[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[A. General Principles]
[Â§ 7. Special-order Speeches]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3880-3892]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 7. Special-order Speeches

    Like one-minute speeches, special-order speeches are not 
specifically provided for by the rules of the House. Special orders to 
address the House (for the purpose of debate only) may extend up to one 
hour and must follow the legislative business for the 
day.(1) Such speeches must be distinguished from one-minute 
speeches, which under normal practice are limited to one minute and 
precede the legislative business of the day.(2) The order of 
special-order speeches may be varied. For example, where further 
legislative business is scheduled but is not yet ready for 
consideration, the Speaker may recognize for special-order speeches 
with the understanding that legislative business will be 
resumed.(3) Once special orders have begun, the Speaker 
generally declines to recognize for legislative business, although 
there is no rule to prohibit the resumption of business.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For discussion of the evolution of the present practice as to 
        special-order speeches, see Sec. 7.1, infra.
            Special-order speeches are strictly limited to one hour 
        (see Sec. 7.5, infra).
            For further discussion of special-order speeches as related 
        to recognition and debate, see Ch. 29, infra. And for 
        discussion of the recently adopted prohibition on points of no 
        quorum during special-order speeches, see supplements to this 
        edition.
 2. On occasion, one-minute speeches have followed the legislative 
        business (see Sec. 6.3, supra) and where there is no 
        legislative business, one-minute speeches, like special orders, 
        have extended for one hour (see Sec. 6.5, supra).
 3. See Sec. Sec. 7.3, 7.4, infra.
 4. See Sec. 7.4, infra.
            House Rule XV, clause 6, as amended in the 93d Congress 
        (Apr. 9, 1974, H. Res. 998), now prohibits points of order of 
        no quorum when the Speaker is recognizing Members to address 
        the House under special orders with no measure pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special orders are taken up in the sequence in which they were

[[Page 3881]]

requested; that sequence may be varied, or special orders for one day 
rescheduled to another day, by unanimous consent.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 7.7, 7.8 (rescheduling) and Sec. Sec. 7.10-7.12 
        (varying sequence), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special orders to address the House may be requested either on the 
day of delivery or on a day in 
advance.                          -------------------

In Order After Legislative Business

Sec. 7.1 Under the modern procedure of the House, special orders of 
    Members to address the House for more than one minute follow the 
    conclusion of the legislative program of the day and may not 
    preempt business which is privileged under the rules.

    On Apr. 20, 1937,(6) Majority Leader Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, indicated the future procedure to be followed for conducting 
special-order speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 3645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in this situation 
    today, and it has been the situation several times since the 
    Congress met. Unanimous consent has been secured by different 
    gentleman to speak on a certain day. Today we have an hour and 
    forty-five minutes set aside for addresses immediately after 
    disposition of matters on the Speaker's table. Hereafter I shall be 
    called upon, when gentlemen get unanimous consent to speak on a day 
    certain, to request that those unanimous consents shall be subject 
    to matters like conference reports, privileged bills, and I think I 
    may add special rules from the Committee on Rules. Today, as I have 
    said, we have an hour and forty-five minutes devoted to addresses. 
    There is a rule on the table which a great many Members think 
    important, and I think the House is in favor of it. I am serving 
    notice to this effect so that, if I have to make these conditions 
    hereafter, Members will understand why they are made.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See also 84 Cong. Rec. 125, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1939, 
        where Majority Leader Rayburn announced the policy of objecting 
        to requests to address the House unless the address would 
        follow the completion of the legislative program for the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 1937,(8) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, ruled that a privileged report from the Committee on Rules 
took precedence over special-order speeches which had been obtained for 
that day, and the practice of special-order speeches was discussed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 5307, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 216.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York calls up a resolution, 
    which the Clerk will report.

