[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[A. General Principles]
[Â§ 3. Unfinished and Postponed Business]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3793-3827]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 3. Unfinished and Postponed Business

    Rule XXIV clauses 1 (18) and 3 (1) provide 
for the consideration of unfinished business and its place in the order 
of business. Thus, clause 3 provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1979).
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 885 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The consideration of the unfinished business in which the House 
    may be engaged at an adjournment, except business in the morning 
    hour, shall be resumed as soon as the business on the Speaker's 
    table is finished, and at the same time each day thereafter until 
    disposed of, and the consideration of all other unfinished business 
    shall be resumed whenever the class of business to which it belongs 
    shall be in order under the rules.

    Generally, unfinished business coming over from a previous day does 
not automatically come before the House for consideration, but must be 
called up by a Member in charge of the legislation.(2) 
Moreover, as indicated by Rule XXIV clause 3, where unfinished business 
belongs to a certain class of business, such as Private Calendar 
business (3) and District of Columbia 
business,(4) the legislation goes over to the next day eli
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 3.1-3.5, infra. Certain categories of business do 
        come up automatically when unfinished or postponed. Examples 
        are the consideration of a veto message postponed to a day 
        certain (see Sec. 3.38, infra), questions on which the previous 
        question has been ordered (see Sec. 3.20, infra), and recorded 
        votes postponed to a certain day (see Sec. 3.18, infra).
 3. See Sec. 3.35, infra.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 3.25, 3.26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3794]]

gible for the call of the appropriate calendar. If, however, the 
previous question has been ordered on business unfinished when the 
House adjourns, such business becomes in order on the next legislative 
day after the approval of the Journal,(5) except on Calendar 
Wednesday. Discharged bills, brought before the House by a successful 
motion to discharge under Rule XXVII clause 4,(6) remain the 
unfinished business (when called up for consideration) until disposed 
of.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 3.20, 3.21, infra. And see 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 854.
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
 7. See Sec. 3.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognition to call up unfinished business or to control the floor 
thereon, where the previous question has been rejected on a prior day 
and the House has proceeded to other business, should pass to a Member 
who had opposed the previous question, except where no such opposition 
Member immediately seeks recognition and the committee manager is 
directed to call up the matter on the day set aside for that class of 
business (e.g., District Day) and to offer committee amendments.
    Unfinished business is preceded by otherwise privileged business, 
such as the receipt of a message and motions to discharge on discharge 
days.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. Sec. 3.7, 3.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Votes on questions may become the unfinished business on a 
following day when votes are postponed (by special order) or when a 
quorum fails to vote on a question and the House 
adjourns.(9) Votes on unfinished business are put de novo, 
if previously postponed by unanimous consent pending an objection to a 
vote for lack of a quorum, and any Member has the same rights as when 
the question was first put.(10) If the Committee of the 
Whole rises having ordered tellers, the appointment of tellers is the 
unfinished business when the Committee resumes, and ordering tellers 
may be vacated only by unanimous consent.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 3.15-3.19, infra.
10. See Sec. 3.18, infra.
11. See Sec. 3.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under prior practice, before Rule XXI was amended (12) 
to delete the right of any Member to demand the reading in full of the 
engrossed copy of a bill, such a demand could render the bill 
unfinished business until the engrossed copy could be 
provided.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 830 and note thereto (1979).
13. See Sec. 3.32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a measure before the House is postponed to a day cer

[[Page 3795]]

tain either by motion (when in order) or by unanimous consent, the 
measure becomes the unfinished business on the day to which 
postponed.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 3.18, 3.29 (postponed roll call votes), 3.22 
        (postponed conference report), 3.36-3.38 (veto messages 
        postponed by motion), 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling Up Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.1 Unfinished business on a District of Columbia Monday 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.

    On May 9, 1932,(15) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of business on District 
of Columbia Monday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 75 Cong. Rec. 9836, 72d Cong. 1st 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, 
    was 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.

Sec. 3.2 On one occasion, it was held that the rule that recognition 
    passes to the opposition after rejection of the previous question 
    is subject to the following exception: where other business inter-
    venes and occupies the remainder of the day immediately after 
    defeat of the previous question, the bill on which the previous 
    question was rejected must be subsequently called up as unfinished 
    business by a Member directed by his committee to call up that 
    special class of business on a day when that business is in order 
    (since the Speaker does not lay such special bills before the

[[Page 3796]]

    House as unfinished business). Once that Member has called up the 
    bill, however, the Speaker stated he would recognize a Member 
    opposed who immediately sought to offer an amendment.

    On Feb. 8, 1932,(16) Vincent L. Palmisano, of Maryland, 
Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, called up as 
unfinished business S. 1306, to provide for the incorporation of the 
District of Columbia Commission on the George Washington Bicentennial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 75 Cong. Rec. 3548-50, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, raised an inquiry as to the 
parlimentary situation. He stated that the bill had previously been 
before the House (on the preceding District of Columbia Monday) and 
that the previous question had been rejected, requiring recognition to 
offer amendments or motions to pass to the opposition. [On the 
preceding District of Columbia Monday, the Chair had recognized another 
Member, immediately after rejection of the previous question on S. 
1306, to call up a general appropriation bill, which was considered 
until adjournment on that day.]
    Speaker pro tempore Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, however, ruled 
that the chairman of the reporting committee was entitled to 
recognition since the bill could come before the House only by being 
called up as unfinished business.
    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. LaGuardia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. LaGuardia: The bill which the gentleman calls up was before 
    the House two weeks ago.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is unfinished business. We have 
    had a second reading of the bill at the former meeting when the 
    bill was considered on last District day.
        Mr. LaGuardia: But the previous question was voted down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The previous question was then voted 
    down. It is before the House now for further consideration, just 
    where we left off before.
        Mr. LaGuardia: I ask recognition in opposition.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
    Palmisano], who is the ranking majority member of the committee, is 
    entitled to recognition first to offer committee amendments, and 
    then the gentleman from New York will be recognized.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I assume 
    that when this bill is now brought up we are brought back to the 
    same legislative situation we were in when it was last considered.

