[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[G. Unanimous-consent Requests]
[Â§ 47. Scope and Application of Request]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4758-4765]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 47. Scope and Application of Request

Closing Debate on Unread Titles

Sec. 47.1 When a bill is being read by titles, debate may be closed on 
    titles that have not been read by unanimous consent.

    On Feb. 8, 1964,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering the bill H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963, when a 
question arose concerning the time limit for debate on the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 2614, 2615, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: I should like to ask, Mr. 
    Chairman, if the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union can now effect binding action as to time on the titles of the 
    bill which we have not reached?
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair would inform the 
    gentleman from Ohio that that could be done only by unanimous 
    consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading of Amendment

Sec. 47.2 The reading of a substitute amendment in the Committee of the 
    Whole may be dispensed with by unanimous consent.

    On May 4, 1960,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering S. 722, the Area Redevelopment Act of 1960, when Mr. Silvio 
O. Conte, of Massachusetts, offered a substitute for the com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 106 Cong. Rec. 9468, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4759]]

mittee amendment to the bill. The reading of the amendment had begun 
when a Member rose to address the Chairman:

        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana] (interrupting the reading of 
    the amendment): Mr. Chairman, I move that the further reading of 
    the substitute amendment be dispensed with.
        The Chairman: (4) That motion is not in order. 
    Unanimous consent is required to dispense with the further reading 
    of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfecting Previously Adopted Amendment

Sec. 47.3 It is in order by unanimous consent to offer a perfecting 
    amendment to an amendment which has already been agreed to.

    On Sept. 17, 1970,Sec. (5) the Committee of the Whole 
was considering H.R. 17654, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 
when the Chairman, William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, recognized Mr. H. 
Allen Smith, of California:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 32303, 32304, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of California: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    necessary number of words. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to page 39 of 
    H.R. 17654, immediately below line 4, for the purpose of offering a 
    perfecting amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. White which 
    was adopted in this committee. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.

Nonprivileged Resolution

Sec. 47.4 A resolution increasing the number of Members on one of the 
    standing committees of the House was called up by unanimous 
    consent.

    On Dec. 22, 1969,(6) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, was 
recognized by the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 40922, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution [H. Res. 764] and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That during the remainder of the Ninety-first 
        Congress, the Committee on Education and Labor shall be 
        composed of thirty-seven members.

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?

        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object----
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object----
        The Speaker: The Chair will not entertain a reservation of 
    objections.

[[Page 4760]]

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, then I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Waiving House Rule

Sec. 47.5 The Speaker may recognize a Member for a unanimous-consent 
    request to waive the requirement of a rule unless the rule in 
    question specifies that it is not subject to waiver, even by 
    unanimous consent.

    On July 29, 1970,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 17654, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. 
During debate on the bill there was pending an amendment to require the 
Record to contain a verbatim account of floor proceedings, permitting 
only technical corrections by revision and extension of remarks, and 
authorizing Members to insert remarks not spoken on the floor but 
requiring their printing in distinctive type, and an amendment thereto 
retaining the present practice of making insertions by unanimous 
consent. A dialogue arose between the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole, William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, and Mr. Dante Fascell, of 
Florida, regarding the effect of such amendments on the Speaker's power 
of recognition for unanimous-consent requests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 26419, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Fascell: If there is no prohibition in the rule for the 
    Speaker to recognize any Member for a unanimous-consent request, is 
    it not true that the Speaker can recognize any Member for a 
    unanimous-consent request?
        The Chairman: The power of recognition is in the Speaker. He 
    has the right to recognize any Member on the floor.
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fascell: The point specifically is that by rule the Speaker 
    can be prohibited from recognizing a Member for a unanimous-consent 
    request; is that not correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that 
    his statement is correct.
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fascell: Is it not true, therefore, that if there is no 
    prohibition in the present amendment, any Member could rise and the 
    Speaker could recognize him for a unanimous-consent request to 
    waive that particular rule at that moment?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that 
    under those conditions it would require unanimous consent. Any 
    Member could object. The Speaker could object.

[[Page 4761]]

        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, one further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fascell: May a rule be waived by unanimous consent, either 
    temporarily or permanently?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that 
    there are rules of the House that the Speaker himself does not have 
    the right to waive.

Sec. 47.6 Rule XXXII governing admissions to the floor specifically 
    prohibits the Speaker from entertaining motions or unanimous-
    consent requests to suspend that rule.

