[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[B. Right to Recognition]
[Â§ 10. Recognition for Unanimous-consent Requests; One-minute and Special-order Speeches]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9690-9752]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                    B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
 
Sec. 10. Recognition for Unanimous-consent Requests; One-minute and 
    Special-order Speeches

    The Speaker or Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has 
discretion whether or not to entertain unanimous-consent requests. 
Requests are not entertained which are prohibited by 
rule,(18) which unduly delay legislative 
business,(19) or which affect legislation and the order of 
business without the consent of the leadership and of relevant 
committees.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 10.34, 11.14-11.17, infra.
19. See Sec. Sec. 10.7, 10.8, 10.32, 10.34, infra.
20. See Sec. Sec. 10.9, 10.14-10.25, 10.27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair has entertained a unanimous-consent request which limits 
the Chair's power of recognition,(1) but either the Speaker 
or Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may make his own objection to 
any unanimous-consent request by refusing to entertain 
it.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 10.1 and 11.4, infra.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.6, infra. For a discussion of recognition 
        for unanimous-consent requests which waive the requirements of 
        existing rules, see Sec. 11.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognition for one-minute speeches (by unanimous consent) and the 
order of such recognition(3) are entirely within the 
discretion of the Speaker; and when the House has a heavy legislative 
schedule, the Speaker may refuse to recognize Members for that purpose 
until the completion of legislative business.(4) It is not 
in order to raise as a question of the privileges of the House a 
resolution directing the Speaker to recognize for such speeches, since 
a question of privilege cannot amend or interpret the rules of the 
House.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 10.55, infra.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 10.58-10.60, infra.
 5. See Sec. 10.58, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the 98th Congress, the Speaker has announced a policy for 
recognition for one-minute and special-order speeches as follows: (1) 
alternation of recognition between majority and minority Members; (2) 
recognition first for special-order speeches of five minutes or less, 
alternating between majority and minority Members, in the order in 
which requests were granted; and (3) final recognition for special-
order speeches of between five minutes and one hour, alternating 
between majority and minority Members, in the order in which requests 
were granted.(6) In the 101st Congress, the Chair continued 
the practice of alternating recognition, but

[[Page 9691]]

began a practice of recognizing Members in an order as suggested by 
their party leadership, for one-minute speeches, before others seeking 
such recognition in the well. While the Chair's calculation of time 
consumed under one-minute speeches is not subject to challenge, the 
Chair endeavors 
to recognize majority and then minority Members by allocating time in a 
non-partisan manner.(7) Prior to legislative business, the 
Speaker will traditionally recognize a Member only once by unanimous 
consent for a one-minute speech, and will not entertain a second 
request.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 10.48, infra.
 7. See Sec. 10.50, infra.
 8. See Sec. 10.61, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When Members are addressing the House during ``one-minute 
speeches,'' the Chair declines to entertain unanimous-consent requests 
for extensions of that time; Members who continue beyond the expiration 
of that time as announced by the Chair are not engaging in proper 
debate.
    Since Feb. 23, 1994, the Speaker's announced policies for 
recognition for special-order speeches have been as 
follows:(9) (1) recognition does not extend beyond midnight; 
(2) recognition is granted first for speeches of five minutes or 
less;(10) (3) recognition for longer speeches is limited 
(except on Tuesdays) to four hours equally divided between the majority 
and minority; (4) the first hour for each party is reserved to its 
respective Leader or his designees; (5) time within each party is 
allotted in accordance with a list submitted to the Chair by the 
respective Leader; (6) the first recognition within a category 
alternates between the parties from day to day, regardless of when 
requests were granted; (7) Members may not enter requests for five-
minute special orders earlier than one week in advance; and (8) the 
respective Leaders may establish additional guidelines for entering 
requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 10.64, infra.
10. The Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent request to extend 
        a five-minute special order. See the proceedings of Mar. 7, 
        1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.(11) On May 12, 
1995,(12) 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

[[Page 9692]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 10.64, infra.
12. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also in the 103d Congress,(13) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 10.64, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members may obtain permission to address the House by requests made 
by the acting Majority and Minority Leaders at the end of the day 
through their respective Cloak Rooms, or by individual requests agreed 
to on the floor for that day or for a future day. For the request to be 
entertained, it should seek ``permission to address the House at the 
conclusion of legislative business, consistent with the Speaker's 
announced policy of recognition.''(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 10.48, infra. For discussion of special-order speeches 
        generally, see Sec. Sec. 10.65 et seq., 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 18.25, infra. See also Sec. Sec. 10.69-10.71, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Time taken during points of order raised during a special-order 
speech does not come out of the time of the Member speaking, and so a 
Member is not deprived of his allotted time.

                            Cross References
Chair's power of recognition generally, see Sec. 9, supra.
Unanimous-consent agreements on control and distribution of time, see 
    Sec. Sec. 25 (distribution and alternation), 28 (effect of special 
    orders), 29 (yielded time), infra.
Unanimous-consent agreements on duration of debate, see Sec. Sec. 71 
    (in the House) and 80 (in Committee of the Whole), infra.
Unanimous-consent consideration of bills, see Sec. 16, infra.
Unanimous-consent consideration in House as in Committee of the Whole, 
    see Sec. 4, supra.
Unanimous-consent consideration of Senate amendments, see Sec. 17, 
    infra.
Unanimous-consent withdrawals and explanations in relation to calls to 
    order, see Sec. 51, infra.
Yielding for unanimous-consent requests, see Sec. 29, infra.

[[Page 9693]]

                          -------------------Agreement That Member Be 
    Allowed To Speak at Certain Time as Not Infringing on Chair's Power

Sec. 10.1 An agreement by the Committee of the Whole to 
    a unanimous-consent request that a Member be allowed to speak at a 
    certain time is not necessarily an infringement of the Chair's 
    power of recognition, but the Chairman may, just as any other 
    Member, interpose an objection to such a request.

    On Dec. 9, 1947,(16) Chairman Earl C. Michener, of 
Michigan, presiding in the Committee of the Whole, made the following 
statement on a proposed unanimous-consent request to allow a certain 
Member to speak at a certain time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 93 Cong. Rec. 11231, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair understands the rule, the presiding officer in the 
    Committee is in a dual capacity. First, he is selected to be the 
    presiding officer during the consideration of the bill. But by 
    accepting such appointment he does not lose his right to vote and 
    object as any other Member. That is, his district is not deprived 
    of its rights by virtue of the Chairman selection. That being true, 
    the Chair not making any objection, I cannot see how the rights of 
    the Chair are infringed upon if the Committee, by unanimous 
    consent, wants to provide that a certain individual may speak at a 
    certain hour during the Committee consideration. If the Chair is 
    agreeable and all Members are agreeable.

One Request Pending at a Time

Sec. 10.2 Only one unanimous-consent request may be pending at one 
    time; thus, while there is pending in Committee of the Whole a 
    unanimous-consent request that a Member be allowed additional time 
    under the five-minute rule, the Chair will dispose of that request 
    before recognizing another Member to ask unanimous consent to limit 
    debate on the pending amendment.

    On May 10, 1977,(17) the proceedings described above 
occurred in the Committee of the Whole as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 14111, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The time of the gentleman from 
    Oregon has again expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mark W.] Hannaford [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oregon be allowed to 
    proceed for an additional 2 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?

[[Page 9694]]

        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I wonder if we could get an understanding with the 
    chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) 
    on a time limit.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: . . . Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and amendments 
    thereto conclude at 10 minutes to 4.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that originally there is 
    also a unanimous-consent request that the gentleman from Oregon 
    (Mr. AuCoin) be granted an additional 2 minutes.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    California?
        There was no objection.

Obtaining Recognition To Reserve Right To Object

Sec. 10.3 In order to obtain recognition to reserve the right to object 
    to a unanimous-consent request, a Member must be on his feet 
    seeking recognition for that purpose when the Chair inquires 
    whether there is an objection to the request; but a Member who was 
    seeking recognition at the proper time may be recognized by the 
    Chair even if the Chair has already stated he heard no objection.

    On June 23, 1977,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration the foreign assistance and related agencies 
appropriation bill for 1978 (H.R. 7797), the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 20583, 20584, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.
        The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There being no objection----
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the 
    right to object. I wonder if we could try and get a limitation on 
    debate. I wonder if the gentleman could cut that down to a couple 
    of minutes.
        Mr. Murphy of New York: I think that if my colleague would bear 
    with me, 5 minutes is a small amount of time to address ourselves 
    to a vital area of interest in the Americas . . . .
        Mr. Long of Maryland: Further reserving the right to object, at 
    the conclusion of the gentleman's testimony I would like----
        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Biaggi: The time for objecting has passed. If the Chair 
    will read back, he has stated no objections were heard.
        The Chairman: The Chair will indicate to the gentleman from New 
    York that the gentleman from Maryland was

[[Page 9695]]

    on his feet seeking to reserve the right to object.

Member Must Stand When Objecting

Sec. 10.4 A Member must stand when objecting to a unanimous-consent 
    request.

    On Oct. 13, 1978,(2) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of S. 2727 (the 
Amateur Sports Act of 1978):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 124 Cong. Rec. 37071, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. See also the discussion 
        of ``seeking recognition'' in Sec. 8, supra, particularly 
        Sec. Sec. 8.4-8.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed for 2 additional 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John H. Krebs (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James F.] Lloyd of California: Mr. Chairman, I object. . . 
    .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, under the rules 
    of the House, I understand that a Member must stand in order to 
    object.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Lloyd) did stand at the time.

Objecting Where Another Has Floor Under Reservation of Right To Object

Sec. 10.5 Where a Member has the floor under a reservation of the right 
    to object to a unanimous-consent request, any other Member may 
    object to the request.

    The proceedings of June 23, 1977,(4) during 
consideration of H.R. 7797, appropriations for agencies relating to 
foreign assistance, are discussed in Sec. 10.3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 20583, 20584, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair May Decline To Recognize for Unanimous-consent Request

Sec. 10.6 The Chair may decline to recognize a Member for the purpose 
    of submitting a unanimous-consent request, thereby interposing his 
    own objection.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(5) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering S. 2475, a wages and hours bill, Mr. Schuyler Otis 
Bland, of Virginia, asked unanimous consent that any substitute offered 
and adopted be open to amendment as if it were the 
original bill. Chairman John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded 
that he had already requested another Member to temporarily withhold 
such a request,

[[Page 9696]]

and declined to recognize Mr. Bland to make the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 82 Cong. Rec. 1517, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Bland was actually referring not to 
substitutes, but to amendments in the nature of a substitute.

--Request That House Take Recess for Party Conference

Sec. 10.7 The Speaker declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent 
    request of the Minority Leader that the House take a recess for a 
    Republican Conference.

    On Apr. 11, 1951,(6) shortly after the convening of the 
House, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry by the Minority Leader that he would decline to 
entertain a unanimous-consent request for a recess:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 97 Cong. Rec. 3673, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: I inquire if the Speaker would 
    agree that the House would take a recess of 2 hours. I make this 
    request because of the tragic situation that prevails in the world. 
    I should like, if I could, to have a Republican conference. If the 
    Speaker will permit me to make that request, I shall do so.
        The Speaker: The Chair will say that that is a very unusual 
    request. The Chair does not think it has ever been made in the 
    history of the Congress.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Of course, these are very unusual 
    conditions.
        The Speaker: The Chair is perfectly willing to agree with the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts on that point. However, there is an 
    amendment coming up to the bill that the Chair thinks will take 
    some hours, in all probability.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: The Chair understands that in 
    accordance with his policies and the policies I have previously 
    agreed with, too, we desire all our membership to be on the floor 
    when these various bills are being read for amendment. Because of 
    the tremendous importance of the situation in the world today, I 
    should like to submit that request, but, of course, I shall not 
    insist on it if the Speaker is not agreeable to it.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts poses a very hard 
    question for the Chair. For the moment the Chair thinks he will not 
    entertain the request.

    Note: The House was to consider the 1951 amendments to the 
Universal Military Training and Service Act.

--Pending Disposition of Conference Report

Sec. 10.8 The Speaker announced that he would not recognize Members for 
    unanimous-consent requests pending the

[[Page 9697]]

    disposition of a conference report where the floor manager of the 
    report had been in an accident and required medical attention.

    On Oct. 6, 1962,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 22709, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to make a brief statement that the Chair will 
    not recognize any Member for unanimous-consent requests until after 
    the foreign assistance appropriations conference report is disposed 
    of.
        In order that Members may understand the reason why the Chair 
    is doing this, last night our dear friend and distinguished 
    colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Passman] had an 
    accident. He was sent to the Naval Hospital. He is in his office. 
    He is going to handle the conference report this morning.
        . . . The Chair, and I know the Members, will all agree with 
    the thoughts and the action of the Chair to have the conference 
    report disposed of as quickly as possible so that the gentleman 
    from Louisiana may go back to the hospital for further treatment.

Request To Rerefer Bill

Sec. 10.9 The Speaker declined to recognize the chairman of a committee 
    for a unanimous-consent request to rerefer a bill where the 
    chairman of the other committee involved had not been consulted.