[[Page 3797]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is the situation.
        Mr. Stafford: The previous question was then voted down. At 
    that moment any person who wished to propose an amendment would 
    have had the privilege of being recognized. I claim that any person 
    who wishes to offer an amendment has prior recognition to the 
    gentleman from Maryland.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: But the previous question having been 
    voted down, it did not take off the floor the gentleman from 
    Maryland, who stands in the position of chairman of the committee, 
    so the parliamentarian informs the Chair.
        Mr. Stafford: The very fact that the previous question was 
    voted down granted the right to the opposition to offer an 
    amendment and have control of the time. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state the parliamentary 
    situation. On a previous District day when this bill was up for 
    consideration, the previous question was moved and the House voted 
    down that motion. Then the opposition clearly was entitled to 
    recognition. This is another legislative day; and that being true, 
    it is the duty of the Chair to recognize the one standing as 
    chairman of the committee, who is the gentleman from Maryland, to 
    offer committee amendments. Then the Chair will recognize someone 
    in opposition to the bill. The Chair is advised by the 
    parliamentarian that such is the correct procedure.
        Mr. LaGuardia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. LaGuardia: I can not follow the statement of the Chair that 
    the bill is coming before the House de novo. The Chair properly 
    stated that the bill now is the unfinished business. A bill can not 
    change its status because it is the unfinished business and carried 
    over to another day. The previous question having been voted down, 
    the bill is now open to the House for amendment, and on that I have 
    asked for recognition by the Chair to offer an amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the one 
    acting for the committee in calling up the bill has a right to 
    first offer committee amendments. If the proceedings had continued 
    on the day the previous question was voted down, then any Member 
    opposing the bill gaining recognition could have offered an 
    amendment; but this being another legislative day, it is the duty 
    of the Chair to recognize the acting chairman of the committee in 
    calling up the bill to offer committee amendments, and the Chair 
    has done that. Regardless of his own opinion, the Chair is guided 
    by the parliamentarian. When a parliamentary situation arises 
    whereby the Chair can recognize some one opposed to the bill, the 
    Chair will do that. . . .
        Mr. LaGuardia: I desire recognition for the purpose of getting 
    the floor.
        Mr. Speaker, the first proposition before us, which I believe 
    is more important than the passage of the bill or the merits of 
    this particular bill, is the parliamentary situation.
        The bill was before the House two weeks ago and was considered 
    under the House rules. At that time the time was entirely under the 
    control of the

[[Page 3798]]

    chairman of the committee, and after holding the floor for some 
    time the gentlewoman from New Jersey moved the previous question 
    and the previous question was voted down. Thereafter the House took 
    up other business.
        The bill comes back to us today and I submit that the previous 
    question having been voted down, the bill retains that status. It 
    can not acquire a new status. The previous question having been 
    voted down, that can not be ignored at this time; and that being 
    so, the bill comes before the House as unfinished business, and the 
    bill is before the House now for amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will so hold, that the bill 
    is now before the House for amendment, but the committee had the 
    right first to offer its committee amendments. If there are any 
    other amendments, the Chair will recognize any Member to offer 
    them.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Bills which are in order on certain days 
under the rules of the House do not automatically come before the 
House, but must be called up by an authorized committee member. 
Therefore, in this instance, the Chair recognized the Chairman of the 
Committee on the District of Columbia to bring the bill before the 
House, while indicating he would recognize a Member opposed who 
immediately sought to offer an amendment.

Sec. 3.3 The question as to when the House will consider a bill that 
    was unfinished on a previous day is always within the control of a 
    majority of the House.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(17) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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 of.''
        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

[[Page 3799]]

    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. 3.4 The adoption of a resolution making in order the consideration 
    of a bill does not 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,(18) 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 bill thereby made in order as unfinished 
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

Sec. 3.5 When the Committee of the Whole during consideration of a bill 
    on Calendar Wednesday votes to rise and the House then rejects a 
    motion to adjourn, Calendar Wednesday business is still before the 
    House, and if the chairman of the appropriate committee calls up 
    the same bill and the question of consideration is decided in the 
    afflrmative, the House automatically resolves itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole and resumes consideration of the bill where 
    it left off.

[[Page 3800]]

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(19) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice 
Act, which had been called up by the Committee on Education and Labor 
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure. The Committee agreed to a 
motion to rise, and, pending a demand for the yeas and nays on the 
motion to adjourn, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 2238-40, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harris: As I understand, the roll call now is on the motion 
    to adjourn.
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Harris: If the motion to adjourn is not agreed to, then 
    what will be the parliamentary situation?
        The Speaker: It will be Calendar Wednesday business.
        Mr. Harris: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harris: Do we automatically then go back into Committee?
        The Speaker: If the gentleman from Michigan calls the bill up 
    again, yes.

    Following the rejection of the motion to adjourn, Mr. John 
Lesinski, of Michigan, called up, by direction of the Committee on 
Education and Labor, the same bill. After the House decided the 
question of consideration in the affirmative, the Speaker directed that 
the House automatically resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
for the further consideration of the bill.

Precedence and Order of Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.6 Where the House has postponed to a day certain a veto message 
    and for the same day created a special order for the reading of 
    Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, after the reading of 
    the Journal and disposition of matters on the Speaker's table, the 
    veto message is first considered.

    On Apr. 14, 1948, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
stated, following the approval of the Journal, the order of business: 
(1) the unfinished business, a veto message postponed to that day by 
motion; (2) the reading of Jefferson's First Inaugural Address by a 
Member designated by the Speaker pursuant to a special order for that 
day (providing for the reading after the approval of the Journal and 
disposition of matters on the Speaker's table); and (3) unanimous-
consent re

[[Page 3801]]

quests and one minute speeches.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.7 Messages from the President, including one received the 
    preceding day, were read and referred before the House proceeded 
    with the unfinished business (the vote on a resolution pending on 
    the preceding day when the House adjourned in the absence of a 
    quorum).

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(21) following the approval of the 
Journal, the Speaker laid before the House two messages from the 
President, which were read and referred, before announcing that the 
unfinished business was the vote on agreeing to a resolution coming 
over from the preceding day. (On Oct. 18, a quorum had failed to appear 
on an automatic roll call vote on agreeing to the resolution, and the 
House had adjourned without completing action thereon.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 112 Cong. Rec. 27640, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.8 The Chair declined to recognize Members for extensions of 
    remarks and oneminute speeches before proceeding with unfinished 
    business on which the previous question had been ordered.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(1) 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 on which the previous 
question had been ordered before the House adjourned in the absence of 
a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 27640, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.9 The regular order of business, such as the relative precedence 
    of a motion to discharge on discharge days over unfinished 
    business, may be varied by unanimous consent.

