[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[A. General Principles]
[Â§ 1. Order Fixed by Rule and Precedent; Scheduling Business]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3759-3777]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 1. Order Fixed by Rule and Precedent; Scheduling Business



    The order of business in the House is governed, first, by the 
provisions of Rule XXIV, which prescribes the daily order of business, 
including the approval of the Journal, business on the Speaker's table, 
unfinished business, the morning hour call of committees (no longer in 
use), private business, and District of Columbia 
business.(1) The motion to suspend the rules on certain days 
is made in order by Rule XXVII,(2) and the Consent and 
Discharge Calendars are provided for by Rule XIII.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 878-899 (1979).
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 902-907 (1979).
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 746, 747 (1979).
            For corresponding treatment of earlier precedents, see 4 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3056 et seq. (the order of 
        business), Sec. Sec. 3152 et seq. (special orders), 
        Sec. Sec. 3266 et seq. (private and District of Columbia 
        business); 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6790 et seq. 
        (suspension of the rules); 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 708 
        et seq. (order of business); 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 758 et seq. (special orders), Sec. Sec. 846 et seq. 
        (private and District of Columbia business), Sec. Sec. 881 et 
        seq. (Calendar Wednesday), Sec. Sec. 972 et seq. (Consent 
        Calendar), Sec. Sec. 1007 et seq. (calendar of motions to 
        discharge a committee); 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3397 et 
        seq. (suspension of the rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The order of business may be interrupted for business privileged 
under the rules and practices of the House.~(4) In addition, 
the regular order of business, including the relative precedence of 
privileged questions, may be varied by three methods: unanimous-consent 
requests, motions to suspend the rules, and resolutions reported from 
the Committee on Rules that pertain to the order of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 28-31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair may refuse to recognize for unanimous-consent requests 
and motions to suspend the rules, and holds the power of recognition at 
all times. Thus the order of business may be subject to the Chair's 
power of recognition. The Speaker of the House, and the Members who 
with him

[[Page 3760]]

constitute the leadership of the House, have the duty of scheduling the 
business of the House, in concert with the leadership of each standing 
committee thereof.(~5~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 1.1-1.6 and 1.14-1.19, 1.22, 1.23, infra. For 
        recognition for the motion to suspend the rules, see Sec. 11, 
        infra. For the Chair's power of recognition in general, see Ch. 
        29, infra. And for discussion of the functions and duties of 
        the Speaker, see Ch. 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the order of business in the House is always subject to 
the will of the majority of the House, who may refuse to consider most 
matters brought before it, or may change the order of business or 
create a new order of business.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 1.19-1.21, infra. The question of consideration, and 
        situations where the question of consideration is not in order, 
        are discussed in Sec. 30, infra. For changing the order of 
        business, see those sections of this chapter concerned with 
        varying the order of business by unanimous consent (Sec. 8, 
        infra), with motions to suspend the rules, and with special 
        orders from the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Assembly of Congress (for discussion of the order of business at the 
    convening of the House), Ch. 1, supra.
Officers and staff (for discussion of the Speaker and his authority), 
    Ch. 6, supra.
Privilege (for discussion of questions of privilege and their 
    precedence over the regular order of business), Ch. 11, supra.
Committees (for discussion of the order of business in committees), Ch. 
    17, supra.
Discharging Measures From Committees. Ch. 18, supra.
Calendars, Ch. 22, infra.
Motions and Requests, Ch. 23, infra.
Consideration and Debate, Ch. 29 
    infra.                          -------------------

Role of Speaker and Leadership Scheduling Legislation

Sec. 1.1 The legislative schedule or program for the House is announced 
    to the Members by the Majority Leader or Whip, or in their absence 
    may be announced by the Speaker himself.

    On May 21, 1964,(7) after the disposition of legislative 
business on the last legislative day of the week, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, took the floor, in the absence of both the 
Majority Leader and Majority Whip, to announce the program for the 
following week:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 11690, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Harvey of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to address the House for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Michigan?