    On Mar. 25, 1948,(8) Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent for the rereferral of a bill 
from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to 
the Committee on the Judiciary. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, inquired whether Mrs. Rogers, chairwoman of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, had consulted with the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. Mrs. Rogers responded that she had not and 
the Speaker stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 94 Cong. Rec. 3573, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is customary to consult with the chairman of the committee 
    to whom the bill is to be referred. No harm will come if this 
    matter is delayed until Monday.

    Mrs. Rogers withdrew the request.

Speaker May Decline Recognition for Request for Consideration of 
    Measure

Sec. 10.10 The Chair may, by declining recognition to a Member to make 
    a unanimous-consent request for the consideration of a measure, 
    refuse to permit the request to be entertained, and thus reg

[[Page 9698]]

    ister his personal objection as a Member of the House.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Jan. 23, 
1984:(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 83, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that an open rule permitting consideration of 
    House Joint Resolution 100, the voluntary school prayer 
    constitutional amendment, be called up for immediate consideration 
    within the next 10 legislative days.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair cannot and 
    will not entertain that request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard B. Ray (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have made a unanimous-consent 
    request. That is a perfectly proper request by any Member of this 
    body, and it is either objected to or is not objected to. I do not 
    understand the procedure that the Chair is using by not 
    entertaining the unanimous-consent request.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will inform the gentleman 
    that the Chair can object by declining recognition.

Sec. 10.11 The Speaker's authority to decline to recognize 
    individual Members to request unanimous consent for 
    the consideration of bills 
    and resolutions derives from clause 2 of Rule XIV, on the Speaker's 
    general power of recognition, and from the precedents developed 
    under that rule.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Jan. 26, 1984: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 449, 450, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard that we have 
    had some addition to the customs or procedures or even the rules of 
    the House, which seems to say that before I as a Member can ask 
    unanimous-consent requests that I must obtain the approval of the 
    leadership of the majority to pose that request.
        My parliamentary inquiry is this, Mr. Speaker. Where in the 
    rules does it say that? What is the specific provision in the rules 
    that authorizes the Speaker to make that kind of a rule for this 
    House? . . .
        The Speaker: (12) Clause 2 of rule 
    XIV.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
13. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 753-757 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dannemeyer: Is it the position of the Speaker that section 
    2 of rule XIV authorizes what has come to become a gag rule here?
        The Speaker: No. The Chair believes that it has been the custom 
    of this body through the years to give the power to the Speaker of 
    the House that the House be run in an efficient manner and that the 
    business of the House should be done in an orderly fashion and that 
    obstruction should be avoided.

[[Page 9699]]

Sec. 10.12 In recognizing Members to ask unanimous consent for the 
    consideration of bills, the Speaker takes into account the 
    complexity and importance of the bills involved.

    On July 1, 1932,(14) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
made the following statement in relation to the unanimous-consent 
consideration of bills:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 14511, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In order that gentlemen may understand the situation, let the 
    Chair state how it is the Chair recognizes certain gentlemen. The 
    Chair must decline to recognize a great many gentlemen who have 
    meritorious matters, because the Chair must have some yardstick 
    that can be applied to every Member of the House. The gentleman 
    from Minnesota [Mr. Pittenger] had a bill that had passed the House 
    unanimously, had gone to the Senate, and had an amendment placed on 
    it there, adding one name. The Chair thinks in a case of that kind, 
    where unanimous consent has to be given, it is well enough for the 
    Chair to recognize the Member for that purpose; but the Chair will 
    not recognize gentlemen to take up as an original proposition 
    private claims or other matters unless they are of an emergency 
    nature and apply to the general public rather than to one 
    individual.

Sec. 10.13 Where a Member who had been recognized to proceed for one 
    minute asked for the unanimous-consent consideration of a bill, the 
    Speaker held that the Member was not recognized for that purpose.

    On Jan. 26, 1944,(15) Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, the Minority Leader, asked unanimous consent to proceed 
for one minute, and on being recognized attempted to obtain unanimous 
consent for the consideration of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 90 Cong. Rec. 746, 747, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to proceed for 1 minute.
        The Speaker:(16) The Chair will not recognize any 
    other Member at this time for that purpose but will recognize the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the 
    generosity of the Chair.
        I take this minute, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make a 
    unanimous-consent request and I think it should be explained.
        I agree with the President that there is immediate need for 
    action on the soldiers' vote bill. A good many of us have been 
    hoping we could have action for the last month. To show our 
    sincerity in having action not next week but right now, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the House immediately take

[[Page 9700]]

    up the bill which is on the Union Calendar known as S. 1285, the 
    soldiers' voting bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts was not 
    recognized for that purpose.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.

Sec. 10.14 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member for 
    a unanimous-consent request to take a bill from the Speaker's table 
    and concur in the Senate amendments, where such a request was made 
    without the authorization of the chairman of the committee involved 
    and where 
    Members had been informed there would be no further legislative 
    business for the day.

    On July 31, 1969,(17) Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
asked unanimous consent to take the bill H.R. 9951 from the Speaker's 
table and to concur in the Senate amendments thereto. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, refused recognition for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that at this time the Chair does not 
    recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for that purpose.
        The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is at present 
    appearing before the Committee on Rules seeking a rule and Members 
    have been told that there would be no further business tonight.
        The Chair does not want to enter into an argument with any 
    Member, particularly the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana 
    whom I admire very much. But the Chair has stated that the Chair 
    does not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.

--Bills on Former Consent Calendar

Sec. 10.15 On former Consent Calendar days only eligible bills on the 
    calendar were called, and the Speaker could decline to recognize 
    Members with unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of 
    other bills on the calendar.

    On May 6, 1946, which was Consent Calendar Day,(18) 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. 
Overton Brooks, of Louisiana, relative to the call of a bill on the 
Consent Calendar prior to the expiration of the three-day requirement 
by the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 4527, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to ask unanimous 
    consent for the immediate consideration of the bill H.R. 2325, 
    which is No. 419 on the Consent Calendar that was called today?

[[Page 9701]]

        The Speaker: The Chair announced some time ago that since those 
    known as the objectors had examined only the eligible bills on the 
    Consent Calendar the Chair would not recognize Members to take up 
    the remaining bills, unless they involved emergencies.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Consent Calendar was abolished in the 
104th Congress. The Corrections Calendar was established in its place. 
See Rule XIII, clause 4.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 745a, 746 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Where Leadership Has Not Been Consulted

Sec. 10.16 Under an extension of guidelines announced by the Speaker on 
    the opening day of the Congress, the Chair will decline to 
    recognize for a unanimous-consent request for the consideration of 
    a (reported) bill unless given assurance of clearances from both 
    majority and minority floor and committee leaderships (guidelines 
    heretofore applicable to consideration of unreported measures).

    On July 23, 1993,(20) the Chair discussed the role of 
the leadership in determining whether requests for the consideration of 
bills would be allowed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steve] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is this: Is it possible to ask unanimous 
    consent to bring H.R. 2667 for its immediate consideration?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The leadership on both 
    sides of the aisle has to agree to allow that unanimous-consent 
    request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gunderson: . . . Is it possible to bring an appropriation 
    bill to the floor for consideration without a rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Yes, if it is privileged and it has 
    been reported and available for 3 days and is called up by the 
    committee.
        Mr. Gunderson: Can the 3-day rule be waived?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: By unanimous consent, yes.
        Mr. Gunderson: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to move that H.R. 
    2667 be brought up for immediate consideration?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Only the committee can make that 
    motion.
        Mr. Gunderson: Any member of the committee, Mr. Speaker, could 
    make that motion?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman or a member authorized by 
    the committee. . . .

        Mr. Gunderson: Mr. Speaker, I have one further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Is it possible to ask unanimous consent at any time during the 
    day to bring up an appropriation bill for its immediate 
    consideration?

[[Page 9702]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman or his designee could 
    bring the bill up.
        Mr. Gunderson: . . . If, for example, I were to move or ask 
    unanimous consent to do that and the Chair did not recognize me, 
    would it be possible at that point to literally appeal the ruling 
    of the Chair for another Member to bring it up?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous agreement between the 
    leaderships of the Democrat and Republican side, only the chairman 
    of the committee would be recognized to bring up the bill after 
    agreement of both leaderships by a unanimous-consent request. 
    Another Member would not be recognized for that reason, and the 
    denial of recognition to make a unanimous-consent request is not 
    appealable.
        Mr. Gunderson: . . . The chairman of the Appropriations 
    Committee can bring up H.R. 2667 for immediate consideration at any 
    time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Prior to the 3-day availability, he 
    could bring it up by unanimous consent, but as the gentleman knows, 
    these things are traditionally handled with the concurrence of both 
    leaderships and very carefully orchestrated before unanimous 
    consent is requested in order to be sure that it is adhered to.

Sec. 10.17 Pursuant to the Speaker's announced policy in the 98th 
    Congress on recognition for unanimous-consent requests for the 
    initial consideration of bills and resolutions, the Chair will 
    decline recognition for such unanimous-consent requests without 
    assurances that the majority and minority leadership and committee 
    and subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members have no 
    objection thereto.

    On Oct. 2, 1984,(2) the Chair having declined 
recognition for a unanimous-consent request that a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution be brought to the floor for immediate 
consideration, discussion took place relating to the Speaker's power of 
recognition(3) and, specifically, to the effect of announced 
guidelines governing recognition for requests for the initial 
consideration of bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. 28516-18, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. See Rule XIV, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . If you are 
    sincere, Mr. Chairman, if your colleagues over there who now say 
    let us have a balanced budget really mean what they say, when you 
    know the American people are not going to be fooled by this move. 
    Let us have companion legislation, the balanced budget amendment.
        The Speaker is here. Let us bring by unanimous consent the 
    balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to the floor of the 
    House right now and let us vote on both of these bills if you mean 
    what you say. Mr. Speaker, I ask

[[Page 9703]]

    unanimous consent, to recall or discharge from the committee the 
    balanced budget amendment to the Constitution so that we can bring 
    it to the floor of the House with House Joint Resolution 243.
        I ask unanimous consent that it be brought before the House 
    right now.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(4) . . . Under the rules 
    and precedents, the motion is not to be entertained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman did not make a motion, it is my 
    understanding. The gentleman asked unanimous-consent request. Is 
    the Speaker ruling that unanimous-consent requests are not in 
    order? We have already had one previous unanimous-consent request 
    that was granted during the course of debate. How would this one 
    not be in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the Speaker's announcement of 
    guide-lines for unanimous-consent requests to consider legislative 
    business, this request is not recognized. . . .
        Ms. [Bobbi] Fiedler [of California]: Mr. Speaker, before you 
    had dialog with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Hartnett) 
    regarding his parliamentary inquiry as it related to the balanced 
    budget amendment and his right to ask for a unanimous-consent 
    request in relationship to it. . . .
        I would like to ask of the Chair if the Chair will make the 
    inquiry as to whether the Democratic side leadership will also ask 
    to support his right under unanimous consent to bring the balanced 
    budget amendment, attach it to the existing bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has not been advised that 
    there is an intention to change the guidelines that were announced 
    earlier in the year for the purpose that they were issued. . . .
        Ms. Fiedler: Will the Chair inquire as to whether or not the 
    leadership on the Democratic side is willing to change the existing 
    rules? I realize that the Chair has indicated twice now that he has 
    not been informed that they have changed, but I am making a request 
    that he ask the leadership if they will make that change.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair states that this is not a 
    proper parliamentary inquiry. The Chair has not been advised that 
    there is a change in the policy that was issued the first week of 
    the session. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, we are still trying to sift our way 
    through the Chair's previous ruling with regard to the request of 
    the gentleman from South Carolina.
        Can the requirement that the Chair cites, can that requirement 
    be waived by unanimous consent?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question has to do with whether or 
    not recognition will be granted for that purpose, and the Chair's 
    ruling is based on guidelines that were issued on January 25, 1984, 
    and the Chair would read from the statement that was made at that 
    time by the Speaker.
        The Speaker said:

[[Page 9704]]

            As indicated on page 476 of the House Rules and Manual, the 
        Chair has established a policy of conferring recognition upon 
        Members to permit consideration of bills and resolutions by 
        unanimous consent only when assured that the majority and 
        minority leadership and committee and subcommittee chairmen and 
        ranking minority members have no objection.
            Consistent with that policy, and with the Chair's inherent 
        power of recognition under clause 2, rule XIV, the Chair and 
        any occupant of the chair appointed as Speaker pro tempore, 
        pursuant to clause 7, rule I, will decline recognition for 
        unanimous-consent requests for consideration of bills and 
        resolutions without assurances that the request has been 
        cleared by that leadership.
            This denial of recognition by the Chair will not reflect 
        necessarily any personal opposition on the part of the Chair to 
        orderly consideration of the matter in question, but will 
        reflect the determination upon the part of the Chair that 
        orderly procedures will be followed, that is, procedures 
        involving consultation and agreement between floor and 
        committee leadership on both sides of the aisle.

        It is that guideline that the Chair is following in this 
    instance. . . .
        Mr. Walker: The guidelines that the Chair has cited, what I am 
    inquiring is, can those guidelines be set aside by unanimous 
    consent?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the Chair's power of recognition 
    that is involved, and that is the question that is being decided in 
    conformance with the guidelines, not other questions.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: If the House so deems that we could set aside those 
    guidelines by unanimous consent, is that a proper request? That is 
    the question of this gentleman.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will again state that what 
    is involved directly or indirectly, is a question of recognition, 
    and not other or further questions, and it is that question that is 
    being decided in conformance with the guidelines.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An announcement that the above policies 
concerning recognition for requests for the consideration of bills and 
resolutions would be continued in the 100th Congress was made by the 
Chair on Jan. 6, 1987.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 133 Cong. Rec. 21, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.18 The Speaker may decline to recognize unanimous-consent 
    requests for consideration of bills if the Member making such 
    request has not consulted the leadership.

