[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[H. Duration of Debate in the House]
[Â§ 73. One-minute, Special-order Speeches, and Morning Hour]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11017-11036]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                   H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 73. One-minute, Special-order Speeches, and Morning Hour

    The one-minute speech and the special-order speech are two

[[Page 11018]]

methods whereby a Member by unanimous consent may debate a subject on 
the floor, after or before the legislative business of the day. Neither 
procedure is specifically provided for in the standing rules other than 
the prohibition in clause 6 of Rule XV against points of no quorum 
during special-order speeches, but their use is permitted by long-
standing custom of the House.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For an occasion where the Speaker discussed the use and practice of 
        the one-minute speech with Members, see Sec. 73.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The one-minute speech is entertained by unanimous consent after the 
approval of the Journal but before legislative business.(10) 
Such speeches are--both by tradition and the Speaker's recognition 
policy--limited to one minute, although the Speaker may in his 
discretion and by unanimous consent entertain a request for a longer 
one; but a Member may deliver only one such speech.(11) 
Recognition for such speeches is entirely in the discretion of the 
Speaker, who may forego the procedure.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 73.6, infra, for the Speaker's power to recognize for one-
        minute speeches after the closing of legislative business.
            A Member recognized for a one-minute speech may not yield 
        to another to make a motion (see Sec. 30.30, supra) or ask for 
        the unanimous-consent consideration of a bill (see Sec. 10.13, 
        supra).
11. See Sec. Sec. 73.9, 73.10, infra.
            For an occasion where the Speaker entertained a request for 
        a five-minute speech, to avoid a question of personal 
        privilege, see Sec. 73.11, infra.
            Where no legislative business is scheduled for the day, 
        Members may be recognized for longer than one minute, see 
        Sec. 73.3, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 73.3-73.6, infra. All unanimous-consent requests are 
        entertained in the discretion of the Chair (see Sec. 10, 
        supra.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special orders are requested, either in advance or on the day in 
question, to address the House on a certain day at the conclusion of 
all legislative business.(13) Such speeches may not exceed 
one hour, even by unanimous consent.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 73.12 et seq., infra.
14. See Sec. 73.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the House customarily does not consider legislation after the 
Speaker has begun to recognize Members for special-order speeches, 
there is no House rule prohibiting consideration of legislative 
business at any time the House is in session; thus, for example, the 
Speaker has recognized a Member between special-order speeches to 
request consideration of a House concurrent resolution by unanimous 
consent.(15) The Speaker may announce that

[[Page 11019]]

he will recognize for special-order speeches but that the House ``may 
return to legislative business.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 18.25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning in the second session of the 103d Congress, the House by 
unanimous consent agreed (without prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate 
power of recognition) to convene 90 minutes early on Mondays and 
Tuesdays for morning-hour debate.(16) On May 12, 
1995,(17) the House extended and modified this order, 
changing morning-hour debates on Tuesdays after May 14 of each year 
in the following manner: (1) the House convenes one hour early (rather 
than 90 minutes); (2) time for debate is limited to 25 minutes for each 
party; and (3) in no event is morning-hour debate to continue beyond 10 
minutes before the House is to convene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 73.24, infra.
17. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also in the 103d Congress,(18) the House agreed by 
unanimous consent to conduct, at a time designated by the Speaker, 
``Oxford-style'' debates: structured debate on a mutually agreeable 
topic announced by the Speaker, with four participants from each party 
in a format announced by the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 73.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
The Congressional Record in relation to speeches and extensions of 
    remarks, see Ch. 5, supra.
The order of business generally, see Ch. 21, supra.
Recognition by Speaker for unanimous-consent requests, see Sec. 10, 
    supra.
Speaker's power of recognition, see Sec. 9, supra.
Yielding time in relation to special-order speeches, see Sec. 31, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Generally

Sec. 73.1 The custom of permitting one-minute speeches in the House is 
    regarded as beneficial to the democratic processes of the House, 
    and timely requests therefor are seldom refused.

    On July 22, 1968,(19) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, speaking from the floor, discussed with minority Members 
of the House the use and practice of ``one-minute'' speeches before the 
legislative business of the day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: I call the 1-minute period ``dynamic 
    democracy.'' I hesitate to take away the privilege of a Member as 
    to speaking during that period and it has become a custom and a 
    practice of the House. I think it is a very good thing to adhere to 
    that custom and practice.
        It is only on rare occasions that Members have not been 
    recognized for that purpose. . . .
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: You said that this might 
    be ``dynamic

[[Page 11020]]

    democracy.'' I would rather it would be started when we have the 
    time rather than be started at noon.
        Mr. McCormack: It is an integral part of the procedure of the 
    House and I like to adhere to it. Very seldom have I said to 
    Members that I will accept only unanimous-consent requests for 
    extensions of remarks. I hesitate to do it. I think every Member 
    realizes that I am trying to protect their rights.