[[Page 3761]]

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Harvey of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this time 
    in order to inquire of the distinguished acting majority leader if 
    he will inform us of the schedule for the balance of this week and 
    for next week.
        Mr. McCormack: The program for next week is as follows:
        Monday is District Day, but there are no bills. We will 
    consider H.R. 10041--hospital and medical facilities amendments of 
    1964. This has an open rule and provides 3 hours of general debate. 
    . . .
        On Wednesday H.R. 5130, increase in federal deposit and savings 
    insurance. This has an open rule and provides 2 hours of general 
    debate.
        On the same day there are eight unanimous-consent bills from 
    the Committee on Ways and Means, as follows:
        H.R. 4198, free importation of instant coffee. . . .
        On Thursday and the balance of the week the program is as 
    follows:
        On Thursday, at 12:30 p.m., the House and Senate will receive 
    in joint meeting the President of Ireland, His Excellency, Eamon de 
    Valera.
        The usual reservation is made that conference reports may be 
    brought up at any time and any further program will be announced 
    later.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The announcement of the legislative 
schedule for the following week is normally made by the Majority Leader 
or Majority Whip following the legislative program for the week. If the 
announcement is made on Thursday or Friday, with intent to adjourn 
until Monday, the unanimous-consent request (or motion, if the request 
is objected to) is made to adjourn over until Monday next. Also at that 
time, the unanimous-consent request is made to dispense with Calendar 
Wednesday business on the following Wednesday.

Sec. 1.2 The Speaker made a statement from the Chair regarding the 
    scheduling of legislation.

    On Aug. 16, 1962,(8) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made a statement from the chair pending a motion that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of the public works appropriation bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 16730, 16731, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair would like the attention of the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford]. The Chair desires to state that 
    a number of Members have spoken to me as Speaker about the problems 
    that confront them, which problems I thoroughly appreciate. In my 
    years of experience as majority leader I always bore these problems 
    in mind. But this situation did not develop until within 24 hours 
    where arrangements could be made for next week. There are problems 
    of the leadership, and there are problems of all the Members.
        The Chair felt if this bill could be brought up today, and 
    these other

[[Page 3762]]

    three bills, we could adjourn over today until Monday of next week, 
    and from Monday of next week to Thursday of next week, and from 
    Thursday of next week to the following Monday. The Chair takes 
    complete responsibility, the responsibility, as the Chair felt, 
    being in the interest of the Members of the House that 
    consideration could be given at this time because later on the 
    Chair could see where there would be extreme difficulty and next 
    week afforded an excellent opportunity. These decisions are made 
    rather quickly because we just do not know what problems might 
    arise. As a matter of fact, the Chair did not definitely make the 
    decision until this morning, although the Chair had pretty well 
    formulated it in the mind of the Chair yesterday afternoon and last 
    evening.

Sec. 1.3 The Speaker advised Members that he was amenable to 
    recognizing for unanimous-consent requests to call up bills 
    requiring disposition before adjournment, providing that such 
    measures were carefully screened by the leadership on both sides of 
    the aisle,

    On Aug. 17, 1964,(9) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request giving the Speaker the authority to recognize for 
motions to suspend the rules and pass certain bills on a date to be 
agreed upon by himself, and the Majority and Minority Leaders. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 19944, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that if arrangements can be worked out on 
    this or any other bill, through a unanimous-consent request, where 
    the matter has been carefully screened, the Chair will be glad to 
    recognize for that purpose. That does not mean today. It means 
    sometime this week, if it is carefully screened through the 
    leadership. Members are protected in the knowledge that the 
    screening has taken place.

Sec. 1.4 Members desiring to ask unanimous consent for the 
    consideration of bills should first consult the Speaker and 
    Majority and Minority Leaders, and in the absence of such 
    consultation the Speaker may decline to recognize for such 
    requests.

    On July 11, 1946,(10) Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, of 
Connecticut, sought recognition for a unanimous-consent request for the 
immediate consideration of a bill. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
declined recognition for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 8726, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Did the gentlewoman consult the Speaker about this 
    and notify him that she was going to make this request?