    On July 11, 1946,(6) Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, of 
Connecticut, asked for the unanimous-consent consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 372, to reinstate rent control. Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, refused to recognize her to make the request after she 
disclosed that she had not consulted or notified the leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 92 Cong. Rec. 8726, 8728, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John Phillips, of California, later objected to the refusal of 
rec

[[Page 9705]]

ognition as based on a ``technicality.'' The Speaker then made the 
following statement:

        . . . For a long time, ever since 1937 at least, the present 
    occupant of the chair knows that when Members intend to ask 
    unanimous consent to bring up a bill they have always properly 
    consulted with both the majority and minority leaders of the House 
    and with the Speaker. That has been the unfailing custom. The Chair 
    is exercising that right and intends to continue to exercise it as 
    long as he occupies the present position because the Chair wants 
    the House to proceed in an orderly fashion.
        Mrs. Luce: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask unanimous consent to 
    bring up the bill tomorrow?
        The Speaker: The Chair will meet that question when the time 
    comes.
        The Chair would certainly like the courtesy of being consulted 
    in advance.

Sec. 10.19 Recognition for unanimous-consent requests to consider 
    legislation is within the discretion of the Chair, who normally 
    refuses recognition for legislative requests at a time when the 
    membership has been advised that no further business would be 
    scheduled, and who may inquire whether the majority leadership has 
    been notified of and has assented to the making of 
    the request at a particular 
    time before bestowing recognition.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 17, 
1982,(7) during consideration of H.R. 5536 (authorizing the 
Secretary of the Interior to engage in a feasibility study of water 
resources development in Nebraska):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 128 Cong. Rec. 32033-35, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) For what purpose does 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Burton) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the 
    purpose of making a unanimous-consent request which has been 
    cleared from the other side, and the unanimous-consent request is 
    as follows.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would direct a question to 
    the gentleman from California and state that at this late hour, at 
    5 minutes to 1 o'clock in the morning, the Chair was unaware that 
    any further substantive business would come up before the House. 
    The Chair was only aware of the business which has just been 
    concluded, which is the general debate on the Immigration Reform 
    and Control Act. The Chair was unaware of this matter and has not 
    had a chance to consult with leadership on whether or not this 
    matter would fit within the array of legislation. . . .
        The Chair would ask the gentleman, has the gentleman had an 
    opportunity to check with the leadership of the House? . . .
        Mr. Phillip Burton: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any Member in 
    our

[[Page 9706]]

    leadership who is opposed to this. I am aware of about a 20th of 
    the Members of the House who are for this proposal.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair understands. The Chair would 
    suggest that, because of the membership of the House having left 
    the House thinking the only matter before it would be the 
    Immigration Reform and Control Act under general debate, is at a 
    disadvantage in being unable to be aware of the gentleman's motion.
        Mr. Phillip Burton: Mr. Speaker, it is not a motion. It is a 
    unanimous-consent request and I would urge regular order to see if 
    there is objection to the request.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would ask the gentleman's 
    indulgence. Given the nature of the circumstance, the Chair would 
    ask if the gentleman would kindly withhold his motion. . . .
        The Chair is suggesting that the gentleman might under the 
    circumstances, given the peculiar nature and the hour, which is 1 
    o'clock, might under the circumstances withhold his unanimous-
    consent request until the Chair has had an opportunity to check 
    with the leadership. . . .
        Mr. Phillip Burton: . . . I will demand regular order, the 
    request being I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's 
    table the bill (H.R. 5536), an act to authorize the Secretary of 
    the Interior to engage in a feasibility study of water resource 
    development and for other purposes in the Central Platte Valley, 
    Nebr., with a Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . I believe that the Chair might 
    be able to help the two gentlemen who are trying to struggle to 
    find a solution by suggesting that the Chair could guarantee that 
    the gentleman would be the first order of business tomorrow when 
    the House does convene. I could give that assurance and would 
    communicate that to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
        If that would be satisfactory to the gentleman from California 
    and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, then it would give us time to 
    check with our respective leadership.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Further reserving the 
    right to object, I would say the gentleman from Pennsylvania is in 
    some way here trying to be helpful to the Chair since I have no 
    minority Members on this side with whom to consult with on this 
    request.
        I certainly think that that suggestion would be acceptable to 
    this gentleman if the gentleman from California would agree to 
    that.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from California 
    find that satisfactory under these difficult circumstances?
        Mr. Phillip Burton: . . . I will yield . . . because of our 
    distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania's suggestion.
        So I would ask this be put over until the first order of 
    business tomorrow.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I withdraw 
    my reservation of objection.

Sec. 10.20 The Speaker on occasion has reiterated his pol-

[[Page 9707]]

    icy of conferring recognition upon Members to permit consideration 
    of bills and resolutions by unanimous consent only when assured 
    that 
    the majority- and minority-elected floor leadership and committee 
    and subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members have no 
    objection.

    Several Members having propounded unanimous-consent requests to 
permit consideration of various legislative measures by a day certain 
under an ``open rule'' procedure, the Speaker on Jan. 25, 
1984,(9) reiterated the Chair's policy of conferring 
recognition upon Members to permit consideration of bills and 
resolutions only when assured that the majority and minority floor and 
committee and subcommittee leaderships have no objection. This policy 
was intended in part to prevent the practice whereby one side might 
force the other to go on record as objecting to propositions regarding 
which they have only procedural or technical objections rather than 
substantive opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 130 Cong. Rec. 354, 355, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that an open rule permitting consideration of 
    House Joint Resolution 100, the voluntary school prayer 
    constitutional amendment, be called up for immediate consideration 
    within the next 10 legislative days.
        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: (10) Objection is heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will read the following statement:

            As indicated on page 476 of the House Rules and Manual, the 
        Chair has established a policy of conferring recognition upon 
        Members to permit consideration of bills and resolutions by 
        unanimous consent only when assured that the majority and 
        minority floor leadership and committee and subcommittee 
        chairmen and ranking minority members have no objection. 
        Consistent with that policy, and with the Chair's inherent 
        power of recognition under clause 2, rule XIV, the Chair, and 
        any occupant of the Chair appointed as Speaker pro tempore 
        pursuant to clause 7, rule I, will decline recognition for 
        unanimous-consent requests for consideration of bills and 
        resolutions without assurances that the request has been 
        cleared by that leadership. This denial of recognition by the 
        chair will not reflect, necessarily, any personal opposition on 
        the part of the Chair to orderly consideration of the matter in 
        question, but will reflect the determination upon the part of 
        the Chair that orderly procedures will be followed, that is, 
        procedures involving consultation and agreement between floor 
        and committee leadership on both sides of the aisle. . . .

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, do I understand now that the 
    unanimous-consent procedure cannot be used by anyone to bring 
    legislation to the floor unless that has been specifically cleared 
    by both the majority and the minority leadership; is that correct?

[[Page 9708]]

        The Speaker: That has been the custom and it will continue to 
    be the custom. . . .
        Mr. Walker: I just want to clarify then that the entire matter 
    then of utilizing unanimous-consent requests for any kind of 
    legislative business, such as bringing up legislation, will be 
    denied to all parties.
        The Speaker: Unless the Chair has assurances that proper 
    clearance has taken place. . . .
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: . . . The Speaker mentioned 
    fairness on both sides and both sides be knowledgeable. . . . 
    [C]ould the Chair describe how fairness to both sides and how both 
    sides might be knowledgeable might proceed? . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair intends to go through the legitimate 
    leadership of the gentleman's side of the aisle, and the elected 
    leadership on the other side of the aisle.
        Mr. Gingrich: So in the future the legitimate leadership on our 
    side of the aisle might legitimately expect to be informed?
        The Speaker: The Chair considers the legitimate leadership as 
    the leadership that was elected, not caucuses within the party.

Sec. 10.21 The Chair himself may object to a unanimous-consent request 
    for the consideration of legislation, by denying recognition for 
    the request, and it is the policy of the Chair to refuse 
    recognition for requests to consider legislation not approved by 
    the leadership.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Nov. 15, 
1983:(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 32746, 32747, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the resolution introduced by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Fish) specifying a rule for consideration of 
    House Joint Resolution 1 be made in order for consideration by the 
    House on Wednesday or any day thereafter.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Chair cannot 
    entertain that motion without consultation with the leadership. The 
    Chair will not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Ronald Coleman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is that this 
    is a unanimous-consent request and it is entirely in order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has the same right to object 
    as any Member, and I do so object.

Sec. 10.22 The Chair may refuse to entertain unanimous-consent requests 
    for the consideration of legislation that does not have the 
    approval of the leadership.

    On Nov. 16, 1983,(13) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 33138, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 9709]]

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that House Resolution 373 be made in order for 
    consideration in the House on Thursday or any day thereafter.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot recognize for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is a unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot recognize for that 
    purpose. There is objection nevertheless.
        Mr. Walker: Let it be noted here this evening that the 
    objection to considering the resolution by which we would consider 
    ERA under the rules of the House and with an amendment and in open 
    debate was objected to from the Democratic side of the aisle. Let 
    that be noted.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state there is 
    precedent for denying the unanimous-consent request of the 
    gentleman dating back to May of 1982 and yesterday and furthermore 
    there was objection heard.

Sec. 10.23 In enforcing the Speaker's announced policy regarding 
    recognition of Members requesting unanimous consent for the 
    consideration of bills and resolutions, the Chair indicated that 
    the Speaker would accept the word of any Member that he had 
    obtained the clearance of the majority and minority floor and 
    committee leaderships and that such permission need not be reduced 
    to writing.

    On Jan. 31, 1984,(14) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 1063, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Gekas [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a point 
    of parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jim Bates (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gekas: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had a colloquy with Speaker 
    O'Neill in which I asserted to him and represented to him that I 
    had had the clearance of the minority leadership in order to gain 
    unanimous consent to bring to the House's attention legislation on 
    the line-item veto, the line-item veto which is in controversy 
    today as a measure of controlling spending.
        During that colloquy the Speaker, Speaker O'Neill, interrupted 
    my representation that I had the clearance of the minority and 
    said, ``Do you have it in writing?''
        The point of my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is whether 
    or not that requirement, as was implicit 
    in that question posed by Speaker O'Neill, is a rule of the House 
    or in conformity with or in concordance with the Speaker's own 
    pronouncement in that regard?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The inquiry should properly be 
    addressed to the Speaker but the Chair, of course, takes the word 
    of the Member.
        Mr. Gekas: I thank the Speaker.

[[Page 9710]]

Sec. 10.24 On one occasion, a unanimous-consent request for the 
    consideration of legislation (a joint resolution making urgent 
    supplemental appropriations) was made and then withdrawn because 
    the Chair had not previously received assurances that the request 
    had been cleared by the necessary parties (in this case, the 
    Minority Leader).

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Feb. 29, 1984: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 130 Cong. Rec. 3895, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that it be in order on Tuesday next or any day 
    thereafter to consider the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 493) making 
    an urgent supplemental appropriation for the Department of Health 
    and Human Services for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1984, 
    in the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The Chair has not 
    received assurances that this has been cleared by the minority 
    leader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Esteban E. Torres (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I discussed it with the Speaker and 
    the assistant majority leader, and I also have advised the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) on the Republican side.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the matter 
    has to be cleared by the minority leader.
        Mr. Whitten: I presume it was, but personally I do not know; I 
    have not seen him.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has not received that 
    assurance.
        Will the gentleman withhold his request until assurance is 
    received?
        Mr. Whitten: I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker.

Sec. 10.25 Pursuant to the Speaker's previously announced policy, the 
    Chair declined to recognize a Member to request unanimous consent 
    for the consideration of an unreported measure, where the request 
    had not been cleared with the minority leadership.

