[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[A. General Principles]
[§ 6. One-minute Speeches]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 3871-3880]
CHAPTER 21
Order of Business; Special Orders
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Sec. 6. One-minute Speeches
Although not provided for in the order of business specified in the
rules of the House, one-minute speeches, for the purpose of debate
only, are usually entertained by the Speaker immediately following the
approval of the Journal and before any legislative
business.(18) Members obtain recognition for one-minute
speeches by requesting unanimous consent to address the House for one
minute; speeches made under the procedure may not exceed one minute or
300 words (if the word-limit is exceeded, the speech will be printed in
the Extensions of Remarks or Appendix of the Record).(19)
One-minute speeches are distinguished from ``special-order'' speeches,
which may extend up to one hour and which follow the legislative
program of the day.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For discussion of the evolution of the practice of allowing one-
minute speeches, see Sec. 6.1, infra. For discussion of the
principle that orders to address the House for more than one
minute must follow the legislative business of the day, see
Sec. 7.1, infra.
19. See Sec. 6.1, infra. See also Ch. 29, infra (consideration and
debate) and Ch. 5, supra (discussing the Congressional Record),
for the relationship of one minute speeches to recognition,
debate, and the printing of the Congressional Record.
20. See Sec. 7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The normal procedure for one-minute speeches may be varied where
necessary; such speeches may, for example, exceed one-minute, in the
discretion of the Speaker, when no legislative business is
scheduled.(1) And the Speaker may decline to recognize for
one-minute speeches before proceeding to pressing
business.(2) The Speaker has on occasion rec
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.5, infra.
2. See Sec. Sec. 6.6, 6.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3872]]
ognized for one-minute speeches after business has been conducted,
where circumstances so permitted.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 6.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, the ``one-minute rule'' is followed on each day that the
House is in session, in order to give Members the opportunity to
express themselves on a variety of subjects while no business is under
discussion. -------------------
In Order Before Legislative Business
Sec. 6.1 The Speaker discussed in the 79th Congress the modern practice
permitting speeches of up to one minute following the approval of
the Journal and before the legislative business of the day, and the
practice of allowing such speeches to extend beyond one minute
where no legislative business is scheduled.
On Mar. 6, 1945,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
responded to a parliamentary inquiry on the place of ``one-minute''
speeches in the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 91 Cong. Rec. 1788, 1789, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair can reiterate what he has said many
times. If he can go back, there was a time here when Members rose
the day before and asked unanimous consent that after the approval
of the Journal and disposition of matters on the Speaker's desk
they might proceed for 20 minutes or 30 minutes or an hour. As
chairman of a committee in those days I would sit here ready to go
along with my bill, and probably it would be 3 o'clock in the
afternoon before legislation was reached.
When I became majority leader, I made the statement to the
House, after consulting with the minority leader, who I think at
that time was Mr. Snell, of New York, that if anyone asked to
proceed for more than 1 minute before the legislative program of
the day was completed we would object. Since then Members have not
asked to proceed for more than a minute before the legislative
program.
Then Members began speaking for a minute and putting into the
Record a long speech, so that 10 or a dozen pages of the Record was
taken up before the people who read the Record would get to the
legislative program of the day, in which I would think they would
be the most interested. So we adopted the policy--there is no rule
about it--of asking that when Members speak for a minute, if their
remarks are more than 300 words, which many times can be said in a
minute, their remarks or any extension of their remarks go in the
Appendix of the Record. The Chair has on numerous occasions spoken
to those who control the Record and asked them to follow that
policy.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I take
issue of course with that policy, because these
[[Page 3873]]
1-minute speakers do not abuse the Record, as a rule. The only
question that has been raised about any abuse of the Record in
regard to these 1-minute speeches was with reference to a speech
made on the 5th of February, I believe, wherein the 1-minute
speaker used several pages.
The Speaker: The Chair might state also that when there is no
legislative program in the House for the day, such speeches may go
in, and they will go in as 1-minute speeches.
Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Speaker, verifying the
statement, which, of course, needs no verification, I remember
going to the Speaker and asking if it would be proper to put the
speech in the body of the Record, and the Speaker said that there
was no legislative program for the day and there was no reason why
a Member could not do it. I assume that was on the 5th of February.
The Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Rankin: Let me say to the gentleman from New York that on
yesterday one of the Members made a speech that you will find in
the Record almost or quite as long as the speech of the gentleman
from Nevada [Mr. Bunker], or the one of the gentleman from Arkansas
[Mr. Gathings], or the one that I made. It was placed in the body
of the Record, and it was in excess of 300 words. I can go back
through the Record here and find numerous occasions.