[[Page 3763]]

        Mrs. Luce: I did not, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair refuses to recognize the gentlewoman for 
    that purpose.

    Later in the proceedings, Mr. John Phillips, of California, 
commented in debate on the failure of the same bill to be brought up 
for consideration. The Speaker stated as follows in response:

        The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
        The Chair desires to make a 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. Luck: 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.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 8728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.5 Upon concluding a recess, called by the Speaker pending 
    receipt of an engrossed bill while a House resolution was pending 
    before the House, the Speaker announced the unfinished business to 
    be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill, the Food Stamp 
    Act of 1964.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(12) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, put the question on the engrossment and third reading of 
H.R. 10222, the Food Stamp Act of 1964, and Mr. Charles S. Gubser, of 
California, demanded the reading of the engrossed copy, which was not 
yet prepared. The House then proceeded to the consideration of House 
Resolution 665, dealing with certain Senate amendments to a House bill. 
Pending such consideration, the Speaker declared a recess subject to 
the call of the Chair (pursuant to such authority granted the Speaker 
for any time during that day), pending the receipt of the engrossed 
copy of H.R. 10222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recess having expired, the Speaker called the House to order 
and stated that the unfinished business was the reading of the 
engrossed copy of H.R. 10222, which he directed the Clerk to read. When 
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio, propounded a parliamentary inquiry 
regarding the status of House Resolution 665 as the

[[Page 3764]]

unfinished business properly before the House, the Speaker recognized 
Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, to withdraw House Resolution 665, 
thereby terminating the reason for the inquiry.
    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent predated the 1965 revision 
to the rules eliminating the right of any Member to demand the reading 
of the engrossed bill (see Sec. Sec. 3.31-3.33, infra).

Sec. 1.6 The death of a sitting Member of the House was announced to 
    the House, which then proceeded with scheduled business before 
    adjourning out of respect.

    On May 4, 1970,(13) Mr. John S. Monagan, of Connecticut, 
announced to the House, following the offering of prayer and the 
approval of the Journal, the death of a sitting Member of the House, 
William L. St. Onge, of Connecticut. Before adjourning out of respect, 
the House conducted its scheduled business, the consideration of a 
conference report and the consideration of the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 13987-14043, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On many occasions, the House adjourns out 
of respect to a deceased Member without conducting scheduled 
legislative business. On this occasion, there existed a full 
legislative schedule for the week and the leadership, after 
consultation with the deceased's family, determined to proceed with 
business.

Order May Be Subject to Chair's Recognition

Sec. 1.7 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated 
    that where matters of equal privilege are pending, the order of 
    their consideration is subject to the Speaker's recognition.

    On Sept. 22, 1966,(14) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following statement on recognition, in response 
to a parliamentary inquiry related to the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Of course, the question of recognition is with the Chair, 
    where there are two similar preferential matters, but the 
    gentleman's understanding is correct that after 7 legislative days 
    a member of the Rules Committee could call it up.
        If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential 
    status existed at the same time. recognition rests with I the 
    Chair.

Sec. 1.8 If a resolution providing a special order of business is

[[Page 3765]]

    not called up for consideration by the Member reporting the 
    resolution from the Committee on Rules within seven days, any 
    member of the committee may call it up for consideration as a 
    privileged matter, for which purpose the Speaker would be obliged 
    to recognize such Member, unless a matter of equal or higher 
    privilege was pending. In the latter case, the order of 
    consideration would be determined by the Speaker's recognition.