[[Page 3882]]

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York] rose.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to raise 
    the point of order?
        Mr. Mapes: I simply wanted to call the attention of the Chair 
    to the fact that there are some special orders on the calendar.
        The Speaker: All special orders are contingent upon being 
    called after the disposition of privileged matters.
        Mr. Mapes: The calendar of today does not so indicate, and that 
    is the only point I have in mind.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York 
    rise?
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    special orders are in order at this time in preference to a 
    resolution from the Committee on Rules.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York 
    rise?
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. 
    This question has been raised several times, and I have forgotten 
    the date, but the Record will show that the Chair announced that 
    from then on all special orders for addresses would he subject to, 
    and would follow, any privileged matters to be brought up on that 
    day.
        Mr. Snell: Then, if there has been a ruling of the Chair, it 
    should so state on the calendar that has been printed for today.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it proper to state in regard to 
    the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York, that a 
    good many days ago, in fact, several weeks ago, the Chair stated, 
    not only once but probably two or three times, that where special 
    orders were agreed to for gentlemen to address the House the 
    understanding upon the part of the Chair would be that they should 
    follow, and not precede, privileged matters that might be subject 
    to be brought up by the House leadership or the Committee on Rules.
        In this particular instance the Record of May 27, at page 6604, 
    shows that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] submitted a 
    request to speak today, as the Chair understands it and the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn], the majority leader, said:

            Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I must, of 
        course, ask that the gentleman's time come after the 
        disposition of privileged matters, such as conference reports, 
        special rules, and so forth.

        And the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] said:

            I understand that.

        So the gentleman evidently acquiesced in that statement.
        Mr. Snell: I think the Chair is right about that.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Does that mean that hereafter when there are 
    special orders for gentlemen to speak, that if the Committee on 
    Rules wants to consider any bill, it takes precedence over the 
    special orders.

[[Page 3883]]

        The Speaker: That is the statement made by the Chair and 
    acquiesced in by the House. It is a matter entirely with the House, 
    of course, if an appeal is taken from that decision.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Rankin: I yield to the gentleman from New- York, if I have 
    the floor.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Of course, Rules Committee never call 
    up a rule without first consulting the Speaker and the majority 
    leader.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand. Here is what I am driving at. It 
    certainly is not my view, and I doubt if it is the view of the 
    House, that the Rules Committee can bring in a rule to consider any 
    legislation and take a Member off the floor who has obtained 
    unanimous consent to address the House. If that is the case, it 
    simply means that the House is subservient to the R.ules Committee 
    so far as these special orders are concerned.
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield? I think this ought to be settled.
        Mr. Snell: That is the reason that I raised this point at this 
    time.
        Mr. Rankin: I thank the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, being in the position that I am, I 
    have to try to protect the program of the House. At least three 
    times when unanimous consent has been requested I have made the 
    statement that at all times I would object unless it were 
    understood that the time asked for would come after conference 
    reports, privileged bills, and special rules.
        Mr. Rankin: Let me ask the gentleman from Texas this question. 
    There are at least three or four gentlemen who have special orders 
    to speak today. If the Committee on Rules steps in under these 
    orders and takes up the remainder of the afternoon, does that mean 
    that these gentlemen shall have this time tomorrow?
        Mr. Rayburn: No; it does not.
        Mr. Rankin: Does it mean entirely taking the time away from 
    them?
        Mr. Rayburn: That is it.

    On June 7, 1937, a colloquy took place on the place of special-
order speeches in the business of the House:

        The Speaker [William B. Bankhead]: The gentleman propounds a 
    parliamentary inquiry which is of some importance to the Chair. It 
    is not the province of the Chair to undertake to say under what 
    circumstances Members shall be allowed to address the House. The 
    Chair thinks at this point there should be a firm decision and 
    determination with reference to the particular question raised by 
    the gentleman from New York. This matter arose a few days ago in 
    the House, and the Chair stated at that time it was his 
    understanding that all these consents which have recently been 
    obtained have been based upon the premise that they would not be in 
    order if there were a regular calendar call or if there were 
    privileged matters which it was desired to call up before the 
    speeches were made. Therefore, for the guidance of the Chair, the 
    Chair thinks this matter ought to be definitely determined once and 
    for all, in as much as the question has been raised.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3884]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Would it not require an amendment to the rules of 
    the House to establish a rule on this question? The far-reaching 
    attitude assumed the other day would certainly amount to a change 
    in the rules of the House, which must be submitted to the 
    membership in written form. . . .
        The Speaker: In reply to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] the Chair is of the opinion 
    it would not require a change of the rules to effectuate the 
    procedure which has been suggested, but the Chair upon reflection 
    is of the opinion that if a request is made such as the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Dickstein] has just made, that on Calendar 
    Wednesday after the call of the committee having the call, he may 
    be permitted to address the House for 10 minutes, the Chair would 
    feel it to be his duty under such an agreement to recognize the 
    gentleman from New York for 10 minutes.
        The Chair desires to make the further observation, that this is 
    a matter entirely within the control of the membership of the 
    House. The leadership of the House or any individual Member may 
    interpose at the time such a request is made the condition that the 
    request shall follow privileged business. In order to protect the 
    Chair and to remove from the shoulders of the Chair any 
    responsibility with respect to saying what are privileged matters 
    and what matters should be considered, the Chair thinks it only 
    proper that that rule should be established.
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, I have stated in the House over and 
    over again that when any Member rises and asks the privilege of 
    addressing the House for the moment or for any day in the future, 
    any Member of the House can prevent this by a single objection. I 
    further stated that wanting to accommodate the Members of the House 
    insofar as we can and yet protect and expedite the legislative 
    program, that when any Member asks consent to address the House, it 
    must be understood I would interpose an objection unless the Member 
    understood and agreed that the time so requested would be subject 
    to privileged matters, such as conference reports, privileged bills 
    from committees that have the right to report privileged bills, 
    reports from the Committee on Rules, or special rules making 
    certain legislation in order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 5373, 5374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.2 It is the general custom that when the House starts on special 
    order speeches, no further business will be transacted unless an 
    emergency arises, although no rule of the House prohibits such 
    transaction of business.

    On Jan. 20, 1964,(10) a unanimous-consent request made 
during special-order speeches was objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 614, 615, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Under previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] is recognized 
    for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Roland V. Libonati (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman: Mr. Speaker, since there is a Democratic 
    caucus at

[[Page 3885]]

    10 o'clock tomorrow when we expected to have our committee meeting, 
    we cannot have the committee meeting until 11 o'clock tomorrow. I 
    therefore ask unanimous consent that on tomorrow afternoon the 
    Subcommittee on Domestic Finance of the Committee on Banking and 
    Currency may be allowed to sit during general debate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Texas? . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, do I understand the parliamentary situation to be that 
    we are on special orders?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: We are on special orders.
        Mr. Gross: It has been the unwritten rule and the custom that 
    when the House starts on special orders, business of general 
    interest to the House is not to be transacted. In view of the fact 
    that we now are on special orders, I must agree with the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Kilburn], that this request should be taken up 
    tomorrow noon when we are in general session in the House.
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Speaker, I am not permitting the gentleman's 
    statement to go unchallenged.
        Mr. Gross: I reserve the right to object. Mr. Speaker, do I 
    have the floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has the floor, but the 
    gentleman from Texas may propound a unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Gross: Of course, and it is also my privilege to reserve 
    the right to object, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Gross: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I 
    am constrained to object to the request.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.

Sec. 7.3 Special orders are normally scheduled to follow the 
    legislative business of the day, but on occasion the Speaker has 
    recognized for special orders prior to legislative business where 
    the latter was not ready for floor consideration, and has on such 
    occasions notified the House that there would be legislative 
    business following special-order speeches.

    Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, made the following announcement 
on Dec. 14, 1971:

        The Chair would like to advise the Members that in order to get 
    as much accomplished as we can, and in view of the fact that we 
    have no legislative business ready at this moment, we will call 
    special orders, and after they are completed declare a recess, 
    unless legislative business is in order.
        The Chair in making this announcement will state that we are 
    not setting this as a precedent, but that we are calling special 
    orders today, and then going back to the legislative business, if 
    any, after recessing if necessary.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 46801, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A similar announcement was made on Oct. 14, 1972:

[[Page 3886]]

        The Speaker: The Chair would desire to make a statement.
        The Chair is going to call for special orders at this time.
        The Chair desires also to notify the House that there will be 
    business following the special orders. We are merely using this 
    time now because we do not have any business ready for transaction 
    before the House.
        Does the gentleman from Missouri desire recognition at this 
    time?
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Well, Mr. Speaker, is it 
    contemplated that the special orders will follow if we adopt this 
    unusual procedure, and then we will go back into legislative 
    business? Heretofore most of us have always presumed that once the 
    special orders had started we were free.
        The Speaker: That is why the Chair made that statement, because 
    the Chair always heretofore adhered to the philosophy that there 
    should be no business subsequent to the calling of special orders.
        Mr. Hall: The business of the House has been conducted in 
    keeping with that procedure, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: It is the procedure we have always used 
    heretofore.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 36446, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Jan. 22, 1968, Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, made an 
announcement relating to the order of business:

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, we have another matter of legislative 
    business. More than an hour ago the Senate agreed to a resolution 
    which we expect to receive momentarily. The gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Patman] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis] have been 
    standing by. I would like to advise Members that that resolution 
    has to do with the extension of time for the filing of the 
    President's Economic Report. If we do proceed with special orders, 
    I would like the Members of the House to know that as soon as 
    Senate Joint Resolution 132 comes over, we would like to take it 
    up.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Albert: I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: Does the gentleman anticipate any controversy over 
    the matter?
        Mr. Albert: I have not heard of any point of controversy. There 
    will be some discussion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 430, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On another occasion the House, having completed scheduled business, 
proceeded to special-order speeches, recessed to await a message from 
the Senate, and then acted on a conference report following the receipt 
of the message informing the House of the Senate's action 
thereon.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 40227, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.4 Unanimous-consent requests for the transaction of business are 
    not customarily entertained after special orders have begun, but on 
    oc

[[Page 3887]]

    casion the House has permitted the transaction of such legislative 
    business after scheduled business has been concluded and special-
    order speeches have begun.

    On Mar. 17, 1971,(16) ``special order'' speeches had 
begun, following the conclusion of legislative business for the day. A 
unanimous consent request was made, discussed, and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 6848, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration 
    have permission until midnight tonight to file certain privileged 
    reports.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Brock Adams (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, I do so only for the purpose of trying to ascertain here 
    and now whether we are to follow the custom of no business of the 
    House being transacted after embarking on special orders. That has 
    been the custom in the past, and I should like to have some 
    assurance from the Speaker or the distinguished majority whip that 
    we can rely upon the custom that has been in practice for a long 
    time, that no business will be transacted after special orders are 
    begun.
        Mr. O'Neill: I would be happy to answer the gentleman from 
    Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: I would be glad to have the answer.
        Mr. O'Neill: When I went to the minority leader and explained 
    to him what had happened, that this notification did not come to me 
    until we went into special orders, the gentleman heard the 
    colloquy. I went to the Speaker of the House, and the Speaker has 
    assured us that it is unprecedented and it will not happen again 
    during the session.

        Mr. Gross: I thank the gentleman for that assurance.
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.

Limited to One Hour

Sec. 7.5 Special orders to address the House at the conclusion of the 
    business of the day are limited to one hour per Member, and when a 
    Member has used one hour, the Chair will decline to recognize him 
    for extensions of time or for an additional special order.

    On Feb. 9, 1966, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
declined to recognize a Member to request a second special order for 
the same day:

        Mr. [Joseph] Resnick [of New York]: Will the gentleman yield 
    for a unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: I yield for that 
    purpose.

