[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c25_txt-13]
[Page 5144-5157]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 12. Points of Order; Timeliness
Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee of the Whole has no authority
to delete by points of order portions of a bill referred to it by the
House absent reservation of that authority in the House at the time the
bill is first referred to the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union (the Union Calendar). Absent reserved
authority to delete provisions in violation of clauses 2 and 6 of Rule
XXI, the Committee of the Whole can merely recommend amendments to be
acted upon by the House to change general appropriation bills committed
thereto.
-------------------
Reservation of Points of Order
Sec. 12.1 Points of order are ordinarily reserved against general
appropriation bills prior to referral of the bills to the Committee
of the Whole, i.e., when placed upon the Union Calendar, and may be
reserved thereafter only by unanimous consent.
On Feb. 26, 1940,<SUP>(18)</SUP> the following proceedings took
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 1991, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5145]]
Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R 8341)
making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, to provide
supplemental appropriations for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes; and pending that motion, I ask unanimous consent that
general debate shall continue for 2\1/2\ hours, to be confined to
the bill and the time to be equally divided between myself and the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber].
The Speaker: <SUP>(19)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Woodrum)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, has this bill been reported?
Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: Yes; it has been reported.
Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I desire to reserve all points of order
against the bill.
The Speaker: Without objection, the gentleman from New York
reserves all points of order against the bill.
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: Unanimous consent was requested since the
bill had been referred to the Committee of the Whole by the Speaker
when reported. That is the proper time to reserve points of order in
the House against a general appropriation bill. Once the bill is
referred to the Union Calendar, it is then too late absent unanimous
consent.
Sec. 12.2 The committee chairman obtained unanimous consent that the
committee have until midnight to file a report on an appropriation
bill, and a Member thereafter obtained unanimous consent to reserve
all points of order on the bill.
On Nov. 26, 1945,<SUP>(20)</SUP> the following unanimous-consent
request was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 10984, 10993, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have
until midnight tonight to file a report on the first deficiency
appropriation bill.
The Speaker: <SUP>(1)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection. . . .
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michener: I have been on the floor all morning, but I have
been advised that earlier in the day unanimous consent was given to
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to have until
midnight to file a report on the deficiency appropriation bill. I
did not hear that request.
[[Page 5146]]
The Speaker: The request was made and the consent was granted.
Mr. Michener: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], the
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, was in the
committee room, as I am advised, at the time. Had he been present
and known about it, he would have asked permission to reserve all
points of order on the bill.
I now ask unanimous consent to reserve all points of order on
the bill.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Precedence Over Pro Forma Amendment
Sec. 12.3 A point of order against a paragraph in a general
appropriation bill takes precedence over any amendment (including a
pro forma amendment) to that paragraph.
On June 4, 1970,<SUP>(2)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the foreign assistance appropriation bill
(H.R. 17867) the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 116 Cong. Rec. 18406, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 117. None of the funds appropriated or made available in
this Act for carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as
amended, shall be available for assistance to the United Arab
Republic, unless the President determines that such availability is
essential to the national interest of the United States.
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I was
on my feet to make a point of order as to section 117 that was just
read.
The Chairman: <SUP>(3)</SUP> The gentleman from Wisconsin has a
point of order on section 117?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Zablocki: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman from Wisconsin
on his point of order.
Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I will gladly defer to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) if I do not lose my opportunity to
make my point of order in so doing.
The Chairman: The Chair will state that the point of order
takes precedence.
Priority in Recognition
Sec. 12.4 Members of the committee reporting a bill have priority of
recognition in making points of order against proposed amendments
to bills.
On Mar. 30, 1949,<SUP>(4)</SUP> the Committee on the Whole was
considering H.R. 3838, an Interior Department appropriation bill. The
[[Page 5147]]
Clerk read as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 95 Cong. Rec. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: On
page 47, line 7, strike out the period, insert a colon and the
following: ``Provided further, That no part of these funds shall be
used to build, operate, or administer transmission lines to carry
power developed at Fort Randall Dam across the boundaries of the
State of South Dakota in which the power is produced, unless the
power so produced shall exceed the requests for power in that
State.''
Mr. [Henry M.] Jackson [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, a point
of order.
Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis [of Nebraska]: Mr. Chairman, a point of
order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(5)</SUP> The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Washington, a member of the committee, to state a point of
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Order Against Two Paragraphs
Sec. 12.5 Because a general appropriation bill is read for amendment by
paragraphs, a point of order against two consecutive paragraphs
comprising a section in the bill can be made only by unanimous
consent.