    On Sept. 22, 1966,(15) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of 
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Under the rules of the House, as I understand them, this rule, 
    House Resolution 1007, to bring up the socalled House Un-American 
    Activities Committee bill, is a privileged matter, and if it is not 
    programed, then the gentleman handling the rule or any member of 
    the Rules Committee, may call it up as a privileged matter. Is my 
    understanding correct about that?
        The Speaker: The gentleman's understanding is correct. Of 
    course, the question of recognition is with the Chair, where there 
    are two similar preferential matters, but the gentleman's 
    understanding is correct that after 7 legislative days a member of 
    the Rules Committee could call it up.
        If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential 
    status existed at the same time, recognition rests with the Chair.
        Mr. Colmer: I thank the Speaker for his ruling.
        Mr. Speaker, in view of that, if the gentleman will continue to 
    yield to me, I should like to serve notice now on the majority 
    leadership that if this resolution is not programed at a reasonably 
    early date, I shall exercise that privilege as the one who is 
    designated to handle this rule.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I should like to 
    announce further that the program for next week will be announced 
    later in the day.

Sec. 1.9 While the call of the Consent Calendar is, under Rule XIII 
    clause 4, mandatory on the first and third Mondays of the month 
    immediately after the approval of the Journal, the Speaker may 
    recognize a Member to call up a conference report under Rule XXVIII 
    clause 1, before directing the Clerk to call the Consent Calendar.

    On May 4, 1970,(16) which was Consent Calendar day under 
Rule XIII clause 4, requiring that the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 14021-33, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3766]]

Consent Calendar be called immediately after the approval of the 
Journal, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. 
Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, to call up a conference report on H.R. 
515 (to amend the National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act), 
as a privileged matter under Rule XXVIII clause 1, before directing the 
call of the Consent Calendar.

Sec. 1.10 On a District Day, the Speaker recognized a member of the 
    Committee on Rules to call up a privileged resolution relating to 
    the order of business, and later recognized the chairman of another 
    committee to call up the business made in order thereby, prior to 
    recognizing the Chairman of the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia to call up District business under Rule XXIV clause 8.

    On Sept. 24, 1962,(17) which was District of Columbia 
Day under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, first recognized Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, 
to call up by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 
804, making in order and providing for the consideration of Senate 
Joint Resolution 224, authorizing the President to call up armed forces 
reservists. The House having agreed to the resolution, the Speaker 
recognized Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services and manager of the joint resolution, to move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
the joint resolution, which was after debate agreed to by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 20489-94, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then stated that it was District of Columbia Day and 
recognized Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the 
Committee on the District of Columbia for District 
business.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 20521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.11 When a Member seeks recognition to call up District of 
    Columbia business on the fourth Monday (privileged under Rule XXIV 
    clause 8) and another Member seeks recognition to move to suspend 
    the rules and agree to a Senate joint resolution amending the 
    Constitution (privileged pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement 
    making it in order on the fourth Monday for the Speaker to 
    recognize

[[Page 3767]]

    Members to move suspension and passage of bills), it is within the 
    discretion of the Speaker as to which of the two Members he shall 
    recognize.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(19) which was the fourth Monday of the 
month and therefore a day eligible for District of Columbia business, 
under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass a joint resolution (to amend the Constitution to 
prohibit the use of a poll tax as a qualification for voting) pursuant 
to a previous unanimous-consent request making in order on that day 
motions to suspend the rules. The Speaker overruled a point of order 
against prior recognition for the motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-60, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
    Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution of the United States relating to qualifications of 
    electors.
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this 
    is District Day, that there are District bills on the calendar, and 
    as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia I 
    respectfully demand recognition so that these bills may be 
    considered.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule, but the gentleman 
    may be heard.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, suspensions were 
    transferred to this day, and under the rules the Speaker has power 
    of recognition at his own discretion.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully call the attention 
    of the chairman to clause 8, rule XXIV, page 432 of the House 
    Manual. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I submit that rule is clear that when the time is 
    claimed and the opportunity is claimed the Chair shall permit those 
    bills to be considered.
        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my point of order 
    is well taken, and that I should be permitted to call up bills 
    which are now pending on the calendar from the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I should like 
    to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House on 
    some things are very clear, and the rules of the House either mean 
    something or they do not mean anything.
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy], 
    has just

[[Page 3768]]

    called to the Chair's attention clause 8 of rule XXIV. Nothing 
    could be clearer; nothing could be more mandatory. I want to repeat 
    it because I hope the Chair will not fall into an error on this 
    proposition:

            The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the 
        disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the 
        disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires 
        reference only--

        And that is all; that is all that you can consider-disposition 
    of motions to discharge committees--
        and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker's table 
        as requires reference only--

        That is all that the Chair is permitted to consider.
        Mr. Speaker, after that is done the day--
        shall when claimed by the Committee on the District of 
        Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of such business 
        as may be presented by said committee.