If we are going to adopt the policy that everybody who speaks
in the well of the House and uses over 300 words must have his
speech printed in the Appendix, it should apply to all of us.
I notice sometimes the Presiding Officer occasionally allows
some people more than a minute. Some people have long minutes. We
had one rise to speak the other day. I drew my watch. I believe it
was 3 minutes. If you will check back you will find every word of
it went in the body of the Record. I think this should be a matter
to be settled by the membership of the House. Where they make these
1-minute speeches with the right to extend their own remarks, it
should go in the body of the Record and not be shifted to the
Appendix of the Record to make it appear as if it were an extension
of remarks.
The Speaker: The House has that within its entire control at
any time it desires to act upon the question.
The practice regarding such speeches was also discussed on Feb. 6,
1945 (Speaker Rayburn presiding): (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Id. at pp. 839-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: I wish to ask the Chair
how it is that if a Member on this side asks for a minute in which
to address the House he is permitted to insert 300 words or less,
but that when some Members on the other side of the aisle make
similar requests they are permitted to put in 7\1/3\ pages, or some
8,000 words? How does the discrimination come about?
The Speaker: There is no discrimination because there was no
legislative program on yesterday and anyone had the right to extend
his remarks ``at this point'' in the Record.
Mr. Rich: I am glad to hear that.
The Speaker: There is no discrimination; that has been the
custom for
[[Page 3874]]
several years. The gentleman will learn it now if he does not
already know it from previous rulings of the Chair. . . .
Mr. Rankin: The question has been raised by two Members, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] and the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] about certain matter that was inserted in
the Record on yesterday, by another Member. The contention has been
made that it was in violation of the rules of the House.
May I ask the Speaker if it would not be the proper procedure,
if any Member feels that the rule has been violated, for him to
make a point of order against the insertion, and if his point of
order is sustained, then to move to strike the matter from the
Record?
The Speaker: That could be done. Let the Chair explain the
whole situation.
In the first place, the 1-minute rule was adopted in order that
no Member could proceed for more than 1 minute prior to the
business of the day on any day when there was a legislative
program. The Chair has instructed the official reporters that if
such a 1-minute speech and whatever extension is made of it amounts
to more than 300 words, it must appear in the Appendix of the
Record.
As to the matter on yesterday, when a Member asks unanimous
consent to extend his remarks in the Record, whether or not he
addresses the House in connection therewith and whether or not
there is a legislative program for that day, if the extraneous
matter covers more than two pages it is the duty of the Public
Printer under regulation promulgated by the Joint Committee on
Printing to return it, unless the Member having first obtained an
estimate of the cost from the Public Printer and included that
estimate in his request, has obtained the unanimous consent of the
House that the whole extension may be included in the Record. The
Chair has tried to enforce the 300-word rule, and intends to, but
he does not have any way of looking into what goes to the Printing
Office in the extension of remarks.
Parliamentarian's Note: When there is a legislative program for the
day, any one-minute speeches which contain more than 300 words are
printed in the Congressional Record following the business of the day
or in the Appendix.(6) And extensions of remarks on one-
minute speeches are not printed at that point in the Record where there
is a legislative program for the day, but in the Appendix of the
Record.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Speaker Rayburn's announcement of Jan. 17, 1949, 95 Cong. Rec.
403, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
7. 84 Cong. Rec. 8779, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 10, 1939; and 84
Cong. Rec. 7108, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1939.
See also the statement of Majority Leader Rayburn on June
10, 1939, 84 Cong. Rec. 6949, 6950, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., that
he would thereafter object to extensions of remarks ``at this
point in the Record'' where a Member has addressed the House
for one minute before the legislative program of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3875]]
Sec. 6.2 The Speaker stated that when Members are recognized after
approval of the Journal to extend remarks and to proceed for one
minute and then a point of order of no quorum is made to start the
consideration of legislation, it is not proper to begin over again
recognition to extend remarks and proceed for one-minute speeches.
On Mar. 7, 1941,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made
a statement as to one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 87 Cong. Rec. 2008, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Chair make a statement. When the House meets and
Members are recognized to extend their remarks or to proceed for 1
minute and all who are on the floor and so desire have been
recognized, and then a point of no quorum is made in order to start
the business of legislation for the day, the Chair thinks it is
hardly proper to begin all over again in recognizing Members to
extend their own remarks or to proceed for 1 minute, but the Chair
will recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Gifford].