    On June 6, 1984,(18) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 130 Cong. Rec. 15174, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Katie] Hall of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service be 
    discharged from further consideration of House joint resolution 
    (H.J. Res. 247) to designate April 24, 1984, as National Day of 
    Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Chair understands 
    that this has not

[[Page 9711]]

    been cleared by the leadership on the minority side. Since the 
    Speaker has made the statement that those types of requests would 
    not be entertained, under such circumstances the Chair does not 
    recognize the gentlewoman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Recognition for Request To Dispose of Senate Amendments Accorded to 
    Committee Chairman

Sec. 10.26 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair announced 
    guidelines for recognition for unanimous-consent requests to 
    dispose of Senate amendments to House-passed bills on the Speaker's 
    table, indicating that the Chair will entertain a unanimous-consent 
    request for the disposition of a Senate amendment to a House-passed 
    bill on the Speaker's table, only if made by the chairman of the 
    committee with jurisdiction, or by another member of the committee 
    where the Chair has been advised by the chairman of the committee 
    that such member has been authorized formally or informally by the 
    committee to make the request.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Apr. 26, 1984: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 10193, 10194, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: . . . Mr. Speaker, 
    since we have moved with such dispatch on the question dealing with 
    the labor unions' concern, I would like to direct to the Chair a 
    parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, it deals with a piece of legislation 
    that has come out of the same committee and is a variation of H.R. 
    3635, the Child Protection Act of 1983, which we passed 400 to 1 on 
    November 11, 1983.
        There was an agreement worked out between the Members of the 
    House and the Senate for a compromise. That went to the Senate. 
    They passed our version, with an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and it is my information that H.R. 3635 was sent to the 
    Speaker's desk from the Senate on April 2 or 3 of this year.
        My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is: Is H.R. 3635 
    presently at the Speaker's desk?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the Senate 
    amendment, H.R. 3635, has not yet been referred to a committee?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Lungren: And can the Chair inform me at this time and 
    inform the

[[Page 9712]]

    House as to what procedure might be available to us at this time to 
    allow for immediate consideration of that Senate amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that the Chair would only recognize for a request by the chairman 
    or another member if authorized by the committee.
        Mr. Lungren: Authorization of the committee, that means 
    authorization of the Democratic leadership?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Authorization of the committee.
        Mr. Lungren: Does the Chair mean that it takes an official vote 
    of the committee or an agreement by the chairman of the committee 
    itself?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Speaker would look to the chairman 
    of the committee.

Request for Restoration of Bills to Private Calendar

Sec. 10.27 The Speaker declines to recognize Members for unanimous-
    consent requests that bills stricken from the Private Calendar be 
    restored thereto where they have not consulted with the official 
    objectors for that calendar.

    On Apr. 19, 1948,(2) Mr. Thomas J. Lane, of 
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that a bill stricken from the 
Private Calendar be restored thereto. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, inquired whether Mr. Lane had consulted with the 
objectors and Mr. Lane responded that he had not. The Speaker stated 
that the Chair could not entertain the request until Mr. Lane had taken 
up the matter with the objectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 4573, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Permission for Majority Leader To Announce Legislative Program Pending 
    Motion To Adjourn

Sec. 10.28 While the motion to 
    adjourn takes precedence 
    over any other motion under clause 4 of Rule XVI, the Speaker may 
    through his power of recognition recognize the Majority Leader by 
    unanimous consent for one minute to announce the legislative 
    program prior to entertaining the motion to adjourn; and on one 
    occasion, the Speaker recognized the Majority Leader to announce 
    the program for the remainder of the day and declined to recognize 
    a Member to offer a motion to adjourn pending that announcement, 
    although the Majority Lead-er had neglected to obtain unanimous 
    consent to address the House for one minute, and the Speaker

[[Page 9713]]

    then suggested that decorum would best be maintained by unanimous-
    consent permission to announce the leadership program pending a 
    motion to adjourn.

    On Dec. 14, 1982,(3) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 128 Cong. Rec. 30549, 30550, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (4) The Chair recognizes the majority 
    leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Denny] Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential 
    motion I send to the desk.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will be seated. The Speaker has the 
    right of recognition.
        Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the majority leader, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).

                            LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, let me 
    simply announce for the benefit of the Members that it is our 
    intention now to have no further votes tonight. We plan to take up 
    the things that we put off last night in order that Members might 
    go and attend the reception in the White House, the remaining 
    suspension, as was agreed with the Republican leadership and our 
    leadership last night, but we will not have any votes. We will roll 
    the votes until tomorrow, let the votes be the first thing 
    tomorrow.
        Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential 
    motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his preferential motion.
        Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now 
    adjourn.
        The Speaker: The question is on the preferential motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
        The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    122, nays 202, not voting 109, as follows: . . .

                        ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

        The Speaker: The Chair will make the following statement:
        It is the usual and customary practice in this House that when 
    we come to the end of a proceeding, as we did, that the majority 
    leader then announces the program for the remainder of the night. 
    The majority leader had informed me that he was going to make that 
    announcement. Normally it is a unanimous-consent request, and that 
    is what the Chair anticipated that the majority leader would do.
        It is the prerogative and the duty of the Speaker of the House 
    to run this body in an expeditious manner and he should be informed 
    when motions are going to be made, whether they are privileged or 
    otherwise, and when he is suddenly confronted with a privileged

[[Page 9714]]

    motion, then it is my opinion, while the Chair appreciates that he 
    follows the rules of the House, it does not improve the decorum of 
    the House. The Speaker at all times tries to be fair, and thought 
    he was being fair with the Members when he was recognizing the 
    majority leader to inform the membership what the program was for 
    the remainder of the evening.

Speaker May Recognize for Unanimous-consent Request Prior to Motion To 
    Discharge

Sec. 10.29 The rule providing that motions to discharge committees 
    shall be in order ``immediately'' after the reading of the Journal 
    on appropriate days was construed not to prohibit the Speaker from 
    recognizing for unanimous-consent requests prior to recognition for 
    motions to discharge.

    On Oct. 12, 1942,(5) which was Discharge Calendar Day, 
Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New York, called up a motion to discharge the 
Committee on Rules from the consideration of a resolution providing for 
the consideration of a bill. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, made a 
point of order against the motion on the ground that the rule providing 
for discharge motions on the second 
and fourth Mondays [Rule XXVII clause 4] directed that such motions 
shall be in order ``immediately'' after the reading of the Journal, and 
that prior to the making of the motion miscellaneous business had 
intervened, such as sending bills to conference (by unanimous consent) 
and passing a bill (considered by unanimous consent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 8066, 8067, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, ruled as follows:

        The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        The Chair recognized all the time that the word ``immediately'' 
    is in this rule, as he has read the rule every day for the past 6 
    days.
        In ruling on a matter similar to this some time ago, the Chair 
    had this to say, although the matter involved was not exactly on 
    all-fours with this point of order, but it is somewhat related:

            The Chair thinks the Chair has a rather wide range of 
        latitude here and could hold, being entirely technical, that a 
        certain point of order might be sustained.

        The Chair is not going to be any more technical today than he 
    was at that time. The Chair recognized the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. Doughton) on a highly important matter in order to 
    expedite the business of the Congress, not only the House of 
    Representatives but the whole Congress.
        The Chair does not feel that the intervention of two or three 
    unanimous-consent requests would put him in a position where he 
    could well hold that the word ``immediately'' in the

[[Page 9715]]

    rule was not being followed when he recognized the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Gavagan).(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. For the ruling cited by the Speaker, see 88 Cong. Rec. 8120, 77th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 13, 1942 (ruling on recognition of a 
        Member to handle a bill where the Member named in the 
        resolution providing for consideration had died).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request To Address House on Future Date

Sec. 10.30 The Chair declines to recognize Members for unanimous-
    consent requests to address the House prior to completion of 
    legislative business on future days.

    On June 14, 1935,(7) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, responded as follows to a request for recognition for a 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 9330, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that on next Monday after the reading of the 
    Journal and the completion of business on the Speaker's desk I may 
    address the House for 15 minutes to answer an attack upon an 
    amendment I proposed to the Constitution made in the Washington 
    Times of June 12 by Mr. James P. Williams, Jr.
        The Speaker: Under the custom that prevails and the action of 
    the Chair heretofore, the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman 
    today to make a speech on Monday. The Chair hopes the gentleman 
    will defer his request.

Sec. 10.31 The Speaker declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent 
    request for two Members to address the House with the privilege of 
    yielding to other Members.

    On Oct. 17, 1945,(8) Mr. Hugh De Lacy, of Washington, 
asked unanimous consent that on the next Tuesday, following legislative 
business, he and Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, be allowed to address 
the House on the subject of freedom of the air, with the privilege of 
yielding to other Members. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that 
the request was unusual and that he would recognize for requests of Mr. 
De Lacy and of Mr. Celler to address the House, but would not recognize 
for the unanimous-consent request as put by Mr. De Lacy. Mr. De Lacy 
withdrew the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 91 Cong. Rec. 9727, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extensions of Remarks

Sec. 10.32 The Speaker announced that he would refuse recognition to 
    extend remarks in the Record if the request was made after there 
    had been a quorum call and where the House was about

[[Page 9716]]

    to resolve into the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 8, 1945,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made 
the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 929, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So many Members who were not on the floor at the proper time 
    have come to the Chair to ask that they be allowed to submit 
    requests to extend remarks that the Chair will now recognize 
    Members to submit unanimous-consent requests to extend remarks or 
    correct the Record.
        Hereafter, when there is a legislative program, Members on the 
    floor at the beginning of the session will have an opportunity to 
    submit such requests, but after the roll is called and the House is 
    ready to go into the Committee of the Whole no Member will be 
    recognized for any purpose.

Sec. 10.33 Where there was no legislative program for the day, the 
    Speaker recognized a Member to extend his remarks ``at this point 
    in the Record'' regardless of the number of words.

    On Feb. 6, 1945,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 839, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: I wish to ask the Chair 
    how it is that if a Member on this side asks for a minute in which 
    to address the House he is permitted to insert 300 words or less, 
    but that when some Members on the other side of the aisle make 
    similar requests they are permitted to put in 7\1/3\ pages, or some 
    8,000 words? How does the discrimination come about?
        The Speaker: There is no discrimination because there was no 
    legislative program on yesterday and anyone had the right to extend 
    his remarks ``at this point'' in the Record.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Extending remarks in the Record generally, see Ch. 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.34 The Speaker may decline to recognize Members to extend their 
    remarks where a motion to discharge a committee is pending.

    On June 11, 1945,(12) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, 
called up a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of a resolution providing an order of business. Mr. John 
E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved that the motion be laid on the table, 
but Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the motion to table was 
not in order. Mr. Rankin then asked unanimous consent to extend his 
remarks at ``this point in the Record.'' The Speaker ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892, 5895, 5896, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair cannot recognize Members to extend their remarks 
    until this matter has been disposed of.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1995): 
        ``[T]he House shall proceed to its consideration (motion to 
        discharge) in the manner herein provided without intervening 
        motion except one motion to adjourn.''

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

[[Page 9717]]

Sec. 10.35 Where a Member had requested permission to insert certain 
    remarks in the Record but had delayed submission thereof to the 
    printer, the Speaker declined to recognize another Member to make 
    the same request.

    On Nov. 17, 1943,(14) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, asked unanimous consent to extend his remarks and to print 
therein a radio address of Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, responded that he would not recognize Mr. Rankin for 
the request, Mr. Patman having previously asked unanimous consent to 
insert the address in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 89 Cong. Rec. 9626, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request That Speech Made to Joint Meeting Be Printed as House Document

Sec. 10.36 The Speaker declined to entertain a unanimous-consent 
    request that a speech made to a joint meeting by the General of the 
    Army be printed as a House document.

    On May 2, 1951,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
refused to entertain a request that a speech be printed as a House 
document:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 4755, 4756, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Edith Nourse] Rogers of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent, in view of the great interest in the speech of 
    Gen. Douglas MacArthur, that it may be ordered printed as a House 
    document.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks 
    the gentlewoman from Massachusetts should refer to the Joint 
    Committee on Printing.
        Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I introduced a bill 
    for that purpose, but I had hoped we could get it done by unanimous 
    consent.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not like to start doing things like 
    that; it is very unusual. We do have a Joint Committee on Printing.
        The Chair cannot entertain the request.

Request To Revoke Special Rule; Consideration of Conference Reports

Sec. 10.37 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member to ask unanimous 
    consent for the revocation of a special rule, previously agreed to, 
    permitting the consideration of conference reports on the same day 
    reported.

    On Sept. 25, 1961,(16) Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCor

[[Page 9718]]

mack, of Massachusetts, declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent 
request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 21183, 21184, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous-
    consent request to make concerning the procedure of the House. I 
    ask unanimous consent that the action by which clause 2 of rule 
    XXVIII was suspended a week ago last Saturday be revoked, and that 
    clause 2, rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
    be restored.
        Mr. Speaker, I should like to be heard briefly on my reasons 
    for so doing.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the circumstances the Chair 
    declines to recognize the gentleman from Iowa to submit the 
    request.

Special Rule Providing for Reading Committee Amendment by Sections; 
    Request To Read Substitute by Sections

Sec. 10.38 Where the House has by special rule provided for reading by 
    sections in Committee of the Whole of a committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute as an original bill, any amendment offered 
    thereto must be read in its entirety; the Committee may not by 
    unanimous consent order that an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for the committee amendment be in turn read by sections 
    for amendment.

    The proceedings of Mar. 25, 1975,(17) demonstrate that, 
while the Chair may through the power of recognition encourage the 
orderly offering of amendments to a pending amendment in the nature of 
a substitute which has been read in its entirety, a unanimous-consent 
request to read the substitute for amendment by sections is not in 
order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 8490, 8491, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Under consideration 
        was H.R. 4222, to amend the National School Lunch Act and Child 
        Nutrition Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        O'Hara: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        Committee to the text of the bill, H.R. 4222, insert the 
        following:
            That this Act may be cited as ``The National School Lunch 
        Act and Child Nutrition Act of 1966 Amendments of 1975''.

                            school breakfast program

            Sec. 2: Section 4(a) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 is 
        amended by inserting immediately after ``and June 30, 1975,'' 
        the following: ``and subsequent fiscal years''.