        Mr. Speaker, I know that the majority leader bases his defense 
    upon the theory that the House having given unanimous consent to 
    hear suspensions on this Monday instead of last Monday when they 
    should have been heard--and I doubt if very many Members were here 
    when that consent order was made and I am quite sure that a great 
    number of them had no notice that it was going to be made, and 
    certainly I did not--now the majority leader undertakes to say that 
    having gotten unanimous consent to consider this motion on this day 
    to suspend the rules, therefore, it gives the Speaker carte blanche 
    authority to do away with the rule which gives first consideration 
    to District of Columbia matters. Mr. Speaker, there was no waiver 
    of the rule on the District of Columbia. That consent did not 
    dispose or dispense with the business on the District of Columbia 
    day. The rule is completely mandatory. The rule says that on the 
    second and fourth Mondays, if the District of Columbia claims the 
    time, that the Speaker shall recognize them for such dispositions 
    as they desire to call.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to 
    transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the 
    rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the 
    consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the 
    rules today is a privileged motion. The matter is within the 
    discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.

Sec. 1.12 On one occasion the Speaker, having recognized one Member to 
    propound a parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of a 
    resolution as ``unfinished business,'' then recognized the Member 
    who had offered the resolution to withdraw it, thus eliminating the 
    reason for the inquiry.

    On Apr. 8, 1964, a demand was made for the reading of the engrossed 
copy of a bill where the engrossment was not yet prepared. The bill was 
laid aside and

[[Page 3769]]

the House proceeded to consider a resolution (concurring in a Senate 
amendment to a House bill). Prior to the disposition of that 
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a 
recess pursuant to authority previously granted.
    At the conclusion of the recess, the Speaker stated the unfinished 
business to be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill on which 
the demand had been made. A parliamentary inquiry with respect to the 
order of business was then raised by Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio. The 
ensuing proceedings, during which the Speaker asserted his right of 
recognition to permit a Member to withdraw the resolution, are 
discussed fully in the next precedent.\(20\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sec. 1.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.13 The power of recognition rests with the Chair and is subject 
    to his discretion.

    On one occasion, the Speaker, having recognized one Member to 
propound a parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of a resolution 
as ``unfinished business,'' then recognized another Member to withdraw 
the resolution, thus eliminating the reason for the inquiry.
    On Apr. 8, 1964, a demand was made for the reading of the engrossed 
copy of a bill where the engrossment was not yet prepared. The bill was 
laid aside and the House proceeded to consider a resolution (concurring 
in Senate amendments to a House bill). Prior to the disposition of that 
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a 
recess pursuant to authority previously granted.
    At the conclusion of the recess, the Speaker stated the unfinished 
business to be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill on which 
the demand had been made. The following inquiry and its disposition 
then ensued:

        The Speaker: The unfinished business is the reading of the 
    engrossed copy of H.R. 10222.
        The Clerk will read the engrossed copy.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, when the recess was called, 
    it is my understanding that we were engaged in the consideration of 
    what is referred to as a cotton and wheat bill. Is it not the rule 
    of the House that we must finish the consideration of that measure 
    before we take up any other measure which has been passed over for 
    parliamentary and mechanical reasons?
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bolling].