On June 4, 1970,<SUP>(6)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 17867, a foreign assistance appropriation bill. A
Member stated as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 116 Cong. Rec. 18405, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, when the Clerk reads the next section, I propose
to raise a point of order against both clauses (a) and (b), and I
rise at this time to inquire if I can make the point of order
against both clauses and have it considered at the same time.
The Chairman: <SUP>(7)</SUP> The Chair will state to the
gentleman from Minnesota that that can be done only by unanimous
consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. J. Caleb Boggs (Del.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
Assertion That Bill Is Not ``General'' Appropriation Bill.
Sec. 12.6 In response to a point of order based on Rule XXI clause 2,
it was asserted that the bill under consideration was not a
``general'' appropriation bill and therefore not subject to the
rule; but the Chair ruled that such assertion should have been made
when the bill was first taken up as a privileged general
appropriation bill and was not timely made after
[[Page 5148]]
the stage of amendment was reached.
On June 21, 1939,<SUP>(8)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering an appropriations bill.<SUP>(9)</SUP> A point of order was
raised against the following amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 84 Cong. Rec. 7673, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
9. H.R. 6791, supplemental military establishment appropriation of
1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]:
Page 10, line 11, after the word ``thereof'', insert ``Provided
further, That of the amounts herein appropriated and authorized to
be obligated for the procurement of 2,290 airplanes, obligations
shall not be incurred for the procurement of more than 1,007
airplanes unless and until the President shall determine that the
interests of national defense require the procurement of any
portion or all of the number in excess of 1,007.''
A point of order having been raised, the following exchange took
place:
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of [South Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, there
are two points on which this is in order. In the first place, it
proposes retrenchment; and, if so, comes under the Holman Rule. In
the second place, the bill before us is not a general appropriation
bill. The rule under which the point of order is made is rule XXI,
section 2, and that rule specifically says:
No appropriation shall be reported in any general
appropriation bill. . . . For any expenditure not previously
authorized by law. . . . Nor shall any provision in any such
bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in order--
And so forth. The limitations apply only to recognized general
appropriation bills. In Cannon's Procedure, which I have in my
hand, on page 20, this point is specifically treated, and on page
20 the statement is flatly made:
The rule applies to general appropriation bills only.
The Chairman: <SUP>(10)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule. The
argument just made, if containing merit, should have been made
earlier, when the bill was taken up. It has been reported as a
general appropriation bill and so considered, and was reported
under the rules as a general appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Schuyler Otis Bland (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Order That Paragraph Has Been Passed
Sec. 12.7 A point of order that a paragraph has been passed and is
therefore not subject to amendment will not lie where a Member was
on his feet seeking recognition to offer an amendment, while the
Clerk continued to read.
On Apr. 3, 1957,<SUP>(11)</SUP> The Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6287, the Departments of Labor and Health, Education,
[[Page 5149]]
and Welfare appropriation bill. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 5034-36, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: <SUP>(12)</SUP> For what purpose does the
gentleman from North Carolina rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment which is at the Clerk's desk.
The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. [Hamer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Idaho
rise?
Mr. Budge: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
The Chairman: The gentleman from North Carolina has just been
recognized to offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Cooley: On page 32, after line 21,
insert the following paragraph: ``Grants to States for training
public-welfare personnel: For grants to States for increasing
the number of adequately trained public-welfare personnel
available for work in the publicassistance programs as
authorized by section 705 of the Social Security Act, as
amended, $2,500,000.''
Mr. [Albert P.] Morano [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order. I believe that section was passed, but I will
reserve the point of order.
Mr. Cooley: It was not passed. My amendment was at the Clerk's
desk, but the Clerk was reading so rapidly that he passed that
section inadvertently. . . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment on the ground that it is not in order
at this point in the bill, the Clerk having read down to line 2 on
page 33; and, furthermore, that it is not authorized by law.
Mr. Cooley: May I be heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Cooley: Do I understand the gentleman to base his point of
order upon the ground that this amount was not authorized by law?
Mr. Taber: Upon the ground that the amendment is not in order
at the point where the Clerk had finished reading.
The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule on that point. The
gentleman from North Carolina was on his feet while the Clerk was
reading. The Clerk continued to read before the gentleman had a
chance to offer his amendment.
The gentleman was entitled to recognition.
The Chair overrules the point of order.
