriation bill 
    or contains appropriations not authorized by law. The Chair has 
    gone through title I and has observed that every paragraph in it 
    either contains legislation on an appropriation bill, which is in 
    violation of the rules of the House, or contains appropriations 
    which are not authorized by law, which is also in violation of the 
    rules of the House.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Point of Order Too Late After Amendment Offered to Paragraph

Sec. 2.21 A point of order must be made against a paragraph of a 
    general appropriation bill after it is read and before an amendment 
    is offered thereto (even if the amendment is ruled out of order).

    On June 22, 1983,(15) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Department of Transportation appropriation bill 
(H.R. 3329), when an amendment was offered and proceedings ensued as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 305. None of the funds provided under this Act for 
        Formula grants shall be made available to support mass transit 
        facilities, equipment, or operating expenses unless the 
        applicant for such assistance has given satisfactory assurances 
        in such manner and forms as the Secretary may require . . . 
        that the rates charged elderly and handicapped persons during 
        nonpeak hours shall not exceed one-half of the rates generally 
        applicable to other persons at peak hours: Provided, That the 
        Secretary, in prescribing the terms and conditions for the 
        provision of such assistance shall (1) permit applicants to 
        continue the use of preferential fare systems for elderly or 
        handicapped persons where those systems were in effect on or 
        prior to November 26, 1974. . . .

        Mr. [Robert J.] Mrazek [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mra-
        zek: Insert the following on page 36,

[[Page 5259]]

        line 24, ending with the phrase ``prior to November 26, 1974,'' 
        ``provided that said applicant adopts and implements 
        appropriate standards of eligibility which includes those 
        citizens who reside in the district served by the mass transit 
        system''.

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment. . . .
        I would remind the House under the rules of the House, though, 
    an issue of this kind with substantive merit needs to come before 
    the House--under the rules adopted primarily with votes from the 
    majority side earlier in this Congress--needs to come before the 
    body in the authorization bills rather than in the appropriations 
    bill.
        In this particular instance, the amendment that we have before 
    us constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill under the 
    provisions of clause 2 of Rule XXI.
        My objection to the amendment rests on that procedural grounds 
    that legislation in an appropriations bill is beyond the scope of 
    the present consideration and that this amendment must properly be 
    brought before the House in the course of the authorization 
    process. . . .
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I think 
    the gentleman's point of order is not well taken. The gentleman 
    might have and I indeed had considered making a point of order 
    against the section as being not in order for reasons that the 
    gentleman has stated with respect to this amendment.
        No such point of order was made, however. Therefore, it is too 
    late to knock out the legislation on the basis that it is 
    legislation on an appropriation bill.
        This amendment merely seeks to make technical changes in the 
    language which is already there and to which no objection was made. 
    Therefore, it should be in order. . . .
        Mr. [Dennis M.] Hertel of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, it seems 
    clear that the amendment proposed now that is in question deals 
    with perfecting language. We are talking about the very same 
    standards in this amendment that are recognized in the bill. All we 
    are talking about is extending those standards to another group of 
    citizens that are covered by this bill and this authority. . . .
        The Chairman: (16) If no other Member wishes to be 
    heard, the Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Although the pending section of the bill includes legislation 
    which was allowed to remain when no point of order was raised, the 
    fact is that the amendment adds additional legislative requirements 
    that appropriate standards of eligibility be determined for an 
    additional category of citizens not covered by section 305 and, 
    therefore, the Chair must rule that it is more than perfecting and 
    in fact does constitute additional legislation on an appropriation 
    and is out of order at this time.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order at this time, 
    then, to assert a point of order against section 305?

[[Page 5260]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman that the 
    assertion of that point of order comes too late.

Time for Making Points of Order Against Provisions of Bill Considered 
    as Read

Sec. 2.22 Where a general appropriation bill is by unanimous consent 
    considered as read and open to points of order and then to 
    amendments at any point, points of order against provisions in the 
    bill must be made before amendments are offered, and cannot be 
    reserved pending subsequent action on amendments, since points of 
    order lie against provisions in the bill as reported under Rule XXI 
    clause 2, and separately against amendments in violation of that 
    rule.

    On Dec. 1, 1982,(17) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education appropriation bill (H.R. 7205), a parliamentary 
inquiry was raised as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 28175, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. Sec. 2.15, 
        2.16, supra, for earlier precedents on related issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Neal] Smith of Iowa: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The portion of the bill to which the parliamentary inquiry 
    relates is as follows:

                                special programs

            For carrying out the consolidated programs and projects 
        authorized under chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and 
        Improvement Act of 1981; . . .

         . . . Mr. Chairman, is it possible, since the bill is open to 
    amendment [at] any point, to reserve a point of order and to make 
    it at a later time against certain lines in the bill?
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will state that the 
    point of order must be made at this time, before amendments are 
    offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Order Against Paragraph Where Amendment Has Been Offered

Sec. 2.23 While a point of order can be made against an entire 
    paragraph of a general appropriation bill if any portion 
    contravenes the rules, it is too late to rule out the entire 
    paragraph after points of order against specific portions have been 
    sustained and an amendment to the paragraph has been offered.

    On June 27, 1974,(19) during consideration of the 
Departments

[[Page 5261]]

of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare appropriation bill (H.R. 
15580), the following proceedings occurred as indicated above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 21671, 21672, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Flood: Page 18, line 7, insert ``: 
        Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
        pay any amount for basic opportunity grants for full-time 
        students at institutions of higher education who were enrolled 
        as regular students at such institutions prior to April 1, 
        1973.'' . . .