    On May 8, 1936,(2) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of business 
and the power of the House to change such order by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 80 Cong. Rec. 7010, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that when the House adjourns

[[Page 3802]]

    today it adjourn to meet on Monday next.
        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, and I shall not object, will the Speaker make 
    the situation clear with reference to the legislative program for 
    Monday?
        As I understand it, it will be in order before we complete this 
    bill to take up the question of the discharge of the Rules 
    Committee from further consideration of the Frazier-Lemke bill. I 
    would like to ask the Speaker if my understanding is correct, if 
    consideration of the discharge petition would come up before the 
    vote on this bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it would unless there is a 
    previous understanding. The matter of which shall take precedence 
    can be fixed by consent.
        Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Many Members 
    interested in the Frazier-Lemke bill are anxious to know just what 
    the situation is going to be.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: It would seem to me if 
    the Speaker will permit, that the vote on the pending bill would be 
    the unfinished business before the House on Monday.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin that, by consent, an agreement can be made whereby the 
    vote on the motion to recommit the pending bill, or a roll call on 
    its passage, can be had first, and then to take up the motion to 
    discharge the committee.
        Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XXVII clause 4, discharge 
    motions are in order immediately after approval of the Journal, and 
    thus ordinarily take precedence under Rule XXIV over unfinished 
    business (see Sec. 3.23, infra).

Sec. 3.10 By unanimous consent, the House proceeded to the immediate 
    consideration of an important bill pending on the Union Calendar 
    before taking up unfinished business (votes on certain bills 
    carried over from preceding days).

    On Apr. 6, 1966,(3) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 7749, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The next order of business is the matters that were passed over 
    from Monday and Tuesday. However, the Chair desires to state that 
    there is a bill out of the Committee on Ways and Means relating to 
    the extension of time for filing for medicare. If there is no 
    objection on the part of the House, the Chair would like to 
    recognize the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Mills] to submit a 
    unanimous-consent request to bring this bill up. The Chair also 
    understands it is the intention to have a rollcall on the bill. The 
    Chair is trying to work this out for the benefit of the Members. Is 
    there objection to the Chair recognizing the gentleman from 
    Arkansas [Mr. Mills], for the purpose stated by the Chair? The 
    Chair hears none and recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
    Mills].

[[Page 3803]]

In Committee of the Whole

Sec. 3.11 Business unfinished on District of Columbia Day does not come 
    up until the next day on which that business is in order.

    On June 26, 1939,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering District of Columbia business brought up on District of 
Columbia Day. Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect on the pending bill should the 
Committee rise without completing the bill on that day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 84 Cong. Rec. 7927, 7938, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keller: Mr. Chairman, what would be the effect on this bill 
    if we should vote to rise?
        The Chairman: It would be the unfinished business of the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia on the next day that 
    committee is called.
        Mr. Keller: What day would that be?
        The Chairman: The second and fourth Monday of each month are 
    District days.
        Mr. Keller: If we want present consideration of this bill we 
    will have to vote against the motion?
        The Chairman: I think the membership is sufficiently informed 
    with reference to the motion. The question is on the motion to 
    rise.

Sec. 3.12 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,(5) Chairman Leslie C. Arends, of 
Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows in the Committee 
of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 94 Cong. Rec. 4873, 4874, 80th Cong. 2d 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 deter

[[Page 3804]]

    mine. It is not something within the jurisdiction of the Chair to 
    decide.

Sec. 3.13 When the Committee of the Whole rises with an order for 
    tellers pending, it is the unfinished business and may be dispensed 
    with only by unanimous consent when the Committee resumes its 
    sitting.

    On July 2, 1947, Chairman Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the unfinished business in the Committee of 
the Whole, the Committee having risen on the preceding day after 
tellers were demanded and ordered on an amendment to the pending bill:

        Mr. [George A.] Dondero [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, has the 
    Committee reached the item of flood control on page 8, line 14, of 
    the bill?
        The Chairman: It has not.
        When the Committee rose yesterday, the so-called Rankin 
    amendment was pending. A voice vote had been taken. Tellers were 
    demanded and ordered.
        Without objection, the Clerk will again read the so-called 
    Rankin amendment.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, is it not in order to vacate or 
    disregard the standing vote and take the standing or voice vote 
    again?
        The Chairman: Tellers have already been ordered.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that 
    where a vote is not completed on one day it is taken again when the 
    question again comes up for consideration.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's inquiry is: Can the order for 
    tellers be vacated, and the Committee proceed de novo on the 
    amendment? That can be done by unanimous consent.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that be 
    done.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi asks unanimous 
    consent that the proceedings on the vote on the Rankin amendment 
    when the Committee was last in session be vacated and that the vote 
    be taken de novo. Is there objection?
        Mr. [Albert J.] Engel of Michigan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will again report the amendment.
        The Clerk again reported the amendment offered by Mr. Rankin.
        The Chairman: The Chair appoints the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Engel] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] to act 
    as tellers.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 71, noes 115.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 8136, 8137, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfinished Business Following Recess

Sec. 3.14 Upon concluding a recess, called by the Speaker pending 
    receipt of an en

[[Page 3805]]

    grossed 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,(7) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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 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 occurred before the 89th 
Congress, when Rule XXI was amended to eliminate the provision allowing 
any Member to demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy of a 
bill.

Roll Call Votes Coming Over From Previous Day

Sec. 3.15 When a Member objects to a vote on an amendment on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present and further proceedings are then 
    postponed to a future day by unanimous consent, the question on 
    adoption of the amendment is put de novo on such future day and a 
    roll call is not necessarily automatic at that time.

    On Mar. 23, 1953,(8) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of a 
unanimous-consent agreement to post
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 99 Cong. Rec. 2251, 2252, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3806]]

pone to a future day the question on adoption of an amendment to a bill 
on the District of Columbia Calendar, where the vote had been objected 
to on the ground that a quorum was not present:

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that the 
    second order of business on Wednesday next will be a rollcall on 
    this amendment.
        The Speaker: Not a rollcall; it will be a vote on the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I made the point of order that a 
    quorum was not present, and under those circumstances the rollcall 
    is automatic. I will not agree to any withholding of it unless 
    there is a rollcall, because a rollcall is automatic. I think the 
    Speaker will agree that a quorum is not present now.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is mistaken in his impression. Today 
    a rollcall would be automatic, but not on Wednesday, unless the 
    House so orders.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I do not want to agree to anything like that, 
    Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: It has already been agreed to. The gentleman has 
    forfeited any rights he might have. I am very sorry if he did not 
    understand the situation.