[[Page 3770]]

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, under the rules I withdraw House 
    Resolution 66a.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, that takes 
    unanimous consent, and I object.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that it does not take 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the resolution in the House.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that 
    the Speaker was addressing the Member now addressing the Chair and 
    had not given an answer to my question. Therefore, the recognition 
    of the Member from the other side the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Bolling] was out of order. Am I incorrect?
        The Speaker: The recognition of the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Bolling] terminated the parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: In other words, the Speaker did not 
    answer the parliamentary inquiry; is that correct?
        The Speaker: Since the resolution was withdrawn, the 
    parliamentary inquiry was ended.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: If the Speaker will respectfully permit, 
    the gentleman from Ohio would suggest that the question had been 
    asked before the resolution had been withdrawn.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has the power 
    of recognition. Now that the resolution has been withdrawn, the 
    unfinished business is the reading of the engrossed copy of H.R. 
    10222.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: The Speaker had recognized the gentleman 
    from Ohio for a parliamentary inquiry. The parliamentary inquiry 
    had been made. The parliamentary inquiry had not been answered and 
    yet the Chair recognized the gentleman from Missouri.
        The Speaker: Which the Chair has the power to do.
        The Clerk will read the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether the 
    parliamentary inquiry which I addressed to the Chair is-now not to 
    be answered, because of the action of the gentleman from Missouri?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will repeat his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry was 
    to the effect that inasmuch as the House was engaged at the 
    business before it at the time the Speaker called the recess, 
    whether the rules of the House did not call for the conclusion of 
    that business before other business which had been postponed by the 
    House under the rules of the House and in accordance with the 
    procedures of the House did not have to follow consideration of any 
    business that was before the House at the time of the calling of 
    the recess?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Missouri withdrew his resolution. If he had not withdrawn the 
    resolution the situation might have been different.
        The Chair has made a ruling that the unfinished business is the 
    reading

[[Page 3771]]

    of the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222. That is the unfinished 
    business.\(1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair May Decline Recognition for Unanimous-consent Requests

Sec. 1.14 The Speaker discussed the practice of recognizing Members for 
    unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of bills.

    On July 1, 1932,\(2\) Speaker John N. Garner, 
of Texas, made a statement relative to recognition for certain 
unanimous-consent requests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 75 Cong. Rec. 14511, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Willam A.] Pittenger [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I had 
    planned to ask unanimous consent for the consideration of a 
    measure, but the watchdog of the Treasury from Milwaukee has asked 
    me to wait until after 6 o'clock, so I can not make the request.
        The Speaker: 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. 1.15 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member to request 
    unanimous consent to make an omnibus private bill eligible for 
    consideration during a call of the Private Calendar on a specific 
    day, when the House had previously agreed by unanimous con'' sent 
    that it be passed over.

    On July 15, 1968,\(3\) Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, declined to recognize Mr. William L. 
Hungate, of Missouri, to make the unanimous-consent request that the 
first omnibus private bill of 1968 (H.R. 16187) be placed on the 
Private Calendar for July 16. The House had previously agreed, on July 
12, 1968, to the unanimous consent request of Majority Leader Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, that the bill be passed over and not considered 
during the call of the Private Calendar on July 
16.\(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 21326, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Id. at p. 20998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3772]]

Sec. 1.16 The Speaker declines to recognize Members for unanimous 
    consent requests that bills stricken from the Private Calendar be 
    restored thereto until they have consulted with the official 
    objectors.

    On Apr. 12, 1948,\(5\) Mr. Thomas J. Lane, of 
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that a bill previously stricken 
from the Private Calendar be restored thereto. Speaker Joseph W. 
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, inquired whether he had consulted with 
the official objectors. Mr. Lane responded that he had not, and the 
Speaker responded that ``The Chair cannot entertain the gentleman's 
request until he has done so.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 94 Cong. Rec. 4573, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.17 The Chair refuses to recognize Members after the absence of a 
    quorum has been announced by the Chair, and no business is in order 
    until a quorum has been established.