[[Page 3888]]

        Mr. Resnick: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
    have a special order after all other special orders of the day and 
    other legislative business of the day have been concluded to 
    address the House for a period of 15 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that pursuant to the practice of the House, Members are limited to 
    a 1-hour special order per day. The Chair would be glad to 
    entertain a request for a special order for a later 
    day.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 2794, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 30, 1967, Speaker pro tempore Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas, 
advised a Member that he could only be recognized for one hour to speak 
under a special order, and that his time could not be extended, even by 
unanimous consent.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 30472, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 758 (1979), provides that a Member may not be recognized 
for more than one hour of debate on any question, a special-order 
speech may not extend beyond one hour even by unanimous consent. 
However, another Member obtaining the floor in his own right may yield 
to a Member who has already consumed a special order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 14265, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 21, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.6 A Member was granted a special order to address the House at 
    the conclusion of other special orders previously granted (which 
    totaled over 22 hours) with the understanding that his time would 
    terminate at the end of 60 minutes or when the House convened on 
    the next calendar day, whichever occurred earlier.

    On Oct. 14, 1969,(3) where the House had granted special 
orders totaling over 22 hours at the conclusion of business (with the 
intention of Members opposing the Vietnam conflict to keep the House in 
session throughout the night), another special order was granted as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 29938, 29939, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I be given 60 minutes for a special order 
    either this afternoon or tomorrow morning immediately after the 
    time allotted to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Halpern), my time 
    to expire prior to the regular time that the House will convene 
    tomorrow.
        The Speaker: (4) Will the gentleman from California 
    please repeat his request through the microphone so that all 
    Members may hear the gentleman's request?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
    ex

[[Page 3889]]

    tend my remarks, and I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
    unanimous consent--rather, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
    allowed to address the House for 60 minutes, either this afternoon 
    or tomorrow morning immediately after the time allotted to the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Halpern), my said 60 minutes to expire 
    prior to the regular time set for the convening of the House 
    tomorrow morning. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett)?
        There was no objection.

Requesting and Rescheduling

Sec. 7.7 Special-order speeches may be rescheduled to a following day 
    by unanimous consent, to precede special-order speeches scheduled 
    for that day.

    On Oct. 9, 1962,(5) before the House adjourned out of 
respect to a deceased Member (Clement W. Miller, of California), a 
unanimous-consent request made by the Majority Leader was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 22850, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Abbert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the special orders heretofore entered for today be 
    transferred to tomorrow and be placed at the top of the list of 
    special orders for tomorrow.
        The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Special-order speeches were similarly transferred to the following 
day on July 22, 1963, due to the death of a Member.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 109 Cong. Rec. 13004, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.8 When the House adjourns and does not reach special-order 
    speeches scheduled for that day, such speeches are not 
    automatically in order on the next legislative day; a unanimous-
    consent request to reschedule those special orders must be agreed 
    to by the House.

    On Jan. 26, 1971, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on rescheduling special-order speeches:

        (Mr. Montgomery asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute.)
        Mr. [Gillespie V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    take this time for the purpose of asking the majority leader about 
    the rescheduling of special orders. I was given unanimous consent 
    for a special order on this Wednesday. In the light of the request 
    of the majority leader that the House go over to Friday, I should 
    like to ask him what procedures we should now follow.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: The gentleman simply will have 
    to ask unanimous consent that his special order be rescheduled for 
    Friday or some other time.

[[Page 3890]]

        Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    special orders scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday of this week go 
    over until Friday, January 29.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Mississippi?
        There was no objection.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 117 Cong. Rec. 485, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, responded to a similar parliamentary 
inquiry on Mar. 29, 1960 (where the House had adjourned out of respect 
to a deceased Member on the previous day)

        Mr. [William L.] Springer [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Springer: Mr. Speaker, I had a special order on yesterday 
    for 40 minutes. My inquiry is, Does that special order hold over 
    until today so that mine would be the first special order today?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will have to ask unanimous consent 
    to obtain a new special order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  106 Cong. Rec. 6823, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.9 The Chair declined recognition for a unanimous-consent request 
    that a Member be permitted to address the House on a future day 
    before legislative business.