After Reading of Paragraph
Sec. 12.8 The time for making points or order against items in an
appropriation bill is after the House has resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole and after the paragraph containing such
items has been read for amendment.
[[Page 5150]]
On July 5, 1945,<SUP>(13)</SUP> the following proceedings took
place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 91 Cong. Rec. 7226, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
3649), making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1946, and for other purposes; and pending that
motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
general debate in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: <SUP>(14)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, if, as in this case, the bill
contains many items that are subject to a point of order, is it not
in order to make a point of order against sending this bill to the
Committee of the Whole?
The Speaker: Under the rules of the House, it is not.
Mr. Marcantonio: Then the procedure to make the point of order
is to make it as the bill is being read for amendment?
The Speaker: As the paragraphs in the bill are reached.
Sec. 12.9 The proper time to raise a point of order against language in
a paragraph of a general appropriation bill is after the paragraph
has been read but before debate starts thereon. (Note: The Chair,
however, will not permit the reading of an amendment to preclude a
point of order made by a Member who has shown due diligence and who
sought recognition at the proper time.)
On May 24, 1960,<SUP>(15)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill, the following
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Construction, General
For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized by law. . . .
Mr. [Fred] Wampler [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Wampler: On page 4, line 16,
strike the amount ``$662,622,300'' and insert in lieu thereof
the amount ``$662,807,300''.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: <SUP>(16)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Hale Boggs (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: I have a point of order against the language to be
found on this page. Will the discussion of this
[[Page 5151]]
amendment abrogate my right to make a point of order?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct, it would. If the
gentleman has a point of order, it would have to be urged at this
point.
Mr. Gross: The gentleman is trying to obtain recognition from
the Chair to make a point of order.
The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman to make the
point of order.
Sec. 12.10 A point of order against language in a paragraph of an
appropriation bill comes too late after the paragraph has been read
and amendments thereto have been considered.
On May 25, 1959,<SUP>(17)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 7176) the
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 105 Cong. Rec. 9013, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point
of order.
The Chairman: <SUP>(18)</SUP> The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vanik: I make a point of order to the language on page 9,
lines 5 and 6 ``from the Baltic countries.''
The Chairman: The Chair must advise the gentleman that the
point of order comes too late. That section has been read and
amendments to the section have been considered. The point of order
is overruled.
The Clerk will read.
Sec. 12.11 A point of order against language in a paragraph of an
appropriation bill comes too late after the paragraph has been read
and an amendment thereto has been agreed to.
On June 13, 1961,<SUP>(19)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7577, a bill making appropriations for the executive
office and the Department of Commerce. The Clerk read as follows, and
proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong. Rec. 10177, 10178, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
Small Business Administration, including hire of passenger motor
vehicles, $6,750,000. . . .
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Patman: On page 28, lines 11 and
12, after ``exceed'', strike out ``$17,524,000'' and insert
``$18,447,000''.
Mr. [George W.] Andrews [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, the
committee accepts the amendment.
The Chairman: <SUP>(20)</SUP> The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment was agreed to.
[[Page 5152]]
The Clerk read as follows: . . .
For necessary expenses of the Subversive Activities Control
Board, including services as authorized by section 15 of the
Act of August 2, 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a) . . . $305,000.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gross: Is a point of order to the language on page 29 in
order?
The Chairman: If it is to language preceding line 5 on page 29
it is not in order.
Mr. Gross: It does precede line 5 on page 29. The Clerk did not
read the language on page 29, lines 1 to 5.
The Chairman: The Clerk has read and an amendment has been
adopted to the paragraph starting on page 28, line 8 and ending on
page 29, line 5.
Mr. Gross. Then a point of order to the language on page 29,
line 5, is not in order?
The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman it comes too
late at this time.
Bill Considered as Read
Sec. 12.12 Where the remainder of a general appropriation bill has been
considered as read and open to amendment at any point by unanimous
consent, points of order against any provision in that portion of
the bill must be made prior to debate or amendment to the remainder
of the bill.
On June 26, 1972,<SUP>(1)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a general appropriation bill (H.R. 15586) the
following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 118 Cong. Rec. 22428, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: <SUP>(2)</SUP> The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk proceeded to read the bill.
Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as
read in full and open to amendment at any point.
The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, would that foreclose the making of a point of
order against a point that has not been reached in the bill?
A point of order can still be made?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a further
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Chairman, is it not necessary that the point of order be
made now?