Sec. 3.16 Where a quorum fails to respond on an automatic roll call 
    vote on a pending resolution, and the House then adjourns, the 
    unfinished business when the House again convenes is the vote on 
    the resolution, and the Speaker puts the question on its adoption 
    de novo.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, put the question on agreeing to House Resolution 1062, 
directing the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney a report 
of the Committee on Un-American Activities on the refusal of Jeremiah 
Stamler to testify before the said committee. Objection was made to the 
vote on the ground that a quorum was not present, and a quorum failed 
to respond on the ensuing automatic roll call. In response to a 
parliamentary inquiry propounded by Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, 
the Speaker stated that in the event a quorum did not develop and the 
House adjourned, the first order of business on the following day would 
be the vote on the resolution. A quorum not having appeared, the House 
adjourned before completing action on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 27512, 27513, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(10) Speaker McCormack laid before the 
House
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 27640, 27641.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3807]]

several messages from the President following the approval of the 
Journal, and then announced that the unfinished business was the vote 
on agreeing to House Resolution 1062. The Speaker put the question on 
the resolution, and Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi, objected to 
the division vote on the ground that a quorum was not present. On the 
automatic roll call vote, the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 3.17 Where a quorum fails to respond on an automatic roll call 
    vote on a pending motion, and the House adjourns, the unfinished 
    business when the House again convenes is the vote on the motion, 
    and the Speaker puts the question de novo.

    On Oct. 13, 1962,(11) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following statement as to the unfinished 
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 23474, 23475, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon].
        Without objection, the Clerk will again report the motion of 
    the gentleman from Missouri.
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [Clarence] Cannon moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 2 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        sum proposed by said amendment, insert ``$791,580,500''.

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion.

    On Oct. 12, the preceding day, the House had adjourned following 
the failure of a quorum to appear on an automatic rollcall vote on the 
motion offered by Mr. Cannon.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 23434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.18 Where a Member objects to a vote on the ground that a quorum 
    is not present and further proceedings are postponed (pursuant to a 
    unanimous-consent request putting roll call votes over until later 
    in the week), the Speaker puts the question de novo when the bill 
    is again before the House as unfinished business, and any Member 
    has the same rights as when the question was originally put and may 
    ask for the yeas and nags (unless previously refused) or, if a 
    quorum is not present, may object on that ground; but the fact that 
    a quorum was not present on the prior day, when the vote was 
    objected to, does not assure a roll call vote when the

[[Page 3808]]

    question is again put as unfinished business.

    On Oct. 7, 1965, the unfinished business was the final action on 
several bills which had been considered on Oct. 5 and 6 but whose 
further consideration had been postponed to Oct. 7, pursuant to a 
unanimous-consent agreement on Oct. 1 that all roll call votes demanded 
on Oct. 5 or 6 be put over until Oct. 7. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquries on the procedures to be 
followed on the unfinished business and on the rights of Members in 
relation thereto:

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, if on a previous day where under the 
    unanimousconsent agreement of October 1, 1965, of this House 
    objection was made on the basis that a quorum was not present and 
    the point of order was made that a quorum was not present and the 
    Speaker thereafter did state that evidently a quorum was not 
    present and that the bill would be put over per the prior 
    agreement; should that rollcall come automatically today when we 
    are back in session and released from that agreement?
        The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry, the 
    Chair will state that the vote comes up de novo and Members have 
    the same rights that they had when the matter was being considered 
    on the previous day.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        If I understand the distinguished Speaker correctly, then being 
    de novo, objection would still have to be made on the same basis 
    and as to whether a quorum was then present, it would still be 
    honored?
        The Speaker: A Member could demand the yeas and nays and if a 
    sufficient number of Members are in favor of taking the vote by the 
    yeas and nays there would be a rollcall vote of course. Or a Member 
    could object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present 
    and, of course, if a quorum is not present the rollcall would be 
    automatic.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        If there was then a quorum present, however, it would not 
    revert to the previous fact and therefore an individual Member 
    would have to have stood on his rights at the time the 
    unanimousconsent request was given rather than make the point of 
    order that a quorum was not present on the current day?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that further consideration of 
    certain bills was passed over in accordance with the unaminous-
    consent request entered into by the House on October 1 and the 
    question of final passage comes up before the House today.
        As the Chair has previously stated, if any Member wants a 
    rollcall vote, he can demand a rollcall vote or if he objects to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, he can make 
    the point that he objects to the vote on

[[Page 3809]]

    the ground that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Hall: I thank the Speaker. I think it is crystal clear that 
    Members lose the right to object that they had at the time the 
    unanimous-consent request was made.
        The Speaker: Every Member has the same right today as they had 
    on the day that the bill originally was being 
    considered.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 26243, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.19 Where final action on several bills is put over from one day 
    to the next pursuant to a special order postponing roll call votes, 
    the further consideration of those measures is the unfinished 
    business on the day when roll calls are again in order; the Chair 
    puts the question on each bill de novo, in the order in which they 
    were considered on the prior day.

    On Oct. 7, 1965,(14) the House resumed the consideration 
of several bills which had been considered on Oct. 5 and 6, pursuant to 
a special order on Oct. 1 postponing to Oct. 7 any roll call votes, 
other than on matters of procedure, demanded on Oct. 5 or 6. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, put the question on each such 
postponed bill de novo, in the order in which the bills had been 
considered on Oct. 5 and 6. For example, proceedings on the first two 
of such postponed bills were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 26242, 26243, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The unfinished business is further consideration 
    of the veto message from the President of October 4, 1965, on H.R. 
    5902, an act for the relief of Cecil Graham.
        Without objection the bill and message will be referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary and ordered printed.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The further unfinished business is the question on 
    suspending the rules and passing the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 
    106) to allow the showing of the U.S. Information Agency film 
    ``John F. Kennedy--Years of Lightning, Day of Drums.''
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate joint resolution.
        The question is: Shall the House suspend the rules and pass 
    Senate Joint Resolution 106?
        The question was taken; and two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof, the rules were suspended, and the Senate joint resolution 
    was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Calendar Wednesday Business as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.20 The previous question having been ordered on a bill on 
    Calendar Wednesday, the bill becomes the unfinished business after 
    the reading of the Journal on the next legis

[[Page 3810]]

    lative day, or on any day thereafter.