    On June 8, 1960,\(6\) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, 
of Michigan, made the point of order that a quorum was not present. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, counted and announced the absence of a 
quorum, and a call of the House was ordered. The Speaker declined to 
recognize Mr. Hoffman, who addressed the Chair seeking recognition 
after the Chair's announcement and after the call of the House was 
ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.   106 Cong. Rec. 12142, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.18 The Chair declined to recognize Members for extensions of 
    remarks and one-minute speeches before proceeding with unfinished 
    business.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,\(7\) Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, announced, following the approval of the 
Journal and the receipt of messages from the President, that the Chair 
would receive unanimous-consent requests after the ``disposition of 
pending business.'' The pending business was unfinished business from 
the prior day, the vote on agreeing to a resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 27640, 27641, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House May Determine Order of Consideration

Sec. 1.19 Where two propositions of equal privilege are pending, it is 
    for the Chair to determine whom he will recognize to call up one of 
    the

[[Page 3773]]

    propositions, but the House may by unanimous consent determine such 
    precedence.

    On Sept. 11, 1945,\(8\) Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, entertained a unanimous-consent request relating to the order 
of business and responded to a parliamentary inquiry as to its effect:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 91 Cong. Rec. 8610, 8511, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North 
    Carolina.
        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on tomorrow, 
    immediately after the meeting of the House for business, to 
    consider the bill (H.R. 3974) to repeal war time; that general 
    debate be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled 
    by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], chairman of the 
    subcommittee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Holmes].
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, and I shall not because I want to 
    congratulate the committee on bringing in the legislation at this 
    early date, as I understand it, that will be the first order of 
    business tomorrow?
        Mr. Bulwinkle: Yes; that is my understanding.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, I was under the impression that H.R. 3660 was 
    to be the next order of business.
        The Speaker: That is a question for the Chair, as to whether 
    the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Illinois to call up the 
    rule or recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma to call up the bill 
    repealing war time. The request being made at this time is for the 
    war time repeal bill to take precedence.

Sec. 1.20 The question as to when the House will consider a bill 
    unfinished on a previous day is always within the control of a 
    majority of the House.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,\(9\) Speaker Joseph W. 
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to 
when a bill, brought up in the House by a motion to discharge, could be 
considered if not finished on the day on which brought up. The Speaker 
heard Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, on the inquiry and then stated 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 4877, 4878, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is interested in the valued comments of the 
    distinguished gentleman from Michigan. Of course, the Chair is 
    unaware of the intent or purpose back of the rule when it was first 
    formulated. All he has to guide him is the rule itself as it 
    appears before him in print. The Chair agrees with the gentleman 
    from Michigan that the House can immediately consider the 
    legislation after the motion to discharge the committee is agreed 
    to, but the rule states ``and if unfinished before adjournment of 
    the day on which it is called up, it shall remain the unfinished 
    business until it is fully disposed .''

[[Page 3774]]

        That provision does not state definitely that the bill must 
    come up on the following day, but that it shall remain the 
    unfinished business. The gentleman's point that the bill could be 
    postponed indefinitely of course is correct, in a sense, but after 
    all the rules are based on common sense, and no one would 
    anticipate that the side that procured enough signatures to a 
    discharge petition to bring a bill before the House would 
    filibuster their own bill.
        While the rule perhaps is not quite as definite as it might be, 
    it is the opinion of the Chair that the consideration of the bill 
    could go over until Wednesday if the proponents of the bill do not 
    call it up on tomorrow, and that it would be in order on Wednesday 
    as the unfinished business.
        The Chair believes that unless the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. Rivers] or someone on his side of the issue, calls it 
    up on tomorrow, it can be called up on Wednesday and will be the 
    unfinished business on that day. The Chair also wishes to state 
    that he will not recognize anyone on the affirmative side of this 
    matter unless the gentleman from South Carolina is absent. It is 
    not necessary to call it up on tomorrow and it can be called up on 
    Wednesday, at which time it will be the unfinished business.
        The Chair will also remind Members that it is always within the 
    control of the majority of the House to determine what should be 
    done.