        Mr. O'Hara (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with and 
    that it be printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: (18) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 9719]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object. For all intents and purposes it now appears 
    that the original committee substitute, made in order by the rule, 
    is to be junked and instead we are being asked to consider this new 
    substitute which the gentleman from Michigan has just now offered. 
    The original rule on this bill provided that the committee 
    substitute be read for purposes of amendment, as is usual. If the 
    gentleman now obtains unanimous consent to consider his substitute 
    as read and open to amendment, all sorts of confusion can result. 
    No one will have any control over what amendments will be presented 
    and in which order and debate may be cut off.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Bauman: I yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, while it is being read in the Record 
    it will not be open to amendment section by section. It would be 
    open to amendment when the entire amendment is read.
        Mr. Bauman: That is precisely what we object to. . . .
        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, this is 
    significant to what the gentleman is talking about. If the 
    substitute is read, it is my understanding of the rules of the 
    House that we cannot stop at the end of each section for 
    amendments, but the entire substitute has to be read before it 
    would be open for amendments.
        May I inquire of the Chairman, is that right?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
    wonder if the gentleman from Michigan would make a unanimous-
    consent request that his amendment be read section by section. This 
    would accomplish the purpose we are after.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair would not 
    entertain a request of that nature. The amendment must be read in 
    its entirety under the rules of the House, if the gentleman from 
    Maryland insists upon his objection. The Chair would encourage that 
    amendments be made to each section once it has been read, but it 
    cannot be open for amendment prior to the reading.

Request To Add Members as Co-sponsors of Bill

Sec. 10.39 Although the Chair, in accordance with Rule XXII, clause 
    4(b)(1), under which only the chief sponsor of a bill may add 
    cosponsors, may decline to entertain a unanimous-consent request on 
    the floor by a Member not the chief sponsor to add all Members as 
    cosponsors of a 
    bill under consideration, the Chair may permit instead a listing in 
    the Record of the Members' names.

    On Dec. 18, 1985,(19) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House during consideration of House Resolution 345 (concerning

[[Page 9720]]

the deaths of members of the 101st Air-Assault Division in an airplane 
crash):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 131 Cong. Rec. 37762, 37763, 37765, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William] Nichols [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be 
    discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 
    345) to express the sentiment of Congress regarding the deaths of 
    members of the 101st Air Assault Division in an airplane crash on 
    December 12, 1985, at Gander, Newfoundland, Canada, while en route 
    home for the season's holiday, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration in the House.
        The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Larry J.] Hopkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, I do so so that the chairman might have an 
    opportunity to explain his position.
        I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols).
        Mr. Nichols: . . . Mr. Speaker, the resolution merely expresses 
    our sorrow at the deaths of the 248 members of the 101st Airborne 
    Division. . . .
        Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, in withdrawing my reservation of 
    objection, I ask that all Members' of the House of Representatives 
    names be added to this resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . Did the gentleman ask that all 
    Members' names be listed in the Record as cosponsors?
        Mr. Hopkins: That is correct, Mr. Speaker, that all Members' 
    names be listed in the Record as cosponsors of this resolution. I 
    ask unanimous consent for that permission.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky?
        There was no objection.
        The list of Members' names referred to is as follows: . . .

Limitation on Debate--Request Not Entertained Until Resolution Read or 
    Considered as Read

Sec. 10.40 The Chair may decline to entertain a unanimous-consent 
    request that all debate on a pending measure be limited, in advance 
    of completion of reading of that measure in its entirety and in the 
    absence of a unanimous-consent agreement to consider the measure as 
    having been read.

    On July 16, 1975,(1) during consideration of House 
Resolution 591 (establishing a Select Committee on Intelligence) in the 
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made a 
unanimous-consent request, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 23112, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the necessary 
    number of

[[Page 9721]]

    words. . . . I am going to ask unanimous consent that the 
    resolution be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open 
    to amendment at any point.

        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Frank E. Evans (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, then I can only ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the resolution and all amendments 
    thereto close at 2:30.
        The Chairman: The gentleman should be advised that that request 
    cannot be made until the resolution has been read.

--Request Not Entertained During Reading of Amendment

Sec. 10.41 The Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent request 
    regarding the limitation of time for debate on an amendment during 
    the reading of the amendment.

    During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act 
of 1975 (H.R. 7014) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 18, 
1975,(3) the proceedings described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 29322, 29323, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jeffords: Page 331, after line 10, 
        add the following:

        TITLE VI--ENERGY LABELING AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR BEVERAGE 
                                   CONTAINERS

                            definitions and coverage

            Sec. 601.--For purposes of this part--
            (1) The term ``beverage container'' means a bottle, jar, 
        can, or carton of glass, plastic, or metal, or any combination 
        thereof, used for packaging or marketing beer . . . or a 
        carbonated soft drink of any variety in liquid form which is 
        intended for human consumption. . . .

        Mr. Jeffords (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
    printed in the Record due to the fact that it was printed in the 
    Record with the exception of two words which I shall explain. . . .
        Mr. [Phillip H.] Hayes of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I object. . . 
    .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to 
    make a unanimous consent request with regard to a limitation of 
    time. . . .
        The Chairman:(4) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Michigan that the reading of the amendment has not 
    been completed and we should dispose of the reading of the 
    amendment prior to such a request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will proceed to read the amendment.

[[Page 9722]]

Request That Debate End Ten Minutes After Subsequent Amendment Offered

Sec. 10.42 Where there was pending an amendment and a substitute 
    therefor, the Chair declined to entertain a unanimous-consent 
    request that debate end ten minutes after another Member ``has had 
    an opportunity to offer'' a further substitute, where the offering 
    of such substitute might be precluded by the adoption of the 
    pending substitute.

    During consideration of the Defense Production Act Amendments of 
1979 (H.R. 3930) in the Committee of the Whole on June 26, 
1979,(5) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 16670, 16672, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    amendments as a substitute for the amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendments offered by Mr. Michel as a substitute for the 
        amendments offered by Mr. Wright of Texas: On page 5, line 2, 
        strike out the period after ``section'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``and at least 2,000,000 barrels per day crude oil 
        equivalent of synthetic fuels . . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I see 
    only about five or six Members standing. I ask unanimous consent 
    that all debate on the Wright amendment and all amendments thereto 
    close in 15 minutes.
        The Chairman:(6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Jeffords [of Vermont]: Reserving the right to 
    object, the gentleman knows I have a substitute which I think ought 
    to be considered . . . and I just cannot agree to 15 minutes unless 
    I am sure I am going to have 5 minutes myself in order to be able 
    to explain the substitute.
        Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the Wright amendment and all amendments 
    thereto close 10 minutes after the gentleman has had an opportunity 
    to offer his substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman that in the 
    event the amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Michel) were adopted, no other substitute would be in 
    order and the request would be unworkable.

Request To Extend Debate Time--Not Entertained Pending Demand for 
    Recorded Vote

Sec. 10.43 A time limitation on debate imposed by the Committee of the 
    Whole, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, may be rescinded or modi

[[Page 9723]]

    fied only by unanimous consent; and a unanimous-consent request to 
    extend debate time on an amendment may not be entertained while 
    there is pending a demand for a recorded vote on that amendment.

    During consideration of the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act 
of 1975 (H.R. 7014) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 17, 
1975,(7) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 28904, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) When the Committee rose on Friday, 
    August 1, 1975, all time for debate on title III of the committee 
    amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute and all amendments thereto had expired and there 
    was pending the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Brown) to title III on which a recorded vote had been requested by 
    the gentleman from Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the Clerk will again read the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out sections 
        301, 302, 303.
            Renumber the succeeding sections of title III accordingly. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . . The parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman is, Would it be in order at this point while the vote is 
    pending to ask unanimous consent of the House that 2 minutes may be 
    granted on either side of the aisle for a discussion at this point 
    of the pending vote?
        The Chairman: Such a request would be in order only if the 
    gentleman first withdrew his request for a recorded vote. . . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, then I ask unanimous consent 
    to withdraw my request for a recorded vote at this point.
        The Chairman: That does not require unanimous consent. The 
    gentleman withdraws his request for a recorded vote.
        Does the gentleman now ask unanimous consent for debate time? . 
    . .
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 1 
    minute be granted to the Democratic side in the hands of the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 1 minute to the 
    Republican side to be in the hands of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Brown).
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

Consideration of Resolution Inviting Non-members To Address House

Sec. 10.44 The Speaker has declined to recognize Members proposing the 
    unanimous-consent consideration of res

[[Page 9724]]

    olutions inviting non-members to address the House.

    On Feb. 23, 1943,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
declined to recognize Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, to request 
unanimous consent for the consideration of a resolution inviting 
Captain Eddie Rickenbacker to address a joint session of Congress. The 
Speaker stated that in any event the resolution would have to be 
referred to the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 89 Cong. Rec. 1212, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 11, 1943,(10) Speaker Rayburn stated that he 
would decline to recognize a Member to ask unanimous consent for the 
consideration of a resolution inviting certain Senators to address the 
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 8197.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . The Chair does not intend to recognize a 
    Member to ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of a 
    resolution inviting Senators to address the House in open or 
    executive session, because the Chair thinks that is tantamount to 
    an amendment to the rules of the House and, therefore, is a matter 
    for the House to determine. If resolutions like that are 
    introduced, they will be sent to the proper committee.
        Mr. Rankin: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Of course, the Speaker has a right to refuse to 
    recognize me for that purpose, but I think if the Speaker will 
    investigate the rules he will find that we have a right to invite 
    those men to come here to address the Members in the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already investigated that and finds 
    it otherwise. Members of the Senate have the privilege of the 
    floor, but they do not have the privilege of addressing the House 
    of Representatives.

Request That Committee Be Permitted To Sit (Under Former Practice)

Sec. 10.45 Pursuant to the Speaker's policy announced in the 98th 
    Congress in regard to recognition for requests that committees and 
    subcommittees be permitted to sit during the five-minute rule, the 
    Speaker Pro Tempore indicated on a day when no rollcall votes were 
    scheduled, that such a request (except as to hearings) should be 
    withheld until the next day, when Members had been advised there 
    could be rollcall votes.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on May 23, 
1983:(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 13365, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman Y.] Mineta [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous

[[Page 9725]]

    consent that the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of 
    the Committee on Public Works and Transportation and the Committee 
    on Public Works and Transportation have permission to sit during 
    the 5-minute rule in the House on Wednesday, May 25, 1983.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Chair will advise 
    the gentleman that under the Speaker's statement he will have to 
    make that request tomorrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The provision prohibiting committees from 
sitting during proceedings under the five-minute rule was stricken by 
H. Res. 5, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1993. The prohibition of Rule 
XI, clause 2(i), was reinstated in modified form in the 104th Congress 
and also applies to committee meetings during joint sessions and joint 
meetings. House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1995).

Request To Withdraw Disorderly Words

Sec. 10.46 Although a Member whose words have been taken down as 
    disorderly must take his seat, the Speaker may recognize him for a 
    unanimous-consent request to withdraw the words in question.

    On June 12, 1947,(13) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California, 
referred in debate to the Committee on Un-American Activities as the 
``Un-American Committee.'' Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, demanded 
that those words be taken down and Mr. Holifield attempted to deliver 
further remarks. Mr. Rankin objected that ``the gentleman cannot speak 
until this matter is disposed of.'' Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, responded ``the gentleman is correct, unless he (Mr. 
Holifield) makes a unanimous-consent request.'' When Mr. Rankin 
asserted that a Member whose words were being taken down could make no 
unanimous-consent request under the rules, the Speaker declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair can always recognize anyone to propound a unanimous-
    consent request. Of course, it would be within the province of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi to object, but the Chair can put 
    unanimous-consent requests at any time.

Request To Be Allowed To Proceed for One Minute Pending Demand That 
    Another Member's Words Be Taken Down

Sec. 10.47 The Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request 
    that a Member be allowed to proceed for one minute pending a demand 
    that another Member's words be taken down.

[[Page 9726]]

    On Jan. 21, 1964,(14) while the House was in the 
Committee of the Whole, certain words used in debate by a Member were 
demanded to be taken down and reported to the House. Before the 
Committee rose, Mr. James Roosevelt, of California, asked unanimous 
consent to proceed for one minute. Chairman William S. Moorhead, of 
Pennsylvania, refused to entertain the request.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 756, 757, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Pending a demand to take down words, no debate is in order and 
        recognition may not be sought (except to permit the Member 
        called to order to withdraw the disorderly words by unanimous 
        consent). See Sec. Sec. 48 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker Announced Policy for Recognition for One-minute and Special-
    order Speeches

Sec. 10.48 The Speaker, in announcing a new policy for recognition for 
    one-minute speeches and for special-order requests indicated that 
    he would: (1) alternate recognition between majority and minority 
    Members in the order in which they seek 
    recognition; (2) recognize 
    Members for special-order speeches first who want to address the 
    House for five minutes or less, alternating between majority and 
    minority Members, otherwise in the order in which permission was 
    granted; and (3) then recognize Members who wish to address the 
    House for longer than five minutes and up to one hour, alternating 
    between majority and 
    minority Members in the order in which permission was granted by 
    the House.