Sec. 6.3 While one-minute speeches are normally entertained at the
beginning of the legislative day, immediately following the
approval of the Journal, the Speaker sometimes recognizes Members
to proceed for one minute after business has been conducted.
On Oct. 15, 1969,(9) one-minute speeches had been
concluded following the approval of the Journal and Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, had recognized several Members for
business requests by unanimous consent before recognizing Mr. Spark M.
Matsunaga, of Hawaii, to call up the first scheduled legislative
business of the day. Before Mr. Matsunaga took the floor, Mr. Arnold
Olsen, of Montana, rose to a question of personal privilege and asked
for recognition to proceed for one minute, in order to respond to the
last one-minute speech. The Speaker recognized him for a one-minute
speech (rather than ruling on a question of personal privilege).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 115 Cong. Rec. 30080, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6.4 The rule (Rule XXVII clause 4) providing that motions to
discharge committees shall be in order ``immediately'' after the
reading of the Journal on the second and fourth Mondays was
construed not to prohibit the Speaker from recognizing for
unanimous-consent requests (including one-minute
[[Page 3876]]
speeches) prior to recognition for an eligible motion to discharge.
On Oct. 12, 1942,(10) which was the second Monday of the
month and therefore a day, under Rule XXVII clause 4,(11)
eligible for motions to discharge committees, Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of
New York, called up such a motion to discharge. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of
Virginia, made a point of order against the consideration of the motion
on the ground that the rule required such motions to be brought
immediately after the reading of the Journal, and that a variety of
unanimous-consent requests (including sending bills to conference and
administering the oath to a new Member) had been entertained before the
motion was called up. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, overruled the
point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 8066, 8067, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
The Chair anticipated certain points of order both today and
tomorrow. He has ruled with reference to the point of order made by
the gentleman from Alabama.
The Chair recognized all the time that the word ``immediately''
is in this rule, as he has read the rule every day for the past 6
days.
In ruling on a matter similar to this some time ago, the Chair
had this to say, although the matter involved was not exactly on
all-fours with this point of order, but it is somewhat related:
The Chair thinks the Chair has a rather wide range of
latitude here and could hold, being entirely technical, that a
certain point of order might be sustained.
The Chair is not going to be any more technical today than he
was at that time. The Chair recognized the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Doughton] on a highly important matter in order to
expedite the business of the Congress, not only the House of
Representatives but the whole Congress.
The Chair does not feel that the intervention of two or three
unanimous-consent requests would put him in a position where he
could well hold that the word ``immediately'' in the rule was not
being followed when he recognized the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Gavagan].
The Chair holds that in recognizing the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Gavagan] when he did, he was complying with the rule which
states that it shall be called up immediately upon approval of the
Journal.
The Chair therefore overrules the point of order made by the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith].
When No Business Is Scheduled
Sec. 6.5 The Speaker pro tempore announced that he would recognize
Members to address the House for longer
[[Page 3877]]
than one minute (up to one hour) on a day where the House had no
scheduled business pending the filing of conference reports.
On Dec. 16, 1971,(12) Speaker pro tempore J. Edward
Roush, of Indiana, made an announcement relative to the order of
business and one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 47429, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise Members that
since there is no legislative business before the House, if Members
desire to speak for more than 1 minute, the Chair will recognize
them for that purpose.
Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker generally refuses recognition
for extensions of one-minute speeches when legislative business is
scheduled,(13) but the evaluation of the time consumed is a
matter for the Chair to determine and is not subject to question or
challenge by parliamentary inquiry.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 13724, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., May 6, 1971; and 116
Cong. Rec. 42192, 42193, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 17, 1970.
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 16288, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 9, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Not Entertained
Sec. 6.6 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion
of the Speaker, and when the House has a heavy legislative
schedule, he sometimes refuses to recognize Members for that
purpose.
On Oct. 19, 1966,(15) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, made a statement on the order of business, following the
approval of the Journal and the receipt of several messages from the
Senate and President:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 27640, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will receive unanimous-consent requests, after the
disposition of pending business.
The unfinished business is the vote on agreeing to the
resolution (H. Res. 1062) certifying the report of the Committee on
Un-American Activities as to the failures of Jeremiah Stamler to
give testimony before a duly authorized subcommittee of said
committee.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
On June 17, 1970,(16) Speaker McCormack in responding to
a statement by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, relative to the fact that the
Speaker had declined to recognize for one-minute speeches before
legislative business on that day, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 20245, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa that earlier in
the
[[Page 3878]]
day the Chair did make the statement that the Chair would not
entertain unanimous-consent requests for 1-minute speeches to be
delivered until later on in the day.
