[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[G. Unanimous-consent Requests]
[Â§ 46. Reservation of Objection]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4754-4758]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 46. Reservation of Objection

Discretion of Chair

Sec. 46.1 Recognition for a reservation of objection to a unanimous-
    consent request is within the discretion of the Speaker, and 
    sometimes he refuses to permit debate under such a reservation and 
    immediately puts the question.

    On Dec. 3, 1969,(9) the House was considering an 
extension of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Mrs. Edith S. Green, 
of Oregon, had sought a special order permitting her to address the 
House for two hours, but the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, informed her that she would have to limit her request to 
one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I am always cooperative with 
    the Speaker of the House. I therefore ask unanimous consent that I 
    be permitted to address the House for 1 hour after the close of 
    business today.
        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object----
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that it will not recognize 
    anyone else at this moment. Either the gentlewoman receives 
    permission, or she does not.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
    Oregon?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 46.2 Recognition for a reservation of objection to a unanimous-
    consent request is within the discretion of the Chair, who 
    endeavors to protect the right of Members to make timely 
    reservations, but who may also refuse to permit debate under such 
    reservation and immediately put the question on the request.

    On July 23, 1970,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 18515, appropriations for the Departments of Labor and 
Health, Education, and Welfare for fiscal 1971. Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of 
Pennsylvania, sought unanimous consent to grant Mr. Robert N. Giaimo, 
of Connecticut, an additional five minutes of debate. Mr. John E. Moss, 
Jr., of California, attempted to reserve the right to object to the 
unanimous-consent request, and a discussion arose between Mr. Moss and 
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Chet Holifield, of 
California, as to the timeliness of Mr. Moss' reserva
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 25620, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4755]]

tion of the right to object. The issue was resolved in the following 
manner:

        The Chairman: If the gentleman insists that he was seeking to 
    reserve the right to object, the Chair will again put the request.
        Mr. Moss: I do so insist, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman?
        Mr. Moss: Reserving the right to object----
        The Chairman: The gentleman has already reserved the right to 
    object.
        Mr. Moss: That is correct. . . .
        I want to state my point, if the Chair will permit it.
        The Chairman: Reservations to object are entertained only in 
    the prerogative of the Chair. The Chair does not recognize the 
    gentleman from California, Mr. Moss, any further unless he objects.

Yielding Under a Reservation

Sec. 46.3 A Member holding the floor under a reservation of the right 
    to object to a unanimous-consent request yielded to another Member 
    who moved that the House adjourn.

    On Sept. 22, 1965,(11) the House was considering a home 
rule bill for the District of Columbia, when the Speaker, John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, announced pursuant to a call of the House 
that a quorum was present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 24716, 24717, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . Without objection, further proceedings under 
    the call will be dispensed with.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
    right to object.
        The Speaker: The Chair has announced that without objection 
    further proceedings under the call will be dispensed with.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet at the time seeking 
    recognition.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.
        The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I still reserve the right to object.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan reserves the right to 
    object.

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask whether or not it is 
    the intention of the leadership to adjourn.
        Mr. Albert: Yes; we have only two or three unanimous-consent 
    requests.
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman from Michigan yield to me?
        Mr. Dingell: I yield.
        Mr. Arends: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan has 
    yielded to me. I move that the House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman from Illinois will withhold that 
    for a moment----
        Mr. Arends: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan has 
    yielded to me.

[[Page 4756]]

        The Speaker: I do not think the gentleman yielded for that 
    purpose.
        Does the gentleman from Michigan yield for that purpose?
        Mr. Dingell: Yes, I do.
        Mr. Arends: Mr. Speaker, I make the motion that the House do 
    now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Illinois.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair could have refused to recognize 
the Member to whom the floor was yielded under the reservation until 
the unanimous-consent request was disposed of. The motion to adjourn, 
being so highly privileged could have been made as a matter of right 
whether the unanimous-consent request were agreed to or disagreed to.

Sec. 46.4 A Member who reserves the right to object to a unanimous-
    consent request loses control of the floor when the request is 
    withdrawn.

    On Feb. 8, 1964,(12) the Committee on the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963 when Mr. Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, sought unanimous consent to limit debate on title 
VII of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 2614, 2615, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, and I am just one ordinary Member of 
    this House, but I do have certain rights as one ordinary Member of 
    the House, if I understand what was agreed upon originally, I am 
    willing to abide by that agreement. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield to me?
        Mr. Colmer: I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry. If the unanimous-consent request of the 
    majority leader should be objected to, would not the majority 
    leader or the chairman of the committee have a right to move that 
    that be set and that the debate be ended at a specified time on 
    Monday?
        The Chairman: The Chair would say a motion to limit debate 
    would be in order after there has been debate on the title.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Chairman, may I withdraw my unanimous-consent 
    request and ask unanimous consent that the debate on title VII and 
    all amendments thereto be limited to not exceeding 2 hours on 
    Monday?
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I think it is about time I make a little comment 
    on the whole matter.
        I opened the debate for our side of the aisle on this rule, and 
    I explained it thoroughly. I thought at that time I had explained 
    the agreement. I want to repeat that an agreement was made.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?

[[Page 4757]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: If it does not come out of my time.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Chairman, the majority leader made a unanimous-
    consent request. I reserved the right to object. Then the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma, the majority leader, after some discussion, asked 
    unanimous consent to withdraw his unanimous-consent request. I did 
    not hear the Chair rule on the gentleman's request, therefore, I 
    assume I still have the floor.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma withdrew his 
    unanimous-consent request to which the gentleman from Mississippi 
    had reserved the right to object. The gentleman from Oklahoma 
    submitted a new unanimous-consent request to which the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. Brown] reserved the right to object.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The gentleman from Ohio has the floor?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] has the 
    floor.

Demand for Regular Order

Sec. 46.5 An objection cannot be reserved against a unanimous-consent 
    request if the regular order is demanded.

    On July 29, 1968,(14) Mr. Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New 
York, sought unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the 
bill H.R. 15387, relating to disciplinary action against employees of 
the postal field service. After brief discussion on Mr. Dulski's 
request, Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 23935, 23936, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the gentleman 
    from Illinois is going to object, I demand the regular order.
        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object----
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hays] 
    has demanded the regular order. The regular order is, Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, in 
    deference to the gentleman from Ohio, I will reserve my right to 
    object.
        Mr. Jonas: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
        The Speaker: The regular order has been demanded, and the Chair 
    has no discretion.
        Is there objection to the request?
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]:
        Mr. Speaker, I object.

Sec. 46.6 Where a Member has reserved the right to object to a 
    unanimous-consent request pending before the House and the regular 
    order is demanded, further reservation of the right to object to 
    that request is precluded and that Member must either object or 
    permit the request to be granted.

[[Page 4758]]

    On Feb. 4, 1971,(16) the following occurred on the floor 
of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 1713, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (17) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arkansas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve 
    the right to object, and I do so because I want to reply to the 
    statements made by the gentlewoman from Oregon.
        Mr. [Wilber D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: Regular order has been demanded, and the regular 
    order is, Is there objection to dispensing with the reading of the 
    resolution?
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object----
        The Speaker: The regular order has been demanded. The gentleman 
    can either object or permit the request to be granted.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Arkansas?
        There was no objection.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 10674, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------