    On Apr. 25, 1930,(15) the previous question was ordered 
on a Calendar Wednesday bill, and then a Member demanded the reading of 
the engrossed copy, which was not yet prepared. Speaker Nicholas 
Longworth, of Ohio, answered a parliamentary inquiry on when the bill 
would come up as unfinished business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 72 Cong. Rec. 7774, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    reading of the engrossed bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Minnesota demands the reading 
    of the engrossed bill. It is plainly impossible to read the 
    engrossed bill at this time.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snell: As I understand the situation, there is a decision 
    by Speaker Gillett that, if the reading of the engrossed copy of 
    the bill at this time is demanded, it will be in order to take this 
    up on the next legislative day.
        The Speaker: The Chair would consider it the unfinished 
    business.
        Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the bill by title for the 
    third time.

    Similarly, Speaker Longworth answered a parliamentary inquiry on 
May 14, 1930, as to the status of Calendar Wednesday business as 
unfinished business:

        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Crisp: Mr. Speaker, the previous question having been 
    ordered on the bill and amendments to final passage, if the House 
    adjourns now, ordinarily would not the matter come up the next day, 
    and to-morrow being set apart under special order for memorial 
    exercises, if the House adjourns now, will not this matter, the 
    previous question having been ordered, come up after the reading of 
    the Journal on Friday?
        The Speaker: On Friday, to-morrow not being a legislative day. 
    . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 8964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 22, 1950, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry after the House had ordered the previous question 
on a Calendar Wednesday bill and after a Member had demanded the 
reading of the engrossed copy thereof:

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, that means the House will have to stay 
    in

[[Page 3811]]

    session until the engrossed copy is secured?
        The Speaker: It does not.
        Mr. Rankin: We cannot take a recess on Calendar Wednesday?
        The Speaker: The House can adjourn.
        Mr. Rankin: We can adjourn but that ends Calendar Wednesday.
        The Speaker: The previous question has been ordered and the 
    next time the House meets, whether this week or any other week, it 
    is the pending business.
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Colmer: Can the Speaker advise us when the engrossed copy 
    will be available and when the vote will be taken?
        The Speaker: Not until the gentleman from Massachusetts makes a 
    request about adjournment or offers a motion.
        The Chair wants all Members to understand that on the convening 
    of the House at its next session, the final disposition of this 
    matter is the pending business.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 2254, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.21 Where the House adjourns after ordering the previous question 
    on a bill and amendments thereto on a Calendar Wednesday, the bill 
    becomes the unfinished business the next day and separate votes may 
    be demanded on amendments the next day.

    On May 17, 1939,(18) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of adjournment 
on a pending Calendar Wednesday bill with amendments thereto, where the 
previous question has been ordered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 5682, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the bill and all amendments to final passage.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rayburn: Were the House to adjourn at this time, would the 
    present bill be the pending business tomorrow?
        The Speaker: Answering the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Texas, the Chair will state that the previous 
    question having been ordered on the bill and all amendments to 
    final passage, it would be the unfinished and privileged order of 
    business tomorrow morning.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Can these individual amendments then be voted on?
        The Speaker: A separate vote can be demanded on them when that 
    question is reached.

[[Page 3812]]

Conference Reports as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.22 Further consideration of a conference report on which the 
    previous question had been ordered was, by unanimous consent, 
    postponed and made the unfinished business on the following day.

    On Dec. 15, 1970,(19) further consideration of a 
conference report (H.R. 17867, foreign assistance appropriations) was 
postponed by unanimous consent after the previous question had been 
ordered thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 41544. 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question on the conference report.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (20) The question is on the conference 
    report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: 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 state that there are five 
    amendments in disagreement.
        Mr. Hall: I want a vote on the acceptance of the conference 
    report, to which I object violently, and I object to the vote on 
    the ground that a quorum is not present and, I repeat, I make a 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will count.
        Will the gentleman withhold his point of order?
        Mr. Hall: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not withhold the point of 
    order. I insist on my point of order. The point of order has been 
    properly made.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman indulge the Chair? There are 
    quite a few Members at the White House, and it would be the purpose 
    of the gentleman from Texas if the gentleman from Missouri will 
    withhold his point of order, to ask that further proceedings on the 
    conference report and the amendments in disagreement be postponed 
    until tomorrow, because there are many Members at the White House 
    with their wives.
        Mr. Hall: The only question of the gentleman from Missouri is: 
    Why was this not considered before the conference report was called 
    up?
        Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, and with that 
    understanding and for no other purpose, I will yield until the 
    gentleman from Texas makes his request.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that further proceedings on the conference report be 
    postponed until tomorrow and that this be the first order of 
    business on tomorrow. . . .
        Mr. Hall: . . . Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection. . . .
        The Speaker: Accordingly, the matter is postponed until 
    tomorrow, when it will be the first order of business.

[[Page 3813]]

    On Dec. 16, the following day, the question was put on the 
conference report as unfinished business following the approval of the 
Journal and following the receipt of message from the 
Senate.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 41933, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discharged Bills as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.23 A bill before the House by way of a motion to discharge, if 
    unfinished before adjournment on the day on which it is called up, 
    remains the unfinished business until fully disposed of and may be 
    called up as unfinished business on any day, not necessarily on the 
    next day.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(2) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
propounded a parliamentary inquiry to Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, on the status of H.R. 2245, to repeal the tax on 
oleomargarine, which had been brought up on that day by a successful 
motion to discharge under Rule XXVII clause 4:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 4877, 4878, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rayburn: Since this is the pending business, suppose the 
    gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Rivers] determines not to move 
    tomorrow that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the pending bill; would that jeopardize his chances of making 
    that motion on Wednesday?

    Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, was heard on the inquiry:

        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, my only purpose in saying anything 
    now is that we are establishing a precedent here that is most 
    important. I think it is clear that the House can do almost 
    anything by unanimous consent, but I am just as convinced that a 
    special privilege created by a special rule like the discharge 
    rule, is entirely different from a privilege under the general 
    rules attaching, for instance, to appropriation bills. It is my 
    thought that when this discharge rule was written, as amended, the 
    rule was specific in providing that when by discharge petition the 
    ordinary procedure of the House was changed and interfered with, 
    and the House voted to discharge the committee, those in favor of 
    considering the legislation effected by the discharge petition, may 
    immediately--and I stress the word immediately--bring the matter 
    before House, and the House shall immediately proceed to a 
    conclusion of the consideration; and if the conclusion is not 
    reached on the first day, then this legislation shall be the 
    unfinished business until it is completed.
        I am wondering whether, as a matter of reason and logic and 
    parliamentary procedure, if other business intervenes, that special 
    discharge rule privilege is not lost. If that were not true, the 
    bill could be put over in the discretion of those who were 
    responsible for the petition and who had changed the

[[Page 3814]]

    rules of the House temporarily. If the bill can be called up 
    Wednesday instead of the following day, as unfinished, then it can 
    be called up Thursday, or the next Thursday, or the last day before 
    the session ended, and this bill would have a special privilege the 
    rest of the session, conditioned only upon the general rules of the 
    House affecting privileges like those of appropriation bills and 
    bills from the Committee on Ways and Means.
        I may say, Mr. Speaker, that my only interest in this matter is 
    as to the precedent.

    Speaker Martin then answered the parliamentary inquiry as follows:

        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 of.''
        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 some one 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.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Must it be called up by unanimous consent on 
    Wednesday?
        The Speaker: No. It remains the unfinished business and can be 
    called up by the gentleman from South Carolina or someone delegated 
    by his side to do so.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVII clause 4 specifically pro

[[Page 3815]]

vides that in the event that it is agreed to proceed to the immediate 
consideration of a bill brought up by way of a motion to discharge, the 
bill if unfinished before adjournment on the day on which it is called 
up shall remain the unfinished business until it is fully disposed of.

Unfinished Business Yields to Motion to Discharge

Sec. 3.24 A motion to discharge a committee, which motion has been on 
    the Discharge Calendar for seven legislative days, is of higher 
    privilege for consideration on the second and fourth Mondays of the 
    month than the unfinished business coming over from a preceding day 
    with the previous question ordered.

    On May 8, 1936,(3) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the relative 
precedence of unfinished business on which the previous question had 
been ordered, and a motion on the Discharge Calendar (which had been on 
the calendar for seven days) on a day on which motions to discharge 
were in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 80 Cong. Rec. 7010, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourns to 
    meet on Monday next.
        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, and I shall not object, will the Speaker make 
    the situation clear with reference to the legislative program for 
    Monday?
        As I understand it, it will be in order before we complete this 
    bill to take up the question of the discharge of the Rules 
    Committee from further consideration of the Frazier-Lemke bill. I 
    would like to ask the Speaker if my understanding is correct, if 
    consideration of the discharge petition would come up before the 
    vote on this bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it would unless there is a 
    previous understanding. The matter of which shall take precedence 
    can be fixed by consent.
        Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Many Members 
    interested in the Frazier-Lemke bill are anxious to know just what 
    the situation is going to be.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: It would seem to me, if 
    the Speaker will permit, that the vote on the pending bill would be 
    the unfinished business before the House on Monday.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin that, by consent, an agreement can be made whereby the 
    vote on the motion to recommit the pending bill, or a roll call on 
    its passage can be had first, and then to take up the motion to 
    discharge the committee.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. While the 21-day discharge rule was in effect, the House in one 
        instance adjourned before completing consideration of a 
        resolution taken from the Committee on Rules under the 21-day 
        rule, thus causing the matter to go over to another second or 
        fourth Monday as unfinished business under that rule. 95 Cong. 
        Rec. 14161, 14169, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 10, 1949.

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

[[Page 3816]]

District of Columbia Business as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.25 Unfinished business on a District of Columbia Monday 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.

    On May 9, 1932,(5) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of business on District 
of Columbia Monday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 75 Cong. Rec. 9836, 72d Cong. 1st 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, 
    was 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.

Sec. 3.26 Business unfinished on District of Columbia Day does not come 
    up until the next day on which that business is in order.

    On June 26, 1939,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering District of Clolumbia business brought up on District of 
Columbia Day. Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect on the pending bill should the 
Committee rise without completing the bill on that day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 7927, 7928, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 3817]]

        Mr. Keller: Mr. Chairman, what would be the effect on this bill 
    if we should vote to rise?
        The Chairman: It would be the unfinished business of the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia on the next day that 
    committee is called.
        Mr. Keller: What day would that be?
        The Chairman: The second and fourth Monday of each month are 
    District days.
        Mr. Keller: If we want present consideration of this bill we 
    will have to vote against the motion?
        The Chairman: I think the membership is sufficiently informed 
    with reference to the motion. The question is on the motion to 
    rise.

Messages as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.27 The reception of a Presidential message being a matter of 
    high privilege in the House, the Speaker pro tempore indicated in 
    response to a parliamentary inquiry that where such a message is 
    received it is laid before the House as soon as business permits, 
    and that the precedents do not justify its being held at the desk 
    until another legislative day.

    On June 24, 1968,(7) following the legislative business 
for the day, a message from the President was received and laid before 
the House by Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma. The Speaker 
pro tempore responded to a parliamentary inquiry as to whether the 
message could be laid down on the following legislative day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 18330, 18331, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair lays before the House a 
    message from the President of the United States.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker. a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of the Chair is it 
    necessary that a Presidential message when delivered in writing be 
    presented to the Members of the House immediately or could it be 
    held until the next legislative day?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the 
    distinguished gentleman that when the House is in session, a 
    message from the President is laid before the House.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry, is this 
    done by tradition, at the will of the Chair, or is it supported by 
    a rule of the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is supported by the custom of the 
    House and the provisions of the constitution.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        Could the Chair advise the Members of the House as to the 
    subject of this particular message, arriving at 4:45 in the 
    evening?

[[Page 3818]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It relates to the matter of firearms 
    legislation.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the Members of the House 
    should hear anything that is this important and I make a point of 
    order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently, a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker. I move a 
    call of the House.
        A call of the House was ordered.
        The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to 
    answer to their names: . . .

    A quorum responded to the call of the House, and the message was 
then laid before the House and read by the Clerk

Sec. 3.28 Where messages from the Senate and the President were 
    received during a call of the House, and the House adjourned when a 
    quorum failed to appear on the call, the messages were held at the 
    Speaker's table until it next convened.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(8) a message from the Senate and a 
message from the President were received while a call of the House was 
in progress. A quorum having failed to appear, the House adjourned. The 
messages were held at the Speaker's table until the House next convened 
on the following day and were then laid before the House.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 30816, 30817, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. 114 Cong. Rec. 31116, 31117, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1968. 
        See also Sec. 3.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions to Suspend the Rules as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.29 Pursuant to a special order postponing roll calls until the 
    following Thursday, consideration of the vote on a bill called up 
    under suspension of the rules was postponed and made the unfinished 
    business on the day when roll calls would again be in order.