    On June 14, 1935,(10) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 9330, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
            As discussed previously, current practice requires special-
        order speeches to follow, not precede, legislative business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sequence

Sec. 7.10 Special-order speeches are ordinarily made in the order in 
    which permission has been granted to the requesting Members by the 
    House, but the House may by unanimous consent change that order to 
    accommodate Members.

    On May 22, 1973,(11) Speaker pro tempore Tom Bevill, of 
Ala
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 16578, 16579, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3891]]

bama, recognized for a unanimous-consent request to change the sequence 
of special-order speeches:

        Mr. [David W.] Dennis [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the special order time assigned to me today 
    be set over for tomorrow, and that I be granted a 60-minute special 
    order at that time, as the first special order for tomorrow.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Indiana?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Dennis: I yield to the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I make the same unanimous-consent 
    request as made by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dennis) that my 
    special order for 60 minutes to be set over for tomorrow, and my 
    special order follow immediately the special order of the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Dennis).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 7.11 A Member having a special order was permitted by unanimous 
    consent to relinquish the floor temporarily to allow the Member 
    having the next special order to use part of his own time.

    On July 11, 1966, the House agreed to a unanimous-consent re quest 
varying the regular order of special-order speeches:

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: I would be happy to 
    agree. I do have a difficult problem. I have a live broadcast 
    coming through at exactly 1 o'clock, so I shall go into the 
    cloakroom to do that. If I could proceed for about 5 minutes and 
    then have the gentleman proceed, when I am finished out there I 
    could proceed further, and I would be happy to yield to the 
    gentleman. Would that be agreeable?
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: That would be agreeable, or I 
    could go ahead until the gentleman has finished.
        Mr. Curtis: Whichever the gentleman prefers. Either will work 
    out.
        Mr. Patman: That will be satisfactory.
        With that understanding, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis] may be allowed to 
    proceed for 5 minutes at this time, with the time to be taken from 
    his time, and that I may be permitted to resume after he finishes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Curtis] is recognized.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 14988, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.12 By unanimous consent, a Member may be granted a special order 
    to speak ahead

[[Page 3892]]

    of those already scheduled for special orders.

    On July 14, 1965,(14) a unanimous-consent request 
related to the sequence of special-order speeches was objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 16845, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent, with the consent of those who have been 
    previously granted a special order, to address the House for 30 
    minutes today relative to the death of Ambassador Adlai Stevenson.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Yates] asks unanimous consent that he may address the House for 30 
    minutes as the first special order, with the consent of other 
    Members who have obtained special orders, in relation to the death 
    of Ambassador Adlai Stevenson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Illinois?
        Mr. [William T.] Cahill [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I regret 
    I must object.
        Mr. Speaker, I regretted very sincerely what I considered to be 
    a requirement to interpose an objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois. I only did it because there were a great 
    number of people from my district who were here in anticipation of 
    the special order I had requested some time ago and because a great 
    many of the Members had evidenced a keen interest in the subject 
    matter. However, I fully recognize the great importance of and the 
    great contribution that our late and respected and beloved 
    Ambassador to the United Nations has made to this country. In 
    deference to that and out of respect for his memory, I would ask 
    that I be permitted to relinquish the time heretofore asked and 
    that my special order go over to a later date and that I be 
    permitted to yield the 1 hour I have in a special order to the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and all those who would like to 
    pay tribute to the memory of the late Adlai Stevenson.
        Mr. Yates: I thank the gentleman.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Illinois?
        There was no objection.

    On Jan. 29, 1971,(16) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
announced that he would, by unanimous consent, recognize the Chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations for 
special-order speeches immediately following the reading of the 
President's budget message and ahead of other Members who had special 
orders previously scheduled for that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 990, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------