    On Aug. 8, 1984,(16) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 130 Cong. Rec. 22963, 98th Cong. 2d Sess. Recognition for one-
        minute speeches is discussed in Sec. Sec. 10.48-10.63, infra; 
        for special orders in Sec. Sec. 10.64-10.78, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: After consultation with and concurrence by the 
    minority leader, the Chair announces that he will institute a new 
    policy of recognition for ``1-minute'' speeches and for special 
    order requests. Beginning September 5, the Chair will alternate 
    recognition for 1-minute speeches between majority and minority 
    Members, in the order in which they seek recognition in the well 
    under present practice from the Chair's right to the Chair's left, 
    with possible exceptions for Members of the leadership and Members 
    having business requests. The Chair, of course, reserves the right 
    to limit 1-minute speeches to a certain period of time or to a 
    special place in the pro

[[Page 9727]]

    gram on any given day, with notice to the leadership.
        With respect to recognition for ``special-order speeches'' at 
    the end of legislative business of the day, the Chair will 
    recognize first those Members who wish to address the House for 5 
    minutes or less, alternating between majority and minority members, 
    otherwise in the order in which those permissions were granted by 
    the House. Thereafter, the Chair will recognize those Members who 
    wish to address the House for longer than 5 minutes up to 1 hour, 
    alternating between majority and minority members in the order in 
    which those permissions were granted by the House.
        Thus all Members can continue to obtain permissions to address 
    the House in the same ways as are presently utilized, either by 
    requests made by the acting majority and minority leaders at the 
    end of the day through their respective Cloak Rooms or by 
    individual requests agreed to on the floor for that day or for a 
    future day. For the request to be entertained, it should state 
    ``permission to address the House at the conclusion of legislative 
    business, consistent with the Speaker's announced policy of 
    recognition''. Thus, Members should be on notice that a special 
    order for more than 5 minutes, although agreed to at a prior time, 
    may be preceded by a series of special orders of 5 minutes or less, 
    or by a longer special order of a Member of the other party.
        Further refinements of this policy based upon experience may be 
    announced by the Chair in the future after consultation with the 
    minority leader.

    The Speaker implemented the above stated policy for the first time 
on Sept. 5, 1984: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 24289, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: This is the day on which a new precedent will be 
    established. We will call one Member from the majority side on the 
    1-minute speeches and then one Member from the Republican side, as 
    the Chair so notified the House at an earlier date.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton).

    Parliamentarian's Note: An announcement that the above policies 
concerning recognition for one-minute and special-order speeches would 
be continued in the 100th Congress was made by the Chair on Jan. 6, 
1987.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 133 Cong. Rec. 21, 22, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One-minute Speeches--Chair Announced Procedure

Sec. 10.49 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,(19) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 1163, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 9728]]

                        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 
    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.

--Chair Endeavors To Be Nonpartisan

Sec. 10.50 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.

--Recognition Is Within Discretion of Chair

Sec. 10.51 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within

[[Page 9729]]

    the discretion of the Speaker who may continue to recognize Members 
    appearing in the well on the majority side prior to recognizing 
    minority Members (although at that time the Speaker customarily 
    recognized first those Members who were in the Chamber at the 
    beginning of the daily session and then those arriving later).

    During the period for one-minute speeches in the House on Mar. 18, 
1981,(2) Speaker Pro Tempore George E. Danielson, of 
California, in responding to a parliamentary inquiry, reiterated the 
rule that recognition was within the discretion of the Speaker. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 127 Cong. Rec. 4617-19, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Frank asked and was given permission to address the House 
    for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    American administration in El Salvador makes little sense either 
    politically or geopolitically. . . .
        (Mr. Markey asked and was given permission to address the House 
    for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, over 
    13,000 deaths have been reported in the past 15 months in El 
    Salvador, a country just larger than my own State of Massachusetts. 
    A majority of these deaths have been attributed to the rightist 
    government in power since 1979. . . .
        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Kramer [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Are we still proceeding under the normal rules for 1-minute 
    speeches?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from Colorado that recognition at this time is within the total 
    discretion of the Speaker.
        The House is proceeding under the 1-minute practice.
        The gentleman will be recognized.
        The Chair assures the gentleman that he will be recognized. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Lawrence J.] DeNardis [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    positioned myself here 55 minutes ago to speak on an education and 
    labor matter, and I want to say, for the record, that my associates 
    on the minority side of the aisle, who were here promptly at 3 
    o'clock, have had to wait, I would say unnecessarily and unfairly 
    long, to have our opportunity to speak.

Sec. 10.52 URecognition Uof UMembers for ``one-minute speeches'' prior 
    to legislative business is within the discretion of the Speaker, 
    who may announce his intention to alternate recognition between 
    majority and minority Members for one hour before recognizing a 
    Member to call 
    up scheduled legislative business.

[[Page 9730]]

    On June 26, 1981,(3) Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, made the following statement in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 127 Cong. Rec. 14351, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to make the following 
    announcement:

        There are a considerable number of requests for 1-minute 
    speeches. Following the doctrine of fairness, the Chair will 
    recognize one Member from the Democratic side and then one from the 
    Republican side, and at the hour of 11 o'clock will recognize the 
    chairman of the Budget Committee to offer a motion to resolve into 
    the Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 10.53 While at one time the Chair normally conferred recognition 
    from his right to his left upon those Members who are standing in 
    the well when the time for one-minute speeches prior to legislative 
    business begins, the order of recognition is within the discretion 
    of the Chair who may continue to recognize majority Members 
    arriving at a later time before recognizing minority Members.

    On Apr. 20, 1978,(4) Speaker Pro Tempore James C. 
Wright, Jr., of Texas, responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding 
the order of recognition for one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 10987, 10988, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland will state 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has been observing this 
    House for about 25 years now in various capacities and was under 
    the impression that the Speaker's normal custom was to recognize 
    Members for 1-minute speeches from his right to left allowing those 
    Members who were there from the beginning to speak. This morning we 
    have seen a parade of Members on the majority side of the aisle 
    fill up the seats of Members who have already taken their 1-minute 
    speeches while several other Members on the minority side of the 
    aisle have been sitting here for more than an hour. I just wondered 
    if that is not still the custom of the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is advised that recognition 
    lies within the discretion of the Chair. This Member has observed 
    the Chair, I think without exception, recognizing from his right 
    side to his left. The Chair has no control of the number of Members 
    who might seek recognition. But the Chair is seeking to protect the 
    rights of all Members of the House and the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) may be assured that the rights of all Members will be 
    protected.

Sec. 10.54 While the Chair strives for fairness in recognizing Members 
    for one-minute

[[Page 9731]]

    speeches prior to legislative business and has recognized minority 
    Members prior to later arriving majority Members, the order of 
    recognition for one-minute speeches is in the discretion of the 
    Chair.

    On June 28, 1983,(5) Speaker Pro Tempore George E. 
Brown, Jr., of California, responded to a parliamentary inquiry of Mr. 
Gerald B. Solomon, of New York, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 129 Cong. Rec. 17671, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I am just concerned with fairness. We 
    have heard a lot about it on the floor here this morning, but I 
    understand it is the Speaker's policy to recognize those Members 
    who wish to address the House for 1 minute in the order in which 
    they came.
        We naturally give the Democrats first preference, but it seems 
    in recent days we see Members sitting here, like myself, for an 
    hour and 10 minutes now and then we have other Members coming in on 
    the Democratic side in the last 5 minutes. I would hope that the 
    Speaker would continue his policy of once the Democrats have been 
    recognized in the order in which they came, follow through with the 
    Republicans in the act of fairness and then go back to those who 
    came in later.
        Is that the policy of the Chair, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is in the discretion of the Chair 
    to recognize Members as he sees fit; however, the Chair invariably 
    seeks to be fair in his procedures.

Sec. 10.55 The order of recognition for one-minute speeches prior to 
    legislative business is within the discretion of the Chair and is 
    not subject to challenge on a point of order.

    On Nov. 15, 1983,(6) during the time for one-minute 
speeches in the House, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 32657, 32658, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mickey] Edwards of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order.
        I noticed in the recognition of Members as they sat around the 
    room here to be recognized for 1-minute speeches that one Member 
    was just recognized who had not been sitting in order to 
    participate.
        I would inquire of the Speaker if it is his intention now to 
    continue to recognize the Republican Members before accepting any 
    more Democrats who are not currently sitting to be recognized.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(7) The Chair would state 
    that this is not really a point of order. Recognition is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, and the Chair is attempting to be fair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It was the Chair's present intention to recognize a minority 
    Member gen

[[Page 9732]]

    tleman from Ohio, who stands seeking recognition at this time. This 
    is what the Chair intends to do.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Various protocols have been enunciated 
by Speakers regarding the order 
of one-minute speech recognition. See Sec. 10.48, supra.

Sec. 10.56 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion 
    of the Chair, who may decline recognition until a later time in the 
    legislative day.

    On May 16, 1984,(8) pursuant to clause 5 of Rule I, the 
Speaker postponed the vote on his approval of the Journal until a time 
certain that day, in order to 
permit a period of one-minute speeches and then a quorum call or record 
vote on the Journal prior to declaring a recess for a joint meeting. 
Questions arose during the proceedings as to whether one-minute 
speeches would be resumed after the recess:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 130 Cong. Rec. 12481, 12483, 12484, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(9) The Chair has examined the Journal 
    of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House his 
    approval thereof. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vin] Weber [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 
    1, rule I, I demand a vote on the Speaker's approval of the 
    Journal.
        The Speaker: The Chair intends to have a quorum call before the 
    President of Mexico comes, at about 10:25.
        Does the gentleman withhold his motion?
        Mr. Weber: No, I will not, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The question is on the Chair's approval of the 
    Journal.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Weber: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
    a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
    is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will postpone the vote on the Journal 
    until 10:25 a.m. . . .
        The Chair will recognize 1-minute speeches.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright). . . 
    .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(10) The Chair will announce 
    that it intends to take one more Member on the Democratic side, and 
    then, because the House intends to vote at 10:25, the Chair will 
    move to the Republican side. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Pat Williams (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, does this 
    mean that when we come back after we have received the President of 
    Mexico, we will resume 1-minutes?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is a possibility.
        Mr. Lungren: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is really not an answer to 
    my question. Are we or are we not going to do it? Because we have 
    had 20 minutes of Democratic one minutes, and per

[[Page 9733]]

    haps 4 minutes of Republican 1-minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will answer the gentleman 
    that that is a possibility because it will be up to the judgment of 
    the Speaker. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    gentleman in the chair is the Speaker at this point. What we need 
    is a ruling as to whether or not the minority side is going to be 
    accorded the right to 1-minutes, since many of us have been sitting 
    here after, or before members of the majority side were recognized. 
    Now, it seems to us that we deserve our opportunity to have our 1-
    minutes considered here, too.
        Is the Chair going to allow 1-minutes or not?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will again tell the 
    gentleman of the minority that the decision as to 
    the earlier gentleman's request as to whether or not 1-minutes will 
    proceed immediately after the recess, the Chair announces that 
    decision will be the Speaker's.
        The Chair will also announce that the Republican side of the 
    aisle, as well as the Democratic side, will have an opportunity for 
    1-minutes sometime during the course of the day. . . .
        Mr. Weber: Mr. Speaker, does the Chair mean that the 
    Republicans will be given the opportunity to do the 1-minutes prior 
    to the beginning of legislative business?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No, some time during the day.
        Mr. Weber: Perhaps at the end of legislative business?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That will be a decision for the 
    Speaker.

Sec. 10.57 Recognition is within the discretion of the Chair, who may 
    deny a Member recognition to speak under the ``one-minute rule'' in 
    order to uphold order and decorum in the House as required under 
    clause 2 of Rule I; thus, the Speaker inquired of a Member in the 
    well seeking recognition, as to his purpose in utilizing an object 
    for demonstration in debate, and then denied that Member 
    recognition pursuant to his authority under clause 2 of Rule XIV, 
    when he determined that the object might subject the House to 
    ridicule.

    On Aug. 27, 1980,(11) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 126 Cong. Rec. 23456, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (12) The Chair would ask the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) what he intends to do with the 
    doll. The Chair is not going to allow the Congress to be held up to 
    ridicule and will object to any such exhibit being used in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, if I may 
    respond, I simply want to introduce this duck as a symbol of the 
    lameduck session that I want to speak to.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion the Member would be 
    holding

[[Page 9734]]

    the House up to ridicule and would ask the gentleman to make the 
    speech without utilizing the apparatus or the doll or anything of 
    that nature.
        Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not the intention.
        The Speaker: That is the way the Chair feels about it and the 
    Chair so rules.
        (Mr. Shuster asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

    Parliamentarian's Note: The original transcript shows that the 
Speaker first inquired as to Mr. Shuster's purpose and then denied him 
recognition, and that Mr. Shuster was then recognized for one minute. 
Thus, the Speaker was exercising his power of recognition, and was not 
unilaterally preventing the use of a demonstration during debate, which 
would be a matter to be determined by a vote of the House, under Rule 
XXX.

--Chair May Recognize After Legislative Business

Sec. 10.58 The elected Speaker Pro Tempore (the Majority Leader) 
    reiterated his policy announced on the previous day to refuse to 
    entertain unanimous-consent requests to address the House for 
    one minute before legislative business because of the press of 
    legislative business during the remainder of the week, but stated 
    that any policy for the remainder of the session with respect to 
    one-minute speeches would be a matter for the Speaker to determine.