Chair's Discretion Over One-minute Speeches

Sec. 73.2 While the Chair's calculation of time under the ``one-minute 
    rule'' is not subject to challenge, the Chair endeavors to 
    recognize majority and then minority Members by allocating time in 
    a nonpartisan manner.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Aug. 4, 1982: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 128 Cong. Rec. 19319, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        [C]an the Chair tell me how long 1 minute is?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Does the gentleman 
    request additional time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Cecil Heftel (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am just inquiring. We have had 
    several long speeches here this morning. I thought that we were 
    limited in the 1-minute time frame to 1 minute each. . . .
        I am making a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair as to whether 
    or not that is the rule of the House that is supposed to be obeyed.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is, by precedent, and since the 
    Chair wants to be fair, the Chair would like to extend to the 
    gentleman and his side 
    of the aisle any additional 1-minute speeches that they require 
    immediately. Would the gentleman like to use it now?
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair. I think there are a 
    number of Members who are waiting yet to speak, and I would 
    certainly yield such time as I might consume to Members on the 
    Republican side who have yet to speak so that everyone has an 
    opportunity to speak this morning.
        I thank the Chair.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will recognize them after 
    recognizing Members on the right side of the aisle, and the Chair 
    will in fairness extend to them as much time under the 1-minute 
    rule as they need.

Sec. 73.3 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion 
    of the Speaker; and his evaluation of the time consumed is a matter 
    for the Chair and is not subject to challenge or question by a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

    On May 9, 1972,(2) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 118 Cong. Rec. 16288, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald W.] Riegle [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11021]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Riegle: Mr. Speaker, I have observed different speakers 
    being given very different lengths of time to speak under the 1-
    minute rule.
        I just noticed, for example, the gentleman from California who 
    was given approximately half the time that the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Devine) and several other speakers were given today. I object 
    to that and I think if we are going to use the 1-minute rule, let 
    us use it fairly.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair is trying to 
    enforce the 1-minute rule. That is not a parliamentary inquiry and 
    the gentleman was out of order in making it.

Sec. 73.4 The Speaker refused to recognize Members to proceed for one 
    minute on the second Monday of the month where a motion to 
    discharge was in order under Rule XXVII clause 4 (now clause 3); 
    however, he announced that he would make a single exception to 
    permit a Member to proceed for one minute for the purpose of 
    announcing to the House the death of a sitting Member.

    On Aug. 10, 1970,(3) a motion to discharge the Committee 
on the Judiciary from further consideration of House Joint Resolution 
264, amending the Constitution relative to equal rights for men and 
women, was in order under Rule XXVII clause 4 (now clause 3). Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, made the following announcement on 
recognition for one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27994, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to announce that the Chair is not going to 
    recognize Members for the usual 1-minute speeches at this time, due 
    to the situation with respect to the rules that exist in relation 
    to the consideration of a constitutional amendment, with one 
    exception: and that is that the Chair will recognize the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Corbett) to announce the death of our late 
    and beloved colleague and friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Watkins).

Sec. 73.5 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion 
    of the Speaker and he sometimes foregoes that procedure in the hope 
    of expediting the business of the House.

    On June 17, 1970,(4) Mr. William V. Alexander, Jr., of 
Arkansas, asked unanimous consent to address the House for one minute 
and to revise and extend his remarks, after legislative business had 
been conducted. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, reserved the right to object 
and referred to the

[[Page 11022]]