Sec. 1.21 The question as to when the Committee of the Whole will 
    resume the consideration of a bill unfinished when the Committee 
    rises is for the Speaker and the House to determine, and not for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(10) Chairman Leslie C. Arends, of 
Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows in the Committee 
of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 4873, 4874, 80th Cong. 21 Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the 
    Committee will rise at 4 o'clock. It is also my understanding of 
    the rules that this Committee should meet tomorrow in order to have 
    continuous consideration of the pending legislation.
        I would like to have a ruling of the Chair as to whether or not 
    the rules provide that a day may intervene so that this legislation 
    may be taken up on Wednesday.
        The Chairman: The Chair may say that is a matter for the 
    Speaker of the House and the House itself to determine. It is not 
    something within the jurisdiction of the Chair to decide.

Role of Committee in Scheduling Legislation

Sec. 1.22 The Speaker declined to recognize the chairman of one 
    committee for a unani

[[Page 3775]]

    mous-consent request to rerefer a bill until the chairman of the 
    other committee involved was consulted.

    On Mar. 25, 1948,(11) Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts, Chairwoman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, asked 
unanimous consent that the committee be discharged from further 
consideration of the bill and that it be rereferred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
inquired whether Mrs. Rogers had consulted with the Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and Mrs. Rogers responded that she had not. 
The Speaker declined to recognize her for the request, stating that, 
``it is customary to consult with the chairman of the committee to whom 
the bill is to be referred.'' He indicated that the matter could again 
be brought up on the following week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 3673, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.23 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,(12) Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
sought recognition to ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's 
table a bill (H.R. 9951) providing for the collection of federal 
unemployment tax, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the 
Senate amendments. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
declined to recognize for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  115 Cong. Rec. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: 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 gentlem an for that purpose.
        Mr. Boggs: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman fr om Louisiana equally 
    admires the gentle man in the chair. I thoroughly understand the 
    position of the distinguish ed Speaker.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1960, 
        for a statement by the Speaker that only the chairman of the 
        committee with jurisdiction would be recognized to ask 
        unanimous consent to take a bill from the table, disagree to 
        the Senate amendment, and ask for a conference.

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

[[Page 3776]]

Sec. 1.24 Unfinished business in the Committee of the Whole does not 
    come up automatically when that class of business is again in 
    order, but may be called up by a Member in charge of the 
    legislation (by a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole 
    for the further consideration of the measure).

    On May 9, 1932,(14) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of business on District 
of Columbia Monday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 9836, 72d Cong. Ist Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to call up concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
    27), and yield five minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Harlan, 
    to offer an amendment thereto.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, on the last day given over to 
    District business, House Joint Resolution 154, providing for a 
    merger of the street-railway systems in the District of Columbia, 
    uas the unfinished business. As this joint resolution was the 
    unfinished business when the District Committee last had the call, 
    is it not the unfinished business when the House resumes 
    consideration of District business?
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks not, because a motion to consider 
    it is necessary. Wherever a motion is required, the unfinished 
    business has no precedence over any other business.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Joint Resolution 154 had last been 
under consideration on District Monday, Apr. 25, 1932, in Committee of 
the Whole; the Committee of the Whole had come to no conclusion 
thereon.

Sec. 1.25 The adoption of a resolution making in order the 
    consideration of a bill does not necessarily make the bill the 
    unfinished business the next day, and the bill can only be called 
    up by a Member designated by the committee to do so.

    On July 19, 1939,(15) the House adopted a resolution 
from the Committee on Rules making in order the consideration of a 
bill. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry on the status of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3777]]

bill thereby made in order as unfinished business:

        Mr. [Claude V.] Parsons [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Parsons: Mr. Speaker, the House having adopted the rule, is 
    not this bill the unfinished business of the House on tomorrow?
        The Speaker: Not necessarily. The rule adopted by the House 
    makes the bill in order for consideration, but it is not 
    necessarily the unfinished business. It can only come up, after the 
    adoption of the rule, by being called up by the gentleman in charge 
    of the bill.