    During the proceedings of the House on July 25, 
1980,(13) the Speaker Pro Tempore made the following 
statement regarding recognition for one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 19762-64, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) . . . As the Chair 
    announced yesterday, requests to address the House for 1 minute 
    will be entertained at the conclusion of the legislative business 
    today, rather than at the beginning. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair believes there is genuine value in the 1-minute rule 
    in the exercise of free expression . . . . For all its value, 
    however, the Chair does not believe that the 1-minute rule must 
    necessarily precede, nor be permitted to postpone, the business of 
    the House. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, yesterday the gentleman from Maryland heard the 
    Chair answer a question regarding 1-minute speeches. The gentleman 
    from Maryland asked the Chair whether or not limits on such 
    speeches is to be a policy to be followed for the remainder of the 
    session, and the Chair, as recorded

[[Page 9735]]

    on page H6404, said that the Chair was not announcing a policy for 
    the remainder of the session, but only for Thursday and Friday.
        Do I take the Chair's announcement this morning to mean that 
    this will be the policy for the remainder of this session?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; as the Chair stated yesterday in 
    response to a question from the gentleman from Maryland, the 
    present occupant of the chair is not in a position to announce a 
    policy for the remainder of the session, and so stated.
        The policy for the remainder of the session would be more 
    appropriately determined and stated by Speaker O'Neill. At this 
    present time, that is all the Chair has to say, or all that he 
    properly should or could say.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the above instance, a resolution 
directing that the Speaker ``exercise his prerogative and reinstitute 
the custom of allowing one-minute speeches at the beginning of the 
session'' was held not to raise a question of the privileges of the 
House.(15) In general, it is not in order to raise as a 
question of the privileges of the House a proposition to amend or 
interpret the rules of the House or to impinge on the Chair's power of 
recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 19762, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., July 25, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.59 On occasion the Speaker has announced his intention to 
    recognize for one-minute speeches after completion of the first 
    item of legislative business, rather than at the beginning of the 
    day.

    On Nov. 10, 1983,(16) after putting the question on 
approval of the Journal, the Speaker made an announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 32097, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (17) The question now is on the 
    approval of the Journal. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will announce that following the vote we will go 
    directly to consideration of the continuing resolution. Following 
    the completion of the continuing resolution, we will then take the 
    1-minute addresses for the day.

Sec. 10.60 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion 
    of the Speaker; and when the House has a heavy legislative 
    schedule, he sometimes refuses to recognize Members for that 
    purpose until the completion of legislative business.

    On July 24, 1980,(18) Speaker Pro Tempore James C. 
Wright, Jr., of Texas, made an announcement regarding one-minute 
speeches, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 19386, 19387, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair desires to announce that in 
    view

[[Page 9736]]

    of the need to complete the legislative schedule, which has been 
    long delayed, the Chair will recognize Members at this time only 
    for unanimous-consent requests to revise and extend their remarks 
    and not for 1-minute speeches.
        Members will be recognized for 1-minute speeches at the 
    conclusion of the legislative business today.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, it has, of course, been traditional in 
    the House to allow 1-minute speeches at the discretion of the 
    Chair, as the Chair has just indicated.
        Is this denial of 1-minute speeches to be the policy for the 
    remainder of the session, or is it just for today?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot and would not attempt 
    to set a policy for the remainder of the session. For the remainder 
    of this week, today and tomorrow, the Chair desires to complete the 
    legislative program that is scheduled for this week and to allow 
    Members to leave at 3 o'clock tomorrow.

    Subsequently, a Member took the floor for a special-order speech to 
criticize the decision of the Speaker Pro Tempore to refuse to 
recognize for one-minute speeches prior to legislative business on that 
day: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 19445, 19446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House, 
    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is recognized for 60 
    minutes.
        (Mr. Bauman asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I take this time to observe with 
    sorrow the events that occurred earlier today. I did not wish to 
    explore them at length during the 1-minute speech which I was 
    finally permitted, but I do think they deserve some comment. I will 
    try to confine myself to the 1-hour the House permits me under 
    special order.
        I happen to believe that the conduct of the President's 
    brother, Billy Carter, has raised valid questions that need to be 
    answered. . . .
        So I would just suggest that we all re-examine our position and 
    only put aside the traditions of the House and the free speech of 
    Members if it is absolutely necessary for good reason.

--Second Request Not Entertained

Sec. 10.61 Under the Speaker's power of recognition as traditionally 
    exercised prior to legislative business, a Member may be recognized 
    for 
    a ``one-minute speech'' only once, and a second unanimous-consent 
    request on that day will not be entertained.

    On May 1, 1985,(20) the following exchange occurred in 
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 131 Cong. Rec. 9995, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 9737]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(1) For what purpose does 
    the gentleman from New York rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise 
    and extend my remarks.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, am I not correct that, having given 
    one 1-minute speech, the gentleman is not entitled to a second 1-
    minute speech today?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is the custom, if the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Downey) has had a 1-minute speech. . . .
        (Mr. [Byron L.] Dorgan of North Dakota asked and was given 
    permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield 
    to me?
        Mr. Dorgan of North Dakota: I yield to the gentleman from New 
    York.

--On Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 10.62 Although the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday should 
    precede unanimous-consent requests for the conduct of other 
    business, the Speaker has on occasion recognized Members by 
    unanimous consent for one-minute speeches prior to the call of 
    committees.

    While the precedents(2) indicate that the call of 
committees should ordinarily precede unanimous-consent requests for the 
conduct of other business, the Speaker may make exceptions. Thus, on 
Mar. 21, 1984,(3) the Speaker recognized a Member for a 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 882-888.
 3. 130 Cong. Rec. 6187, 6188, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I ask unanimous 
    consent to proceed for 1 minute, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker:(4) What has the gentleman got in his 
    hand?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, this is a demonstration of what I 
    have. I am not certain I am going to be able to use it under the 
    rules.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman does not think so, why is he 
    trying?
        Mr. Walker: I will explain that in my speech, but I certainly 
    would not want to violate the rules.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the Speaker recognizes the 
    gentleman and will be watching carefully.
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Speaker, and I know that the Speaker 
    always watches very carefully everything that I do. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, we have to be amused by an article in this 
    morning's Washington Post . . . .

[[Page 9738]]

        The Speaker: This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call 
    the committees.
        The Clerk called the committees.

--Recognition During Reading of Journal

Sec. 10.63 A Member by unanimous consent secured recognition during the 
    reading of the Journal.

    On Apr. 9, 1964,(5) during the reading of the Journal, 
Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, raised a parliamentary inquiry 
whether there was any method by which he could be recognized for one 
minute. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded that 
unanimous consent could be granted for such recognition, and the House 
granted unanimous consent for the purpose of that recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 7356, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 10.64 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:(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 9739]]

    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:(7) Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    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 legislative business is scheduled, the Chair 
    announces 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

[[Page 9740]]

    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.(8) On May 12, 1995, 
the House extended the agreement by unanimous consent, but changed the 
Tuesday morning hour to 9 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See the proceedings of May 23, 1994; June 10, 1994; Jan. 4, 1995; 
        Feb. 16, 1995; and May 12, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings of May 12, 1995, were as follows:

        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 than the time 
    otherwise established by order of the House rather than 90 minutes 
    earlier; and the time for such debates 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 guide

[[Page 9741]]

lines 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.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See the procedures agreed to in meetings of the leadership for 
        special orders, Oxford debates, and morning hours (Feb. 17, 
        1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition for Special-order Speeches--Speaker's Guidelines

Sec. 10.65 Pursuant to the Speaker's guidelines of Aug. 8, 1984, 
    recognition for special-order speeches of five minutes occurred in 
    the order in which they were requested, alternating between 
    majority and minority Members with each Member controlling his own 
    time (in the absence 
    of unanimous consent to permit recognition out of that order).

    On Oct. 21, 1985,(10) during the period designated for 
special-order speeches, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry 
regarding the order of recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 131 Cong. Rec. 28129, 28130, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Under a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. [Eldon D.] Rudd) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Glenn English (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George W.] Gekas [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rudd), the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and myself are all going 
    to engage in the same discussion, is it possible to amalgamate the 
    special orders entered into for the three of us into one block of 
    time and allow us to yield back and forth so that we can complete a 
    three-way dialog on it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will call the Members' names 
    in the order they appear here. No other Members are seeking special 
    orders today. We will call Members' names in order. . . .
        Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from North 
    Carolina (Mr. [Howard] Coble) is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .

[[Page 9742]]

        Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gekas: Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman 
    from Arizona (Mr. Rudd), and I would only ask that he give me a 
    chance to say something in response to the gentleman who is in the 
    well.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In this case, the Chair observed that 
Representative Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, a Democrat, was listed 
after Representative Coble, but was not present, and so the three 
Republican Members (Mr. Rudd, Mr. Coble, and Mr. Gekas) would be 
recognized in sequence, each to control his own time, and unanimous 
consent was not required to permit Mr. Gekas to be recognized ahead of 
Mr. Udall.

--Discretion of Speaker

Sec. 10.66 The Speaker may not be compelled by a motion under Rule XXV 
    to recognize Members for scheduled 
    ``special orders'' immediately upon completion of scheduled 
    legislative business, but rather may continue to exercise his power 
    of recognition under Rule XIV clause 2 to recognize other Members 
    for unanimous-consent requests and permissible motions; thus, the 
    Speaker has declined to recognize a Member who sought to invoke 
    Rule XXV to interfere with the Speaker's power of recognition.

    Rule XXV, which provides that ``questions as to the priority of 
business shall be decided by a majority without debate,'' merely 
precludes debate on motions to go into Committee of the Whole, on 
questions of consideration, and on appeals from the Chair's decisions 
on priority of business, and should not be utilized to permit a motion 
directing the Speaker to recognize Members in a certain order or to 
otherwise establish an order of business. Thus, for example, on July 
31, 1975,(12) the Speaker (13) refused to 
recognize a Member who sought to make a motion to direct recognition of 
Members for special orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 26249, 26251, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point of order to this 
    effect: Under the new rules of the House, is it not true that once 
    the House has proceeded to the closing business of the day, 
    granting requests for absences and special orders, that it is no 
    longer

[[Page 9743]]

    in order to make a point of order that a quorum is not present?
        The Speaker: The Chair has not started to recognize Members for 
    special orders yet. All the business on the Chair's desk has been 
    completed. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    rules preclude a quorum at this point because personal requests 
    have already been read from the desk. A leave of absence was 
    granted to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague).
        Under the new rules, Mr. Speaker, a quorum does not lie after 
    this point of business in the day.
        The Speaker: If the Chair understands the gentleman's point of 
    order, it relates to the fact, which is a new rule, not the rule we 
    used to follow. The rule is that once a special order has started, 
    the Member who has the special order and is speaking cannot be 
    taken off his feet by a point of order of no quorum. However, there 
    is nothing in the rules of which the Chair is aware that requires 
    the Chair to begin to call a special order at any particular time.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move under rule XXV that the House 
    proceed to recognize the Members previously ordered to have special 
    orders today, and on that I ask for a rollcall vote.
        Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    137, nays 202, not voting 95, as follows: . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, under rule XXV, I again renew my 
    motion that the Chair proceed to the recognition of other Members 
    who have previously been granted special orders for today.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Danielson).
        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise 
    and extend my remarks.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion pending.
        Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House do now adjourn.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    142, nays 205, not voting 87, as follows: . . . .

Sec. 10.67 The Speaker is not 
    required to recognize Members for scheduled ``special-order'' 
    speeches immediately 
    upon completion of legislative business but may 
    continue to recognize other Members for unanimous-con

[[Page 9744]]

    sent requests and permissible motions.

    On July 31, 1975,(14) the proposition stated above was 
demonstrated in the House as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 26243-47, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House do now adjourn.

        The Speaker: (15) The motion is not in order since 
    we just had a vote on a similar motion and there has been no 
    intervening business or debate. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will take unanimous-consent requests.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House recess subject to the call of the Chair.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that is not 
    a privileged motion. The Chair cannot entertain that motion at this 
    time.
        Mr. [William L.] Armstrong [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is 
    will the Chair state what is the pending business before the House?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state there is no pending business. 
    . . .
        Mr. Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, under a previous order of the House 
    I have been granted a special order for 60 minutes. I ask to be 
    recognized at this time for that purpose.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Colorado does not have the 
    first special order.
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    believe I have the first special order, and I ask to be recognized.
        The Speaker: The Chair is not going to recognize any special 
    order at this time, and the Chair has that authority. . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Speaker, 
    is it not correct to say that if a unanimous-consent request to 
    allow the Committee on Rules until midnight to file a report on the 
    Turkish aid issue now being debated by the other body, was granted, 
    that the House could then adjourn and at the same time work its 
    will because then, if the Committee on Rules files a report, it 
    could be considered then under the rules of the House, and if they 
    did not file a report, the issue would be moot?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that that is an 
    accurate statement of the situation, as the Chair understands it. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, there have 
    been some remarks made that the House would be denied its will and 
    there would be no way to consider the matter in the event the other 
    body agreed to some legislation tonight. Am I correct in the 
    proposition that if a bill is passed by the other body tonight, 
    there is a procedure under the rules whereby the matter could be 
    considered tomorrow? . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will state this. The regular rule is 
    that a report from the Rules Committee has to go over 1 day or it 
    takes a two-thirds vote for consideration on the day reported. The 
    other way is that a unanimous-consent request can be made, and if 
    the Committee on Rules can file it by

[[Page 9745]]

    10 o'clock tomorrow, and the House adjourns tonight, then it will 
    take a majority vote for consideration tomorrow after the House 
    meets, just as it always does on a subsequent legislative day.