Speaker's announcement, earlier in the day, that he would not recognize 
for one-minute speeches, in order to expedite the pending business. 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded from the chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 20245, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: . . . Mr. Speaker, when the session opened this 
    morning the Speaker--very providently, I thought--in the interest 
    of getting on with the legislative business, precluded 1-minute 
    speeches. However, I am not at all certain that it was done for the 
    purpose of expediting the legislation, but rather to prevent 1-
    minute speeches on the resolution just passed.
        Mr. Speaker, I am not going to object in this instance, but I 
    know of no reason why political speeches such as we have heard from 
    two of the preceding speakers should further delay the legislative 
    process at this time.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa 
    that earlier in the day the Chair did make the statement that the 
    Chair would not entertain unanimous-consent requests for 1 minute 
    speeches to be delivered until later on in the day.
        I am sure that the gentleman from Iowa clearly understood that 
    statement on the part of the Speaker. At that particular time the 
    Chair stated that the Chair would recognize Members for unanimous-
    consent requests to extend their remarks in the Record or 
    unanimous-consent requests to speak for 1 minute with the 
    understanding that they would not take their time but would yield 
    back their time.
        I think the Chair clearly indicated that the Chair would 
    recognize Members for that purpose at a later time during the day. 
    As far as the Chair is concerned the custom of the 1-minute speech 
    procedure is adhered to as much as possible because the Chair 
    thinks it is a very healthy custom.
        The Chair had the intent, after the disposition of the voting 
    rights bill, 
    to recognize Members for 1-minute speeches or further unanimous-
    consent requests if they desired to do so.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See also the remarks of the Speaker at 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634, 
        90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 22, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 73.6 While one-minute speeches are normally entertained at the 
    beginning of the legislative day, immediately following the 
    approval of the Journal, the Speaker has on occasion recognized 
    Members to proceed for one minute after business has been 
    completed.

    On Oct. 15, 1969,(6) after legislative business had been 
conducted, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. 
William E. Brock, 3d, of Tennessee, for one minute. Mr. Brock 
criticized unnamed Members for following double standards as to the 
right of free speech and dissent. Mr. Arnold Olsen, of Montana, then 
attempted to rise

[[Page 11023]]

to a question of personal privilege, based on Mr. Brock's remarks, and 
stated that Mr. Brock's address was entitled to a response of one 
minute. Speaker McCormack stated that under the circumstances he would 
grant that right and by unanimous consent recognized Mr. Olsen for one 
minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 30080, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Words uttered in debate do not raise a 
question of personal privilege, but instead of ruling on that point the 
Speaker recognized Mr. Olsen for a one-minute speech to reply to the 
remark he considered derogatory.

Restrictions on One-minute Speeches

Sec. 73.7 The Speaker reminded Members of the policy of some years that 
    when there is a legislative program for the day, so-called one-
    minute speeches that contain more than 300 words would be put in 
    the Record after the business of the day or in the appendix of the 
    Record.

    On Jan. 17, 1949,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made 
the following announcement, shortly after the convening of the 81st 
Congress, on the use and reporting of ``one-minute'' speeches before 
the legislative business of the day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 95 Cong. Rec. 403, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to make an announcement.
        It has been the policy for some years now that when there is a 
    legislative program for the day the so-called 1-minute speeches 
    that contain more than 300 words will be put in the Record after 
    the business of the day or in the Appendix of the Record. The Chair 
    trusts that Members will regard this agreement that we have had for 
    quite a while.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. For the evolution of the rule announced by the Speaker, see the 
        following line of precedents: 91 Cong. Rec. 1788, 79th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Mar. 6, 1945; 91 Cong. Rec. 839, 79th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Feb. 6, 1945. (Discussions of Speaker's rulings that 
        one-minute speeches exceeding 300 words go in appendix); 87 
        Cong. Rec. 7189, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 15, 1941; 87 Cong. 
        Rec. 6006, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., July 14, 1941. (Speaker ruled 
        no extensions of 
        one-minute speeches exceeding 300 words); 84 Cong. Rec. 8779, 
        76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 10, 1939 (extension of remarks go in 
        appendix); 84 Cong. Rec. 7108, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 
        1939 (extensions printed in appendix of Record unless 
        pertaining to present legislation); 84 Cong. Rec. 6949, 76th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., June 10, 1939 (Majority Leader would object to 
        extensions of remarks on one-minute speeches).
            Where a Member has secured unanimous consent to address the 
        House and revise and extend his remarks, he may not without 
        further consent include in those remarks extraneous matter, 
        such as a speech made by another person. 92 Cong. Rec. 129, 
        79th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 18, 1946.

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

[[Page 11024]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: The regulation on this subject promulgated 
by the Joint Committee on Printing (governing House proceedings printed 
in the Record) reads as follows:

        1. Extensions of Remarks in the daily Congressional Record.--
    When the House has granted leave to print (1) a newspaper or 
    magazine article, or (2) any other matter not germane to the 
    proceedings, it shall be published un-der Extensions of Remarks. 
    This rule shall not apply to quotations which form part of a speech 
    of a Member, or to an authorized extension of his own remarks: 
    Provided, That no address, speech, or article delivered or released 
    subsequently to the sine die adjournment of a session of Congress 
    may be printed in the Congressional Record. One-minute speeches 
    delivered during the morning business of Congress shall not exceed 
    300 words. Statements exceeding this will be printed following the 
    business of the day.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. This admonition reflected current policy of the joint committee as 
        recently as Feb. 25, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 73.8 The Speaker stated that when the House meets and Members are 
    recognized to extend remarks or to proceed for one minute and then 
    a point of order of no quorum is made signalling the start of 
    legislative business, it is not proper to recommence recognition to 
    extend remarks and for one-minute speeches.