    On Oct. 5, 1935,(10) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of 
Wisconsin, moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill; when Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, put the question on the motion, 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, objected to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum was not present. The Speaker then stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 25941-44, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For the proposition that messages from the President or 
        Senate may be received during a call of the House, see House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 562 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the order of the House of October 1, further 
    proceedings on

[[Page 3819]]

    the Senate joint resolution will go over until Thursday, October 7.

    The postponement of the vote on the motion to suspend the rules was 
carried as follows in the House Journal:

        On a division, demanded by Mr. Gross, there appeared--yeas 55, 
    nays 12.
        Mr. Gross objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was 
    not present and not voting and made the point of order that a 
    quorum was not present.
        Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of October 1, 1965, 
    further consideration of the motion to suspend the rules and pass 
    the joint resolution of the Senate, S.J. Res. 106 was postponed 
    until Thursday, October 7, 1965. Mr. Gross then withdrew his point 
    of no quorum.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Jour. 1256, 1257, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 5, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Oct. 1, the House had agreed to a 
unanimous-consent request that all roll call votes, other than on 
matters of procedure, which might be ordered on Oct. 5 or 6, be put 
over until Oct. 7.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 25796, 25797, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.30 A motion to suspend the rules which remains undisposed of at 
    adjournment (after the conclusion of debate on one suspension day), 
    goes over as unfinished business to the next suspension day.

    On Aug. 5, 1935,(13) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, announced, on a suspension day, the order of business as to 
an unfinished motion to suspend the rules coming over from a previous 
suspension day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 79 Cong. Rec. 12506, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: When the House adjourned on the last suspension 
    day there was under consideration the bill (S. 2865) to amend the 
    joint resolution establishing the George Rogers Clark 
    Sesquicentennial Commission, approved May 23, 1928. The question is 
    on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. This motion 
    is, therefore, the unfinished business, as the Chair understands 
    debate was concluded on the measure.

Sec. 3.31 A motion to suspend the rules on which a second had been 
    ordered, remaining undisposed of at adjournment was, on the next 
    day when such motion was again in order, withdrawn by unanimous 
    consent.

    On May 5, 1958,(14) which was a day when motions to 
suspend the rules were in order, Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, asked 
unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings under suspension of the 
rules held two weeks prior on H.R. 11414, to amend the Public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 104 Cong. Rec. 8004, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3820]]

Health Service Act. (On the prior occasion, a second had been ordered 
on the bill but the House had adjourned before completing its 
consideration.) The unanimous-consent request was agreed to, and Mr. 
Harris moved to suspend the rules and pass the same bill with 
amendments.

Reading Engrossed Copy of Bill as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.32 Where the reading of the engrossed copy of a bill was 
    demanded under prior practice, the bill was laid aside until the 
    engrossed copy could be provided.

    On June 17, 1948,(15) a bill was ordered to be engrossed 
and read a third time. A Member demanded the reading of the engrossed 
copy, and Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, responded, 
``The bill will have to be laid aside until the engrossed copy can be 
provided.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 8713, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 3, 1949,(16) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, 
demanded the reading of the engrossed copy of a bill. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, allowed the bill to go over as unfinished business, 
stating that ``The Chair thinks it would not be practicable to wait for 
that this evening.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 5544, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent and the following ones, 
relating to the reading of the engrossed copy of a bill as unfinished 
business, predate the 1965 amendments deleting from the rules of the 
House the provision in Rule XXI allowing any Member to demand the 
reading in full of the engrossed copy of a bill.

Sec. 3.33 A Member who had demanded the reading of the engrossed copy 
    of a bill (under the prior practice) withdrew the demand the next 
    day before the reading of the engrossed copy as unfinished 
    business.

    On June 18, 1948,(17) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, announced that the unfinished business was the reading 
of the engrossed copy of a bill, the demand for the reading having been 
made on the previous day and before the engrossed copy was prepared. 
Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, who had demanded the reading of the 
engrossed copy on the previous day, withdrew his demand and the bill 
was read the third time by title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 8828, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.34 Under prior practice, if the House adjourned after a

[[Page 3821]]

    demand for the reading of an engrossed copy of a bill but before 
    such reading, the bill became the unfinished business of the House.

    On Feb. 6, 1946,(18) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, put 
the question on the engrossment and third reading of the pending bill, 
H.R. 4908, to investigate labor disputes. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, demanded the reading of the engrossed copy, which was not yet 
available. The Speaker indicated that pursuant to the demand for the 
reading, a final vote could not be had until the engrossed copy was 
available. The Speaker answered a parliamentary inquiry propounded by 
Mr. Jennings Randolph, of West Virginia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 1027-29, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair has an opinion that in all probability 
    it could not be here before midnight.
        Mr. Randolph: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry which would not go to the direct point at 
    issue, but I would like to know approximately the time we might 
    expect the engrossed copy.
        Mr. Randolph: Mr. Speaker, assuming the engrossed copy is here 
    tomorrow, will the first order of business, on reconvening, be the 
    vote on the bill?
        The Speaker: It is the unfinished business.

    On Aug. 22, 1963, following the demand for the reading of the 
engrossed copy of a bill but before the engrossed copy was prepared, 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that the vote on 
the bill would ``come up on the next legislative day after the bill is 
engrossed.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 15624, 15625, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Business as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.35 When the House adjourns before completing action upon an 
    omnibus private bill, such bill goes over as unfinished business 
    until that class of business is again in order under the rule.

    On Mar. 17, 1936,(20) Speaker pro tempore Edward T. 
Taylor, of Colorado, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of 
adjournment on  pending omnibus private bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 80 Cong. Rec. 3901, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Costello [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the House do now adjourn.
        Mr. [Fred] Biermann [of Iowa]: Pending that, what will be the 
    status of this omnibus bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This bill will be the unfinished 
    business the next time this calendar is called.

[[Page 3822]]

        Mr. Biermann: And that will be a month from today?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Whenever the date is.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from California 
    that the House do now adjourn.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 888 (1979) for resumption of 
        unfinished business in periods set apart for certain classes of 
        business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veto Messages as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.36 Pursuant to a special order postponing roll calls until the 
    following Thursday, consideration of a veto message was made the 
    unfinished business on a day when roll calls would again be in 
    order (objection having been raised to a unanimous-consent request 
    that the veto message be referred to committee).