--Previous Order of House: Veterans Day Speeches

Sec. 10.68 After a recess of approximately six hours and eleven 
    minutes, the Speaker called the House to order, and under a 
    previous order of the House, recognized a majority and minority 
    member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for special-or-der 
    speeches in commemora-tion of Veterans Day.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Nov. 11, 
1983:(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 32289, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
    Speaker at 6 o'clock p.m.

                      IN COMMEMORATION OF VETERANS DAY

        The Speaker: (17) Under a previous order of the 
    House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes; and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Hammerschmidt) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Edwards).

--Before or After Legislative Business

Sec. 10.69 Once special orders have begun, it is customary not to 
    resume legislative business, however this custom is not binding on 
    the House and the Speaker has the authority to recognize for 
    further business; thus, on occasion the Speaker has announced that 
    he would begin to call the special orders, which action would not 
    prejudice calling up of further legislative business later that 
    day.

    On Aug. 1, 1975,(18) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 26952-54, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . The normal procedure, as the Members know, 
    special orders are called when the legislative business has ended. 
    We have not called special orders yet.
        We have at least three bills, to my knowledge, that may come 
    over here from the Senate.
        The Chair would like to take the special orders and reserve the 
    authority to call up these bills at a later time. . . .

                        ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

        The Speaker: Without prejudice to calling up other legislative 
    business

[[Page 9746]]

    which might come over to the House from the Senate, the Chair will 
    call the special orders at this time.

Sec. 10.70 The Speaker announced that he was awaiting a message from 
    the Senate, and that he would recognize for requests and special 
    orders while reserving the right to call up the Senate message on 
    its arrival.

    On Nov. 20, 1975,(19) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 37301, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The House is waiting for a message from the Senate 
    but the Chair will take requests from the acting floor leaders at 
    this time, reserving the right to call up the message whenever it 
    gets here.

Sec. 10.71 The Chair announced, having consulted with both sides of the 
    aisle, that he would entertain one or more special-order speeches 
    previously granted for the day, not necessarily in the order in 
    which granted, with the understanding that further legislative 
    business scheduled for the day, and possible rollcall votes, would 
    follow such speeches, and that other special-order speeches might 
    follow all legislative business.

    On Oct. 4, 1984,(20) the Chair made an announcement 
regarding proceedings in the House for the remainder of the day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 30015, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(1) The Chair desires to 
    make an announcement. After consultation with both sides of the 
    aisle, the Chair will entertain one or more special order speeches 
    previously granted at this time, not necessarily in the order in 
    which granted, with the understanding that further legislative 
    business scheduled for the day, and possible rollcall votes, will 
    follow those speeches for which the Chair recognizes. Other special 
    orders may follow all legislative business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Theodore S. Weiss (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Entertaining Unanimous-consent Request, Concerning Legislative 
    Business, During Special Orders

Sec. 10.72 While the Chair will not ordinarily entertain unanimous-
    consent requests involving legislative business during ``special-
    order speeches'' when no further legislative business is scheduled, 
    he may entertain a request for late filing of a report when assured 
    that the minority has no objection to the request or to its being 
    made during special orders.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Nov. 21,

[[Page 9747]]

1985,(2) during the period designated for special-order 
speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 131 Cong. Rec. 32946, 32947, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Under a previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is recognized 
    for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Nelson [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, due to official 
    business, I was unable to be present and voting for rollcall Nos. 
    414 through 416 on November 20, 1985. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House, 
    the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Weaver) is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: . . . Mr. Speaker, according to 
    estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, my bill will 
    save the American taxpayers $30 billion over the next 5 years. . . 
    .
        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have 
    until midnight tonight to file a report on a joint resolution 
    making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1986.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the Chair understand that this 
    has been cleared with the other side?
        Mr. Natcher: This has been cleared, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky?
        There was no objection.

--Committee on Rules Filing Privileged Report During Special Orders

Sec. 10.73 The Committee on Rules has on occasion filed a privileged 
    report during special-order speeches, unanimous consent not being 
    required.

    Although it is true that legislative business generally does not 
take place after special-order speeches have begun, the practice has 
not been considered as prohibiting the filing of special rules. Thus, 
on Nov. 4, 1983,(4) a privileged report from that committee 
was submitted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See 129 Cong. Rec. 30954, 30956, 30957, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tony P.] Hall of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, 
    submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 98-487) on the resolution 
    (H. Res. 362) providing for the consideration of the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 403) making further continuing appropriations 
    for the fiscal year 1984, which was referred to the House Calendar 
    and ordered to be printed.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House, 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) is recognized for 60 
    minutes.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, it has 
    been generally accepted in the House that we operate under certain 
    comity principles that permits us to operate in an

[[Page 9748]]

    orderly fashion. We try around here to do certain things that move 
    the House forward, and on some irregular occasions there have been, 
    and I have been a part of many of those, attempts to slow down the 
    procedures of the House simply by utilizing the rules. . . .
        Well, we do have a standing commitment in the House that we 
    will conduct no substantive business after special orders have been 
    arrived at. I would say to the gentleman it was his staff who 
    reminded me of that last winter when I stood on the floor and 
    protected just that procedure here late one evening. I think it was 
    around 1 o'clock in the morning, as a matter of fact. That is 
    precisely what this gentleman is referring to.
        The filing of the rule, which is a controversial rule, is in my 
    mind a piece of business that violates that comity procedure . . . 
    .
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: That would have been 
    substantive business of a type that manifestly is not considered to 
    be in order generally after you have begun special orders because 
    the unanimous consent by which a special order is granted is 
    usually predicated upon the request that upon completion of all 
    business, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, or wherever, might be 
    permitted to address the House for 60 minutes, or for however long.
        But I think what the gentleman may not be aware of is that the 
    filing of rules is a matter separate and apart from the taking up 
    of legislative business. The filing of rules has occurred on 
    numerous occasions after special orders have begun.

--Recognition Before or After Recess

Sec. 10.74 Where legislative business has been completed prior to the 
    announced time for a recess, the Speaker has in his discretion 
    recognized some Members for special-order speeches until the 
    declaration of a recess and then recognized other Members for 
    special orders following the recess (for a joint session to receive 
    a message from the President).

    On Jan. 25, 1984,(5) the Speaker responded to several 
parliamentary inquiries regarding special-order speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 130 Cong. Rec. 372, 373, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House, 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) is recognized for 60 
    minutes.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Do not the special orders normally come at the end 
    of the legislative day, and would we not be entitled to a special 
    order at the end of the legislative day?
        The Speaker: Of course, if the gentleman wants the time, some 
    Member of his party can speak up for him; no problem. We are not 
    doing anything that is unusual.
        Does the gentleman desire his time?
        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry at this point. . . .

[[Page 9749]]

        It is my understanding the Speaker announced when he took the 
    chair this morning that we have to, for security reasons, leave no 
    later than 5 o'clock today.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Lungren: And since my special order is for an hour, I would 
    like to have that hour and not interfere with the sweep of the 
    House. I would be here immediately after the President's speech.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman want 20 minutes now and the 
    remainder later on this evening?
        Mr. Lungren: That is a very, very nice suggestion on the part 
    of the Speaker, but I would like to collect my thoughts after the 
    President's speech.
        The Speaker: The Chair will be happy to grant the gentleman's 
    request.
        Mr. Lungren: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker: Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) is recognized for 60 minutes.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, would I also be entitled to collect my 
    thoughts so that I might utilize the time later on this evening? It 
    may take me a little time.
        The Speaker: Well, if that is the gentleman's request, I would 
    be happy to grant it.
        Mr. Walker: I thank the Speaker for that very much.
        The Speaker: Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman 
    from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is recognized for 20 minutes.
        Does the gentleman wish to take 20 minutes now?
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: The Speaker has been so 
    generous to us today and is, as always, such an able man in 
    presiding over this body and it is such a joy to work with him that 
    if the Speaker would not mind my taking 20 minutes now, I would be 
    very honored to take some time now.
        The Speaker: The gentleman may have the 20 minutes now and is 
    so recognized.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Representatives Lungren and Walker had one-
hour special orders, which would run longer than the remaining time 
prior to the 5 p.m. recess. Thus, the Speaker recognized Representative 
Gingrich, who had a 20-minute special order, and returned to the other 
Members after the joint session.

--Question of Personal Privilege Takes Precedence

Sec. 10.75 Under Rule IX, a question of personal privilege takes 
    precedence over a special-order speech previously scheduled at the 
    conclusion of legislative business; on one occasion, a Member who 
    had received, by unanimous consent, permission to address the House 
    under a ``special order'' rose instead to a question of personal

[[Page 9750]]

    privilege based on a press account criticizing him in his official 
    capacity and was recognized for one hour.

    On Sept. 21, 1979,(7) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 25656, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Brinkley [of Georgia]: . . . [P]rior to the 
    convening of the 96th Congress . . . [Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of 
    Florida] agreed to hold the record open on a proposed report from 
    the staff of the Select Committee on the Aging--in order to include 
    a presentation from American Family Life Assurance Co. 
    headquartered in my congressional district.
        A Knight-Ridder reporter, noting my connection, made something 
    sinister of it. I had attended the conference with Congressman 
    Pepper; my public disclosure statement showed that I was a 
    stockholder.

--One Hour Limit

Sec. 10.76 A Member may not control more than one hour of debate in the 
    House (on a special order), even by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 16, 1979,(8) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 28508, 28515, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(9) Under a previous order of the House, 
    the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes) is recognized for 60 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of 
    this special order is to outline what Congress should be doing to 
    help our Nation turn back inflation. It has been said that 
    inflation is the neutron bomb of our economy. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The time of the 
    gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes) has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John G. Fary (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the gentleman proceed for 5 additional minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That request is not in order.

--Relevancy in Debate; Principle as Applicable

Sec. 10.77 Unanimous-consent requests to address the House for up to 
    one hour may specify the subject of the ``special order'', and the 
    occupant of the Chair during that special order may enforce the 
    rule of relevancy in debate if the special order has been permitted 
    only on that subject.

    Most special-order requests do not specify the subject to be 
debated, and if granted by the House the Member recognized may speak on 
any subject. Under Rule XIV, clause 1, however, if the question under 
debate has

[[Page 9751]]

been specified by the House, the Member must confine his remarks to 
that subject. On Jan. 23, 1984,(11) a Member indicated the 
subject of special orders requested, and another Member asked for a 
ruling that the special orders be strictly limited to those subjects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 130 Cong. Rec. 90-93, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that today, following legislative business and 
    any special orders heretofore entered into, the following Members 
    may be permitted to address the House, revise and extend their 
    remarks, and include extraneous material:
        Ms. Oakar, for 15 minutes;
        Mr. Annunzio, for 5 minutes;
        Mr. Gonzalez, for 30 minutes . . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(12) . . . Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Colorado? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard B. Ray (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that 
    following legislative business on the following days, these special 
    orders be allowed so that Members may revise and extend their 
    remarks, and include therein extraneous material:
        Mrs. Schroeder, to honor the prior Congressman, Mr. Rogers----
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, may I make a point? These are 
    requests for the honoring of members who were deceased over the 
    period that we have been adjourned.
        Mr. Walker: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
        The unanimous-consent request is simply for time, and it is not 
    supposed to include the title of what it is that is being done. . . 
    .
        Mrs. Schroeder: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is precedent for 
    restating why we want special days assigned, and several Members, 
    prior Members of this body, were deceased during this period while 
    we have been adjourned.
        Many Members would like to participate in the special orders, 
    and Members have requested certain days in advance so that we could 
    know that and send out a ``Dear Colleague'' in order to do that. . 
    . .
        The three orders dealing with that are these:
        Myself, representing the memory of Byron Rogers, which we hope 
    to do on January 30 for 60 minutes; and
        Mr. Kastenmeier and Mr. Fascell on January 31, both wanting 60 
    minutes to the memory of our deceased prior chairman, Mr. Zablocki.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentlewoman from Colorado?
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do so 
    to request of the Chair whether or not these special orders will be 
    absolutely limited to those subject matters. I ask whether the 
    Chair will rule at this point that those special orders being 
    entered into will be absolutely limited to those subject matters 
    that were suggested by the gentlewoman from Colorado.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the occupant 
    of

[[Page 9752]]

    the chair at the time would have to rule on such matters.

--Yielding During Special-or-der Speeches

Sec. 10.78 By unanimous consent, a Member recognized for one hour in 
    the House for a ``special-order speech'' may yield a designated 
    portion of that time to another Member, to be yielded in turn by 
    that Member.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 17, 
1985:(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 131 Cong. Rec. 19474, 19475, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Clinger [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    am delighted to be joined in this special order by my distinguished 
    chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Public Works and 
    Transportation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Howard), and by 
    my distinguished leader of the Economic Development Subcommittee, 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nowak).
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield to the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Howard) 30 minutes of my special order time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Clinger: Mr. Speaker, I yield to my chairman.
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield a portion of the 
    time yielded to me by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Clinger) 
    to other Members of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.