    On Mar. 7, 1941,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made 
the following statement on recognition for nonlegislative matters at 
the beginning of the day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 2008, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Let the Chair make a statement. When the House meets and 
    Members are recognized to extend their remarks or to proceed for 1 
    minute and all who are on the floor and so desire have been 
    recognized, and then a point of no quorum is made in order to start 
    the business of legislation for the day, the Chair thinks it is 
    hardly proper to begin all over again in recognizing Members to 
    extend their own remarks or to proceed for 1 minute, but the Chair 
    will recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Gifford].

Sec. 73.9 Members may not address the House for one-minute speeches 
    more than once before the business of the day.

    On Jan. 25, 1956,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. J. Arthur Younger, of California, before the commence

[[Page 11025]]

ment of legislative business for the day, to make a one-minute speech 
on the subject of military figures criticizing ``principles of 
government.'' Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, was later 
recognized for a one-minute speech on the same subject, and mentioned 
Mr. Younger's remarks. Mr. Younger sought recognition and the Speaker 
ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 1274, 1275, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Flood asked and was given permission to address the House 
    for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, in further reference to the controversy 
    in connection with General Ridgeway I must take diametric 
    opposition to the gentleman from California [Mr. Younger]. . . .
        Mr. Younger: Mr. Speaker, may I have the privilege of 
    addressing the House, my name having been mentioned?
        The Speaker: No; not without unanimous consent of the House.
        Mr. Younger: Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent----
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize Members to speak for 1 
    minute more than once before the business of the day has been 
    dispensed with. That has been the policy heretofore.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 10634, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension of One-minute Speeches

Sec. 73.10 The Speaker has refused to recognize Members for unanimous-
    consent requests to proceed for longer than one minute before the 
    business of the day.

    On June 11, 1963,(13) Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, 
had the floor for a one-minute speech prior to the legislative business 
of the day and yielded to Mr. James C. Fulton, of Pennsylvania. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, interrupted Mr. Fulton to state 
that Mr. Jones' one minute had expired, and Mr. Fulton asked unanimous 
consent that Mr. Jones be given one additional minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 10633, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker ruled that such a request was not in order and refused 
to recognize Mr. Fulton for the request.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For a discussion of the practice forbidding speeches extending 
        longer than one minute before the legislative business of the 
        day, see 91 Cong. Rec. 1788, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 6, 
        1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 73.11 The Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, 
    permitted a Member to proceed for five minutes, during that part of 
    the session when he would normally have recognized only for one-
    minute speeches, to refute a newspaper charge of im

[[Page 11026]]

    proper conduct (in lieu of recognizing for one hour on a question 
    of personal privilege).

    On June 29, 1962,(15) before the commencement of 
legislative business, and during the period when one-minute speeches 
were normally entertained, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. H. Carl Andersen, of Minnesota, for a unanimous-consent 
request to proceed for five minutes and to revise and extend his 
remarks. There was no objection. Mr. Andersen discussed newspaper 
charges of improper conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 12297, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Andersen had requested, before the 
opening of the session, that he be recognized on a point of personal 
privilege. Since the House had a busy schedule, the Speaker suggested 
that the business of the House could be expedited if Mr. Andersen would 
simply ask to proceed for five minutes rather than to take an hour 
under a point of personal privilege.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For another occasion on which a Member took time (one minute) 
        during the time for one-minute speeches to discuss newspaper 
        charges against him, rather than to consume time on a point of 
        personal privilege, see 113 Cong. Rec. 33693, 90th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Nov. 22, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special-order Speeches; When Permitted

Sec. 73.12 Special orders of Members to address the House must follow 
    the conclusion of the legislative program of the day, and the 
    Speaker decides when the legislative program of the day has been 
    completed.

    On June 3, 1937,(17) after Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New 
York, called up on behalf of the Committee on Rules a privileged 
resolution providing a special order, a point of order was made that 
there were some special orders on the calendar for Members to address 
the House, and the calendar did not indicate that privileged business 
was to precede those special orders. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, overruled the point of order and stated that under the new 
practice, special orders were to follow legislative business, including 
any privileged matters brought up by the House leadership or by the 
Committee on Rules.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 5307, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 3645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 20, 1937, 
        when Majority Leader Sam Rayburn (Tex.), stated that he would 
        thereafter object to all unanimous-consent requests to address 
        the House unless the special orders should come after the 
        conclusion of the legislative program of the day.