Having dispensed with the reading of the bill, the point of
order has to be made now?
The Chairman: If the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman
from Tennessee is approved, the gentleman from Iowa is correct, the
point of order should be made at that time.
Points of Order Against Amendments
Sec. 12.13 Points of order against proposed amendments must
[[Page 5153]]
be made immediately after the amendment is read; after a Member has
been granted 15 minutes to address the Committee of the Whole on
his amendment, it is too late to make a point of order against it.
On Apr. 17, 1943,<SUP>(3)</SUP> 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. 3510, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment offered by Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: On page
65, line 6, after the colon, insert: ``Provided further, That no
part of said appropriation or any other appropriation carried in
this bill shall be used for incentive payments or subsidies or for
any expense for or incident to the payment of incentive payments or
any other form of subsidy payments.''
Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
to speak for 15 minutes.
The Chairman: <SUP>(4)</SUP> Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. [Usher L.] Burdick (of North Dakota): Mr. Chairman, I
reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The Chairman: The point of order comes too late.
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York): The regular order, Mr Chairman.
The Chairman: The point of order comes too late. The gentleman
has been recognized and has been granted permission to proceed for
15 minutes. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized.
Appropriations in Legislative Bills
Sec. 12.14 While Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5) provides that points
of order against appropriations in legislative bills may be raised
at any time, the practice of the House is that such points of order
should be raised when the bill is read for amendment.
On Mar. 18, 1946,<SUP>(5)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 5407, a bill granting certain powers to the Federal
Works Administration. The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 92 Cong. Rec. 2365, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill H.R. 5407, with Mr. [Fadjo] Cravens [of Arkansas] in the
chair.
Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I desire
to make
[[Page 5154]]
a point of order against portions of the bill in paragraphs (a),
(b), and what was originally (c), proposed now to be made (b) by a
committee amendment, on the ground that they constitute
appropriations. Under the rule forbidding the reporting of
appropriations by a committee without jurisdiction, I make a point
of order against the consideration of the language on page 2,
beginning in line 4, reading:
And the unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore
made for the construction of projects outside the District of
Columbia.
Also on page 2, beginning in line 23, the last sentence of that
paragraph which reads:
Funds for this purpose are hereby made available from the
unobligated balances of appropriations heretofore made for the
construction of buildings outside the District of Columbia.
Under the rule, a point of order would lie against
consideration of those portions of the bill, and I make such a
point of order at this time.
Mr. [Fritz G.] Lanham [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the
appropriations referred to by the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr.
Case) have already been made, and this money has been appropriated.
The Chairman: The Chair believes that the proper time to raise
such points of order is not at the present time, but when the bill
is read under the 5-minute rule for amendment.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Of course, I know that is frequently
done, but I think the rule authorizes the point of order to be made
at any time during consideration of the bill. . . .
The Chairman: The Chair is informed that under the previous
practice of the House, such points of order should be raised when
the bill is read for amendment.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: I have no objection to presenting
them later, but I do not want to lose my right to present them by
failure to raise them at this time.
The Chairman: The gentleman will not lose any of his rights.
Sec. 12.15 Points of order against appropriations in legislative bills
may be raised at any time, even though debate has taken place on
the merits of the proposition.
On June 17, 1937,<SUP>(6)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 7472, a District of Columbia tax bill. The Clerk read
as follows, and proceedings ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 81 Cong. Rec. 5915-18, 75h Cong. 1st Sess. See also 99 Cong. Rec.
10398, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., July 29, 1953 (proceedings relating
to H.R. 6016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are hereby
authorized and empowered, in their discretion, to fix, prescribe,
and collect fees for the parking of automobiles. . . .
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are further
authorized and empowered, in their discretion, to purchase, rent,
and install such mechanical parking meters or devices as the
Commissioners may deem necessary or
[[Page 5155]]
advisable to insure the collection of such fees. . . .
Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: I make the point of order
that this section appropriates money out of fees to be collected,
and therefore it is appropriation on a legislative bill. Line 24
provides that the purchase price of these machines shall be paid
from the fees collected and the remainder of the fee shall be paid
into the Treasury.
Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the point of order comes too late. The section
has been debated and amendments have been offered, and an amendment
to strike out the section has been offered.
Mr. O'Malley: I was attempting to get recognition from the very
beginning.