         Mrs. [Edith] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against this amendment. The point of order is what I cited a 
    moment ago, Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives, on 
    page 246:

            If a part of a paragraph . . . is out of order, all is out 
        of order and a point of order may be raised against the portion 
        out of order or against the entire paragraph. . . .

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair is prepared to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Flood), does appear to meet the tests of a limitation on an 
    appropriation bill. It limits the funds in this specific bill and 
    it is negatively stated. For these reasons it would clearly appear 
    to be admissible as a limitation, distinguishable from that 
    language which was stricken in the proviso that had appeared in the 
    original bill.
        The Chair does not understand that the gentlewoman had raised a 
    point of order against the entire paragraph. The gentlewoman raised 
    two specific points of order on which the Chair ruled.
        If the gentlewoman had at that time intended to make a point of 
    order against the entire paragraph she should so have stated, and 
    the Chair believes that a point of order at this moment on those 
    grounds would be untimely made since an amendment to the paragraph 
    is now pending.

Point of Order Weighed Against Bill as Amended

Sec. 2.24 A point of order against an amendment as legislation on a 
    general appropriation bill must be determined in relation to the 
    bill in its modified form (as affected by disposition of prior 
    points of order).

    On June 14, 1978,(1) the Chair found that, to a general 
appropriation bill from which all funds for the Federal Trade 
Commission had been stricken as unauthorized, an amendment prohibiting 
the use of all funds in the bill to limit advertising of (1) food 
products containing ingredients found safe by the Food and Drug 
Administration or considered ``generally recognized as safe'', or not 
con

[[Page 5262]]

taining ingredients found unsafe by the FDA, and (2) toys not declared 
hazardous or unsafe by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, imposed 
new duties upon the Federal Communications Commission (another agency 
funded by the bill) to evaluate findings of other federal agencies--
duties not imposed upon the FCC by existing law, and therefore violated 
Rule XXI clause 2. The proceedings are discussed in Sec. 58.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 17644-47, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserving Points of Order on General Appropriation Bill

Sec. 2.25 Once points of order have been reserved in the House against 
    provisions in a general appropriation bill pending a unanimous 
    consent request for filing of the report thereon and referral to 
    the Union Calendar when the House would not be in session, points 
    of order need not be reserved again when the report is filed from 
    the floor as privileged on a later day, as the initial reservation 
    carries over to any subsequent filing on that bill.

    On Mar. 1, 1983,(2) privileged report was submitted on 
H.R. 1718, the essential and productive jobs and unemployment 
compensation appropriation bill, 1983:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi], from the Committee on 
    Appropriations, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 98-11) on 
    the bill (H.R. 1718) making appropriations to provide emergency 
    expenditures to meet neglected urgent needs, to protect and add to 
    the national wealth, resulting in not make-work but productive jobs 
    for women and men and to help provide for the indigent and homeless 
    for the fiscal year 1983, and for other purposes, which was 
    referred to the Union Calendar and ordered to be printed.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) All points of order on 
    the bill have previously been reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Bill Alexander (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: While there did not appear to be a 
precedent directly on this point, it was decided merely as a matter of 
convenience to the minority that where they have once reserved points 
of order (so that provisions in violation of Rule XXI clauses 2 and 6 
might be stricken on points of order by the Committee of the Whole and 
not reported back to the House), the minority Member need not be back 
on the floor to again reserve points of order when the report is filed.

Appropriation Bills Read ``Scientifically'' by Paragraph Headings

Sec. 2.26 General appropriation bills are read only by para

[[Page 5263]]

    graph headings and appropriation amounts, and the Clerk reads the 
    page and line numbers of those headings for the information of 
    Members only when the reading of the bill has been interrupted by 
    debate or amendment.

    On Nov. 30, 1982,(4) during consideration of H.R. 7158 
(Department of Treasury and Postal Service appropriation bill), the 
Chair made a statement regarding the timeliness of points of order 
during the reading of appropriation bills as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 128 Cong. Rec. 28066, 28067, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a point of order which I would like to assert at page 25, 
    lines 8 through 20.
        The Chairman: (5) The Chair would advise the 
    gentleman in order to do that, that section of the bill having been 
    read, he will have to request unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
    permitted to assert a point of order on page 25, lines 8 through 
    20. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard. . . .
        The Chair would make only one observation and that is this: 
    that the Clerk is reading this bill as Clerks for years and years 
    and years have read appropriation bills. Under that procedure, 
    normally page numbers are not cited at all unless the reading of 
    the bill has been interrupted by the offering of an amendment or by 
    debate.
        So it does, the gentleman is correct, require closer attention 
    than the reading of a normal bill or bills other than appropriation 
    bills.

Chair Normally Does Not Ask For Points of Order

Sec. 2.27 The Chair does not inquire whether any points of order are to 
    be made against a paragraph of a general appropriation bill which 
    has been read by the Clerk (except where reading has been dispensed 
    with by unanimous consent).

    On May 31, 1984,(6) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 130 Cong. Rec. ----, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 610. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
        available by this Act may be obligated or expended to issue, 
        implement, administer, conduct or enforce any antitrust action 
        against a municipality or other unit of local government. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).

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

[[Page 5264]]

        The Clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
        Mr. [John Edward] Porter [of Illinois] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, is the Chair not going to ask for points of order on 
    this segment?
        The Chairman: The Clerk had completed reading the section, so 
    the Chair did not ask for points of order.