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

[[Page 11027]]

    On Jan. 5, 1939,(19) shortly after the convening of the 
76th Congress, Majority Leader Rayburn made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 125, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, in order that there 
    may be no misunderstanding may I say that last year the policy was 
    adopted that when unanimous-consent requests were preferred that a 
    Member might speak on a day certain it was always understood that 
    he would speak after the disposition of matters on the Speaker's 
    table and following the legislative program of that day, if there 
    was any such program. Whether or not there will be a legislative 
    program on Monday I do not know, but I doubt it. However, I want it 
    understood that it will be the custom this year that when a Member 
    requests time to speak this condition is coupled with his request.

Sec. 73.13 The Speaker may in his discretion, recognize for special 
    orders when no legislative business is available 
    for consideration with the 
    understanding that further business, if ready for presentation, may 
    follow.

    On Dec. 14, 1971,(20) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
made an announcement concerning recognition by the Chair for special-
order speeches before the conclusion of remaining legislative business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 46801, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to advise the Members that in order to get 
    as much accomplished as we can, and in view of the fact that we 
    have no legislative business ready at this moment, we will call 
    special orders, and after they are completed declare a recess, 
    unless legislative business is in order.
        The Chair in making this announcement will state that we are 
    not setting this as a precedent, but that we are calling special 
    orders today, and then going back to the legislative business, if 
    any, after recessing if necessary.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 5373, 5374, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 7, 
        1937.
            Before the inception of the policy that special-order 
        speeches follow the legislative business of the day, it was 
        held that a motion to correct the reference of a bill took 
        precedence over a special order to address the House for a 
        specified time after the reading and approval of the Journal. 
        78 Cong. Rec. 2425, 2426, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 12, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 73.14 Requests to proceed ``for one additional minute,'' while not 
    entertained by the Chair at the beginning of the day, are 
    permissible when business has been concluded (the request 
    constituting, in substance, a request for a special order).

[[Page 11028]]

    On June 13, 1963,(2) after legislative business had been 
concluded for the day and there being no special orders scheduled, Mr. 
Ezekiel C. Gathings, of Arkansas, obtained unanimous consent to address 
the House for one minute and to revise and extend his remarks. At the 
expiration of the one minute, Mr. Gathings requested unanimous consent 
to proceed for an additional minute. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated that if there was no objection, the business 
being disposed of, the gentleman could proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 109 Cong. Rec. 10891, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the conclusion of Mr. Gathings' additional minute, Mr. Joe D. 
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, asked unanimous consent that Mr. Gathings 
be allowed to proceed for one additional minute. The Speaker 
entertained the request and made the following statement:

        The Chair will state that the Chair is permitting this request 
    although the Chair does not consider this is to be the 1-minute 
    period such as we have before proceeding with the regular business 
    of the House.

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Louisiana?
        There was no objection.

Duration of Special-order Speeches

Sec. 73.15 Special orders to address the House at the conclusion of the 
    business of the day are limited to one hour per Member; and when a 
    Member has used one hour, the Chair declines to recognize him for 
    extensions of time or for an additional special order.

    On Feb. 9, 1966,(3) Mr. Joseph Y. Resnick, of New York, 
who already had scheduled a special order for the day, asked unanimous 
consent that he have an additional special order to address the House 
for 15 minutes at the close of legislative business. Speaker Pro 
Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, declined to recognize him for that 
purpose, stating as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 2794, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would advise the gentleman that pursuant to the 
    practice of the House, Members are limited to a 1-hour special 
    order per day. The Chair would be glad to entertain a request for a 
    special order for a later day.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. A Member may consume an hour for a special order and then be 
        yielded time by the next Member with a special order; see 114 
        Cong. Rec. 14265-71, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 21, 1968.

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

[[Page 11029]]

Sec. 73.16 By unanimous consent, a Member may be recognized for a one-
    hour speech to precede other special-order speeches already 
    scheduled by the House.

    On July 31, 1973,(5) Mr. David R. Obey, of Wisconsin, 
asked unanimous consent that he be allowed to proceed for one hour 
preceding the special orders scheduled for the day. There was no 
objection to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 27023, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker normally will not entertain 
such a request without advance consent from all Members whose special 
orders would be affected.

Extension of Special-order Speeches

Sec. 73.17 A Member recognized under a special order in the House may 
    have his time for debate extended by unanimous consent, but a 
    motion to that effect is not in order.