I am sure that the gentleman from Iowa clearly understood that
statement on the part of the Speaker. At that particular time the
Chair stated that the Chair would recognize Members for unanimous-
consent requests to extend their remarks in the Record or
unanimous-consent requests to speak for 1 minute with the
understanding that they would not take their time but would yield
back their time.
I think the Chair clearly indicated that the Chair would
recognize Members for that purpose at a later time during the day.
As far as the Chair is concerned the custom of the 1-minute speech
procedure is adhered to as much as possible because the Chair
thinks it is a very healthy custom.
The Chair had the intent, after the disposition of the voting
rights bill, to recognize Members for 1-minute speeches or further
unanimous-consent requests if they desired to do so.
On July 22, 1968,(17) Speaker McCormack discussed, from
the floor, recognition for one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Might I throw out a
suggestion here that may or may not have merit in the eyes of the
distinguished Speaker--I do not know. But it seems to me that every
day we start early for one reason or another almost an hour is gone
before we get down to the legislative process.
Would it be proper if Members were permitted to extend their
remarks and make their 1 minute speeches at the end of the
legislative day in order that we might just get started right away
on the legislative program when we meet.
Mr. McCormack: I call the 1-minute period ``dynamic
democracy.'' I hesitate to take away the privilege of a Member as
to speaking during that period and it has become a custom and a
practice of the House. I think it is a very good thing to adhere to
that custom and practice.
It is only on rare occasions that Members have not been
recognized for that purpose. How would the gentleman feel if he had
a 1-minute speech to make and he had sent out his press release and
then found out that the Speaker was not going to recognize him?
Surely, I think, the gentleman would feel better if the Speaker did
recognize him; would he not?
Mr. Arends: According to a person's views--I think it would be
the reverse.
Mr. McCormack: Does the gentleman mean at the end of the day?
Mr. Arends: You said that this might be ``dynamic democracy.''
I would rather it would be started when we have the time rather
than be started at noon.
Mr. McCormack: It is an integral part of the procedure of the
House and I like to adhere to it. Very seldom have I said to
Members that I will accept only unanimous-consent requests for
extensions of remarks. I hesitate to do it. I think every Member
realizes that I am trying to protect their rights. . . .
[[Page 3879]]
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I think the question is not that of eliminating the 1-minute
speeches after the Members have their news releases out. But it is
a question of not going back after the second or third rollcall and
rerecognizing speeches. In this connection does ``dynamic
democracy'' mean the same thing as benign but beneficial
dictatorship--which does have merit?
Mr. McCormack: The gentleman from Missouri has raised a very
interesting question. Many times I have said to myself, I am going
to announce that the 1-minute speeches will have to be at 12
o'clock and not thereafter. But I have not come to the making of
that resolution because I just could not bring myself to it. It is
somewhat late in this session to do it and when, of course, we
Democrats control the House in the next Congress, and I hope I will
be Speaker, then I might do it. I am not promising it, but I may do
it. But there is something to what the gentleman from Missouri
says.
Sec. 6.7 The Speaker refused to recognize for one-minute speeches
before proceeding with a special-order speech eulogizing a deceased
Member.
On July 13, 1967,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, before recognizing Mr. Glenard P. Lipscomb, of
California, for a special-order speech (before legislative business)
eulogizing deceased Member J. Arthur Younger, of California, made the
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 18639, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair will not receive unanimous-consent requests at this
time, except for Members making a unanimous-consent request for
committees to sit during general debate today.
Recognition for Debate Only
Sec. 6.8 The Minority Leader having been recognized to proceed for one
minute and in that time having asked unanimous consent for the
consideration of a bill, the Speaker held that the gentleman was
not recognized for that purpose.
On Jan. 26, 1944,(19) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
held that recognition for a one-minute speech was limited to that
purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 90 Cong. Rec. 746, 747, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.
The Speaker: The Chair will not recognize any other Member at
this time for that purpose but will recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
generosity of the Chair.
[[Page 3880]]
I take this minute, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make a
unanimous consent request and I think it should be explained.
I agree with the President that there is immediate need for
action on the soldiers' vote bill. A good many of us have been
hoping we could have action for the last month. To show our
sincerity in having action not next week but right now, I ask
unanimous consent that the House immediately take up the bill which
is on the Union Calendar known as S. 1285. the soldiers' voting
bill.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts was not
recognized for that purpose.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.