    On Oct. 5, 1965,(2) a veto message from the President 
was laid before the House by Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, and read by the Clerk. The Speaker pro tempore immediately 
stated that if there was no objection, the message would be referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered printed, but Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, objected to such disposition of the message. The 
Speaker pro tempore therefore stated that pursuant to the order of the 
House on Oct. 1, the veto message would be the pending business on 
Thursday, Oct. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 25940, 25941, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Id. at pp. 25796, 25797.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Oct. 1, 1965, the House had agreed to a 
unanimous-consent request, propounded by Mr. Albert and due to 
religious holidays on Oct. 5 and 6, that any roll call votes, other 
than on questions of procedure, which might be demanded on Oct. 5 or 6, 
be put over until Oct. 7.(3) Consideration of the message 
was postponed in anticipation that any disposition would generate a 
roll call.

Sec. 3.37 The Speaker made a statement as to the order of business 
    where a veto postponed to a day certain was the unfinished 
    business.

    On Apr. 14, 1948, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
made the following statement on the order of business, a veto message 
having been postponed to that day: \(4\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair wishes to state the order of business.
        The unfinished business is the further consideration of the 
    veto message of the President of the United States

[[Page 3823]]

    on the bill (H.R. 5052) to exclude certain vendors of newspapers or 
    magazines from certain provisions of the Social Security Act and 
    the Internal Revenue Code.
        Following that, under a special order Jefferson's First 
    Inaugural Address will be read. Following that, the Chair will 
    recognize Members to submit consent requests to extend remarks and 
    to address the House for 1 minute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Consideration of a veto message on the day 
to which it has been postponed is highly privileged and becomes the 
unfinished business following the approval of the 
Journal.\(5\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 14, 1948; 
        116 Cong. Rec. 1483, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Jan. 28, 1970; and 119 
        Cong. Rec. 36202, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 7, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.38 Where a veto message postponed to a day certain is announced 
    as the unfinished business, no motion is required from the floor 
    for consideration of such veto, and the question, ``Will the House, 
    on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President 
    to the contrary notwithstanding'' is pending.

    On Jan. 28, 1970, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, put 
the following question, following the approval of the Journal and a 
call of the House, on a veto message postponed to that day by motion on 
Jan. 27:

        The Speaker: The unfinished business is: Will the House, on 
    reconsideration, pass the bill, H.R. 13111, an act making 
    appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
    and Welfare, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 
    30, 1970, and for other purposes, the objections of the President 
    to the contrary notwithstanding?
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) for 1 
    hour.\(6\)

Withdrawal of Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.39 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 1483, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 3824]]

amendments to a House bill). Prior to the disposition of the 
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: \(7\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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].
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, under the rules I withdraw House 
    Resolution 665.
        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

[[Page 3825]]

    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 of the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222. That is the unfinished 
    business.

Sec. 3.40 Where a Member has obtained unanimous consent for the 
    consideration of a bill in the House, he may withdraw such request 
    before the bill has been amended, even though an amendment is 
    pending, and, if withdrawn, the bill does not become the unfinished 
    business of the House.

    On May 16, 1938,\(8\) a bill was called up on 
the Consent Calender. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, answered 
a parliamentary inquiry as to the status of the bill and as to whether 
it was unfinished business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 83 Cong. Rec. 6927, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [August H.] Andresen of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Andresen of Minnesota: On Tuesday last this bill was 
    brought up under unanimous consent. The bill was read. No objection 
    was raised to the consideration of the bill. The bill was read as 
    amended by the Committee on Agriculture. Debate was had upon it and 
    I offered an amendment at the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill. Debate was had upon my amendment. The chairman of the 
    Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones] 
    stated at the conclusion of the debate upon my amendment:

            I would much rather withdraw the request, and I will notify 
        the gentleman before it is called up.

[[Page 3826]]

        He further said:

            Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the request.

        But the Record does not show that the gentleman from Texas 
    asked unanimous consent to withdraw the bill from further 
    consideration of the House. My parliamentary inquiry is as to 
    whether or not the bill is now the unfinished business on the 
    Speaker's desk and requires no further action here as far as 
    objection is concerned and that it comes up automatically.
        The Speaker: In reply to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Andresen], it is the recollection of 
    the Chair that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones] asked unanimous 
    consent for the consideration of the bill and that the gentleman 
    from Minnesota did offer an amendment and debated it, whereupon the 
    gentleman from Texas rose in his place and said that rather than 
    have the matter pressed to an issue on the amendment which the 
    gentleman from Minnesota proposed, he would prefer to withdraw his 
    request for consideration of the bill. The amendment was not acted 
    upon by the House. The Chair is of opinion that under rule XVI, 
    section 2, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones] could withdraw the 
    consideration of the bill without unanimous consent. The Chair, 
    therefore, is of opinion that the matter is not unfinished business 
    on the Speaker's desk.
        Mr. [Fred C.] Gilchrist [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask unanimous 
    consent that the bill go over without prejudice.
        The Speaker: Is there objection?
        There was no objection.

Unfinished Business Not Affected by Adjournment Between Sessions

Sec. 3.41 The enactment of a law changing the date of meeting of the 
    second session of a Congress does not affect the status of 
    discharge motions on the desk or of other legislative matters 
    pending at the end of the first session.

    On Dec. 19, 1945,\(9\) Mr. John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, offered a privileged resolution changing the meeting 
date of the second session of the 79th Congress to Jan. 14, 1946, 
rather than Jan. 3, 1946. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect of the resolution on a discharge 
petition or other legislative matters pending in the first session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 12346, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Folger [of North Carolina]: I have a discharge 
    petition on the desk, No. 10, in which I am very, very much 
    interested. I have no objection to this adjournment until the 14th 
    unless I have to go back and get that signed anew. Will that carry 
    over?
        The Speaker: It will carry over.
        Mr. Folger: If it will I am all right.
        The Speaker: Everything remains on the calendar just as it is 
    now.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVI, House Rules and Manual

[[Page 3827]]

Sec. 901 (1979), entitled ``Unfinished Business of the Session,'' 
provides that business before committees continues from session to 
session; under the practice of the House that rule applies to business 
pending before the House as well as before committees.