    On June 13, 1972,(6) Mr. Jack F. Kemp, of New York, was 
recognized to speak for 10 minutes on a special order. At the 
conclusion of the 10 minutes, Mr. Charles S. Gubser, of California, 
asked unanimous consent that Mr. Kemp be given an additional 10 
minutes. Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan, objected to the request, and 
Mr. John E. Hunt, of New Jersey, moved that Mr. Kemp be given 10 
minutes additional time. Speaker Pro Tempore William J. Randall, of 
Missouri, ruled that the motion was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 20681, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will have to state that a motion to that effect is 
    not in order at this time. Other special orders have previously 
    been granted, and the Chair will state that the motion is not in 
    order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An extension of time for debate under 
a special order, even though by unanimous consent, is technically not 
possible where the extension would extend the time beyond one hour. The 
Chair would not normally entertain a request which would permit debate 
in violation of the hour rule.

Sec. 73.18 When additional time to speak under a special order was 
    requested, the Speaker advised the Member that other Members were 
    also waiting to be recognized on special orders.

    On June 23, 1964,(7) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, was 
addressing

[[Page 11030]]

the House, at the conclusion of business, on a special order and asked 
unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, advised him that there were three other 
special orders following Mr. Patman. Mr. Patman withdrew his request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 14719, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interruption of Special-order Speech

Sec. 73.19 A motion to suspend the rules may be entertained while 
    another Member controls the floor for a ``special-order speech'' if 
    the Member with the floor voluntarily yields the floor for that 
    purpose.

    On Oct. 2, 1973,(8) Mr. J. J. Pickle, of Texas, had the 
floor for one hour for a special-order speech. He had consumed 31 
minutes when he suspended temporarily to allow Mr. Wright Patman, of 
Texas, to move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, Senate Joint 
Resolution 160, to extend laws on the payment of interest on savings 
deposits. After disposition of the motion to suspend the rules, Mr. 
Pickle was again recognized by Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to 
consume his remaining 29 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 32395, 32397, 32404, 32410, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Special-order Speeches

Sec. 73.20 The Speaker announced that Members would not be recognized 
    for special orders, which were transferred to the following day by 
    unanimous consent, due to the death of a Senator.

    On Jan. 20, 1958,(9) following the death of Senator 
Matthew M. Nelly, of West Virginia, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made 
an announcement on the disposition of special orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 104 Cong. Rec. 670, 674, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state to those Members who have special orders 
    for today, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Bailey], the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman], and the gentleman from Arkansas 
    [Mr. Gathings] that we will not have any special orders today. So 
    they may govern themselves accordingly.

    Special orders were then transferred by unanimous consent:

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all special orders entered for today may be 
    transferred to tomorrow.
        The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        There was no objection.

[[Page 11031]]

Sec. 73.21 Special orders to address the House, totaling more than 21 
    hours, were requested for a certain day but were later withdrawn at 
    the request of the Majority Leader, who suggested that they be 
    again requested when the Members desiring the time were on the 
    floor.

    On Oct. 8, 1969,(10) Mr. Michael J. Harrington, of 
Massachusetts, made a series of requests for certain Members to address 
the House on Oct. 14, 1969, following legislative business; the special 
orders requested for that day totaled 21 hours and 45 minutes. Mr. 
Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, reserved the right to object and inquired 
whether legislative business for Oct. 14 could not be expected to total 
more than three hours. Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
responded that it was entirely possible that legislative business could 
consume more than three hours on Oct. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 29228, 29229, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Hall then objected to any special orders over the first 12 
hours requested for Oct. 14. All the special orders requested were then 
withdrawn at the request of Mr. Albert:

        Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there has been objection 
    and that some of the special orders will be necessarily stricken 
    and Members who are not here now are involved, I would request the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts not to make the request tonight, in 
    order that it might be made tomorrow when those concerned are 
    present.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Most of the Members for whom special orders 
were requested were opponents of the Vietnam war. Their announced 
intention was to use the special orders to keep the House in session 
throughout the night to dramatize the war protest scheduled to begin in 
major cities of the nation, including Washington, on Oct. 14, 1969.

Sec. 73.22 The Speaker announced the procedure whereby (and the time at 
    which) Members would be recognized to make speeches up to one 
    minute in length.

    On Jan. 23, 1975,(11) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 1163, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

        The Speaker: May the Chair state, particularly for the benefit 
    of new Members, that we generally open the proceedings, after the 
    prayer and disposition of the Journal and things which are 
    immediately on the Speaker's desk, by recognizing Members for

[[Page 11032]]

    individual requests and for speeches up to 1 minute.
        The Chair habitually and regularly starts at the extreme right 
    and goes all the way around; then comes back and starts over. If 
    Members want to be heard, the Chair wants to take them in that 
    order. So, Members will be recognized in the order from the first 
    seat to the Speaker's right to the last seat on the Speaker's left, 
    and then the process will be repeated, if other Members come in.