The Chairman: <SUP>(7)</SUP> The Chair is ready to rule. The
last sentence of section 4, rule 21, provides as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. James M. Mead (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill,
joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any
time.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order is
properly raised at this time and that this is purely an
appropriation, and, therefore, that language, as indicated in the
gentleman's point of order, is ruled out of order.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Sec. 12.16 A point of order under Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5)
against an appropriation in a bill reported by a legislative
committee) ``may be raised at any time''; and in response to an
inquiry the Chair advised a Member that if the offending. Language
was not stricken by amendment it could still be reached by a point
of order.
On May 18, 1966,<SUP>(8)</SUP> during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of an amendment to H.R. 14544, the Participation
Sales Act of 1966, proceedings occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 112 Cong. Rec. 10894, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee amendment: On page 3, line 3 strike out
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' and insert:
``Subject to the limitations provided in paragraph (4) of this
subsection.''
The committee amendment was agreed to Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas
[of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: <SUP>(9)</SUP> The gentleman will state the
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jonas: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against the
language to be amended by the committee amendment. I would not
insist on the point of order if I knew the committee amendment
would be adopted.
Should the committee amendment be rejected, I inquire of the
Chair if I then might be able to lodge my point of order against
the language stricken by the amendment.
The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from North
Carolina
[[Page 5156]]
that the Chair will undertake to protect the gentleman's right to
raise points of order under clause 4 of rule XXI at any time during
the consideration of this section of the bill whether the committee
amendments are adopted or rejected.
Sec. 12.17 A point of order having been raised in the Committee of the
Whole against a bill reported by a legislative com- mittee, on the
ground that it proposed an appropriation contrary to Rule XXI
clause 4 (now clause 5), the Committee rose pending decision by the
Chair on the point of order.
On June 4, 1957,<SUP>(10)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering H.R. 6974, a bill to extend the Agricultural
Development and Assistance Act of 1954. The following proceedings
took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 8318, 8319, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order against the entire bill, H.R. 6974, on the ground
that it is a bill from a committee not having authority to report
an appropriation. . . .
Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: . . . I am a little
bit apprehensive that the point of order may be sustained if the
Chair is called upon to rule on it. But, I think it would be very
unfortunate for us to delay final action on the bill, and in the
circumstances we have no other alternative other than to move that
the Committee do now rise, and so, Mr. Chairman, I make that
motion.
The Chairman: <SUP>(11)</SUP> The Chair is prepared to rule on
the point of order, but the motion offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina that the Committee do now rise is in order, and the
Chair will put the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Brooks Hays (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed
the chair, Mr. Hays of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6974) to
extend the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
Parliamentarian's Note: In this case the language of the bill was
in fact in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause 5), and the
Member in charge of the bill moved that the Committee rise so
application could be made to the Committee on Rules for a resolution
waiving points of order against the bill. See House Resolution 274.
However, a point of order under this rule applies only to offensive
language in the bill, and not against consideration of the entire bill
(see 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2142; 121 Cong. Rec. 12049, 94th Cong.
1st Sess.,
[[Page 5157]]
Apr. 28, 1975). If the entire language of the bill were ruled out in
Committee of the Whole, the enacting clause would still exist and an
amendment would still be in order if germane to the title of the bill
and not containing an appropriation.
Point of Order Against Senate Bill
Sec. 12.18 Where language in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (now clause
5) is stricken from a Senate bill in Committee of the Whole by a
point of order, the Chairman reports that fact to the House.
On July 31, 1957,<SUP>(12)</SUP> the Committee of the Whole was
considering S. 1865, a bill providing for development and modernization
of the national system of navigation and traffic control facilities. At
one point, proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 103 Cong. Rec. 13181, 13182, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: <SUP>(13)</SUP> The time of the gentleman from
Michigan has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. George H. Mahon (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All time has expired.
The Committee will rise.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed
the chair, Mr. Mahon, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, stated that that Committee having had
under consideration the bill (S. 1856) to provide for the
development and modernization of the national system of navigation
and traffic-control facilities to serve present and future needs of
civil and military aviation, and for other purposes, pursuant to
House Resolution 361, he reported the same back to the House.
The Chairman also reported that the language in the bill on
page 7, line 12, reading as follows: ``and unexpended balances of
appropriations, allocations, and other funds available or'' was
stricken out on a point of order.<SUP>(14)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Parliamentarian's Note: The resulting change in the Senate bill was
treated as an amendment of the Senate bill and so engrossed and
messaged to the Senate, though not voted upon as a separate
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------