Sec. 73.23 While debate on a conference report is limited to one hour 
    (12) to be equally 
    divided between majority 
    and minority parties,(13) the House may, by unanimous 
    consent, either extend that time or permit debate by ``special 
    order'' on the conference report prior to actual consideration 
    thereof; thus, on one occasion, by unanimous consent, two Members, 
    the chairman and ranking minority member of the House conferees, 
    were permitted ``special orders'' of one hour each to debate a 
    conference report following adoption of a resolution making in 
    order the consideration of the report but prior to actual 
    consideration of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1995).
13. See Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(14) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House relative to consideration of the conference report on H.R. 
2166, the Tax Reduction Act of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 8899, 8900, 8916, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 
    minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).

         conference report on h.r. 2166, tax reduction act of 1975

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon] submitted the following conference 
    report and statement on the bill (H.R. 2166) to amend the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954 . . . to increase the investment credit and 
    the surtax exemption, and for other purposes:

                      Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        2166) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 . . . having 
        met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend 
        and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment 
        as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
        the Senate amendment insert the following:

[[Page 11033]]

                   Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.

            (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax 
        Reduction Act of 1975''. . . .

        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
    adoption of the rule I be granted a 60-minute special order.
        The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker, we have in the rules of the House an adequate 
    rule for the consideration of conference reports. . . . I have no 
    way of knowing, nor does any Member in this Chamber know, who will 
    control the time during a special order, except the gentleman from 
    Oregon, whether questions, once raised, will be answered, or 
    whether or not debate will deteriorate into partisan debate.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is very effectively but improperly 
    stating the rules. The minority has 30 minutes and the majority has 
    30 minutes on the conference report.
        Mr. Bauman: I am talking about the lack of protection contained 
    in the request for the 1-hour special order that was just made by 
    the gentleman from Oregon.
        The Speaker: Any Member of the House may make a request for a 
    special order.

        Mr. Bauman: I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, 
    further reserving the right to object, I also ask for a 60-minute 
    special order following that of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
    Ullman).
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection.

Recognition and Limitation 
    of Time for Special-order Speeches; ``Oxford-style'' Debates

Sec. 73.24 Pursuant to several unanimous-consent requests, the House 
    agreed to a 90-day trial period from February 23 through May 23, 
    1994, [subsequently extended on several occasions] and agreed on a 
    format of recognition and limitation of time for each party for 
    special-order speeches, including periodic ``Oxford style'' 
    structured debates and morning-hour debates; the Speaker then 
    announced the applicable guidelines for recognition during such 
    speeches and debate.

    The following unanimous-consent request was agreed to on Feb. 11, 
1994: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, following 
    my

[[Page 11034]]

    unanimous-consent request to put in place an agreed upon format for 
    recognitions to address the House during a 90-day trial period 
    beginning February 23, 1994, including a morning hour debate, an 
    Oxford style debate and a restriction on special order speeches, 
    the Speaker will announce his guidelines for recognition. In so 
    doing it is stipulated that the establishment of this format for 
    recognition by the Speaker is without prejudice to the Speaker's 
    ultimate power of recognition under clause 1, rule XIV should 
    circumstances so warrant.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the special orders 
    previously granted by the House to address the House on dates 
    through May 23, 1994 be vacated;
        Further that during the period beginning February 23, 1994 and 
    for 90 days thereafter, on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week the 
    House convene 90 minutes earlier than the time otherwise 
    established by order of the House solely for the purpose of 
    conducting morning hour debates to be followed by a recess declared 
    by the Speaker pursuant to clause 12, rule I under the following 
    conditions:
        (1) Prayer by the Chaplain, approval of the Journal and the 
    pledge of allegiance to the flag to be postponed until the 
    resumption of the House session following the completion of morning 
    hour debate;
        (2) Debate to be limited not to exceed 30 minutes allocated to 
    each party, with initial and subsequent recognition alternating 
    daily between parties to be conferred by the Speaker only pursuant 
    to lists submitted by the majority leader and minority leaders 
    respectively (no Member on such lists to be permitted to address 
    the House for longer than 5 minutes except for the majority leader 
    and minority leader respectively);
        Further, that on (every third) Wednesday, beginning on a day to 
    be designated by the Speaker and mutually agreed upon by the 
    majority leader and minority leader, it shall be in order, at a 
    time to be determined by the Speaker, for the Speaker to recognize 
    the majority leader and minority leader (or their designees), 
    jointly, for a period of not to exceed 2 hours, for the purpose of 
    holding a structured debate. The topic of the debate, when mutually 
    agreed upon by the majority leader and minority leader, shall be 
    announced by the Speaker. The format of the debate, which shall 
    allow for participation by four Members of the majority party and 
    four from the minority party in the House, chosen by their 
    respective party leaders, with specified times for presentations 
    and rebuttals by all participants, and periods of questioning of 
    each Member by others participating, shall be announced to the 
    House by the Speaker.
        The Speaker: (17) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, the Speaker announced the following guidelines for 
implementation of the unanimous-consent agreement:

        The Speaker: With respect to special orders to address the 
    House for up to 1 hour at the conclusion of legislative business or 
    on days when no legis

[[Page 11035]]

    lative business is scheduled, the Chair announced that:
        First, Tuesdays, following legislative business, there will be 
    an unlimited period of special orders not extending beyond 
    midnight, with recognition for 5-minute and then for longer special 
    orders alternating between the parties and with initial 
    recognition, for longer special orders, rotating on a daily basis 
    between the parties, and with the first hour of recognition on each 
    side reserved to the House leadership--majority leader and whip and 
    minority leader or their designee;
        Second, on Mondays, Wednesdays, except those Wednesdays when 
    Oxford style debates are in order, Thursdays and Fridays, the Chair 
    will recognize Members from each party for up to 2 hours of special 
    order debate at the conclusion of legislative business and 5-minute 
    special orders, or when no legislative business is scheduled, not 
    extending beyond midnight, again with initial recognition 
    alternating between the parties on a daily basis and with the 
    allocation of time within each 2-hour period, or short period if 
    pro rated to end by midnight, to be determined by a list submitted 
    to the Chair by the House leadership, majority leader and whip and 
    minority leader or designees, respectively, and with the first hour 
    of recognition on each side reserved to the House leadership, 
    majority leader and whip and minority leader or their designees. 
    Members will be limited to signing up for all such special orders 
    no earlier than 1 week prior to the special order, and additional 
    guidelines may be established for such sign-ups by the majority and 
    minority leaders, respectively. One-minute speeches on those days 
    both prior to and at the conclusion of legislative business shall 
    be at the discretion of the Speaker;
        Third, pursuant to clause 9(b)(1) of rule I, during this trial 
    period the television cameras will not pan the Chamber, but a crawl 
    indicating morning hour or that the House has completed its 
    legislative business and is proceeding with special order speeches 
    will appear on the screen. Other television camera adaptations 
    during this period may be announced by the Chair;
        Fourth, special orders to extend beyond the 4-hour period may 
    be permitted at the discretion of the Chair with advance 
    consultation between the leaderships and notification to the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On subsequent occasions, the House extended 
the above unanimous-consent agreement.(18) On May 12, 1995, 
the House extended the agreement by unanimous consent, but changed the 
Tuesday morning hour to 9 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See the proceedings of May 23, 1994; June 10, 1994; Jan. 4, 1995; 
        Feb. 16, 1995; and May 12, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard K.] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the order of the House of January 4, 1995, relating to 
    morning hour debates be continued through the adjournment of the 2d 
    session of the 104th Congress sine die, except that on Tuesdays the 
    House shall convene for such debate 1 hour earlier then the time 
    otherwise established by order of the House rather than 90 minutes 
    earlier; and the time for such debates

[[Page 11036]]

    shall be limited to 25 minutes allocated to each party rather than 
    30 minutes to each; but in no event shall such debates continue 
    beyond the time that falls 10 minutes before the appointed hour for 
    the resumption of legislative business, and with the understanding 
    that the format for recognition for special order speeches first 
    instituted on February 23, 1994, be continued for the same period. 
    . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Texas?
        There was no objection.

    Meetings of the leadership following the February 11 proceedings 
produced further guidelines for implementation of the special order and 
morning-hour procedures. The guidelines provided, among other matters, 
for alternation of recognition between the parties, and for procedures 
whereby Members sign up in advance for special orders, the majority in 
the Majority Leader's office and the minority in the cloakroom, the 
lists to be approved on the floor. For the Oxford-style debates, each 
leader would designate four participants for the debate every third 
Wednesday, to be held on a mutually agreeable topic announced by the 
Speaker. Guidelines for the morning hour on every Monday and Tuesday 
also provided for allocation of time and for the procedure of signing 
up with the party leaders.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the procedures agreed to in meetings of the leadership for 
        special orders, Oxford debates, and morning hours (Feb. 17, 
        1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------