    On June 8, 1972,(8) during consideration in the House of 
the conference report on S. 659, the Education Amendments of 1972, Mr. 
Olin M. Teague, of Texas, posed a point of order to the Speaker, Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, relative to Rule XXXII: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 20318, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Rule XXXII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 919 (1981), 
        prohibits the Speaker from entertaining requests to suspend 
        provisions of the rule governing admission to the floor of the 
        House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Teague of Texas: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House limit 
    the number of staff members who are allowed on the floor in a 
    situation like this and I make the point of order that this 
    committee has violated that rule of the House.
        Mr. Speaker, the reason I make this point of order is to point 
    up the fact that if the debate concerning this conference report 
    requires 10 or 15 staff members to be on the floor to tell them 
    what to say or what to do, then for sure they must not know what is 
    in the bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has made a point of order that the 
    committee has violated the rules of the House in bringing an 
    excessive number of committee staff members to the floor. The rule 
    which governs situations of this kind is rule 32 which lists those 
    who do have the privileges of the floor, and contains the clause: 
    ``and clerks of committees when business from their committee is 
    under consideration; and it shall not be in order for the Speaker 
    to entertain a request for the suspension of this rule.''
        This rule was adopted before the Reorganization Act of 1947 
    which provided for four professional staff members for each 
    committee. The Chair must hold under the rule that no committee is 
    entitled under the rules of the House--because the Chair cannot 
    waive the rule--to more than four professional staff members and 
    the clerk, a total of five.

Permitting Debate on Motion to Rerefer

Sec. 47.7 Where the rule with regard to rereference of bills on motions 
    of a committee prohibits debate, a Member may proceed by unanimous 
    consent for one minute before he makes such motion.

[[Page 4762]]

    On Apr. 21, 1942,(10) the Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, recognized Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 3570, 3571, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address 
    the House for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from New York?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
    Hobbs] has introduced another Hobbs bill known as H.R. 6915. At the 
    conclusion of my remarks I propose to move that it be referred to 
    the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, where this bill 
    belongs. Time does not permit me to go into a detailed discussion 
    to point out to the House that this bill is absolutely an 
    immigration bill and not a bill for the Committee on the Judiciary 
    but I can give you a short analysis of the bill to prove my point. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Immigration and 
    Naturalization, I move that the bill H.R. 6915, now in the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, be referred to the Committee on 
    Immigration and Naturalization.

    Subsequently, Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, rose with a point of 
order.

        Mr. Hobbs: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    motion that it is made in violation of the rule under which it is 
    supposed to be presented, in that there was debate by the 
    distinguished gentleman from New York for 1 minute immediately 
    preceding the submission of the motion, whereas the opposition is 
    denied that right by the rule.
        The Speaker: The Chair did not know what the gentleman from New 
    York was going to talk about. The Chair cannot look into the mind 
    of a Member when he asks unanimous consent to address the House for 
    1 minute and see what he intends to talk about.

Postponing Consideration of Privileged Resolution

Sec. 47.8 The calling up of a resolution reported from the Committee on 
    Rules is a matter of high privilege; but when consideration thereof 
    has begun, the House can postpone it and proceed to other business 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 29, 1969,(11) Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, was 
recognized on the floor of the House to call up a special order from 
the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of H.R. 14001, 
amending the Military Selective Service Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 32076-83, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
    I call up House Resolution 586 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.

    After the Clerk reported the resolution, Mr. Young was recog

[[Page 4763]]

nized for debate on the resolution. During debate, points of no quorum 
were made, resulting in calls of the House after which Mr. Young made 
the following request:

        Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further 
    consideration of this resolution be postponed until tomorrow.
        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Member calling up the resolution could 
have withdrawn it before the House acted; and such withdrawal would not 
require unanimous consent. If withdrawn, renewed consideration of the 
resolution would have been de novo. By postponing consideration, the 
resolution became unfinished business.

As Related to Unparliamentary Language

Sec. 47.9 Although a Member's words have been taken down on demand and 
    read to the House, the Speaker may recognize the Member who made 
    the statement to ask unanimous consent to change those words.

    On June 5, 1962,(13) the following occurred on the floor 
of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 108 Cong. Rec. 9739, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . The AMA opposed the 
    Social Security Act passed in 1935, and I refer the gentleman to 
    the Journal of the American Medical Association and the proceedings 
    of its house of delegates. I think in fairness when he stands up 
    and opposes this and speaks as a mouthpiece for the AMA and as a 
    mouthpiece for the house of delegates of the AMA, he should be 
    shown as speaking for the kind of organization that has opposed all 
    of these things.
        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Arnold Olsen (Mt.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: I regret to say that the gentleman's 
    words need to be taken down.
        This is a point of order. To clarify, it was the reference to 
    the gentleman from Missouri as a member of the house of delegates 
    of the AMA and the reference to that organization and the 
    relationship of the gentleman from Missouri to that organization.
        The Speaker:(15) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dingell: I think in fairness, when he stands up and 
        opposes this and speaks as a mouthpiece for the AMA and as a 
        mouthpiece for the house of delegates of the AMA, he should be 
        shown as speaking for that

[[Page 4764]]

        kind of organization that has opposed all of these things.

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to change the 
    words complained of to ``self-appointed spokesman'' instead of 
    ``mouthpiece.''
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Missouri withdraw his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: I do, Mr. Speaker.

Sec. 47.10 The words of a Member which were taken down and ruled out of 
    order were, by unanimous consent, deleted from the Record; and the 
    Member was then permitted to proceed in order.

    On June 24, 1958,(16) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, rose 
to object to the use of certain language on the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 104 Cong. Rec. 12120, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I must object to the language just 
    used.
        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, wait a minute. 
    Is the gentleman asking me to yield?
        Mr. Harris: I am not asking the gentleman to yield.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.
        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman from Missouri has 
    the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the gentleman's words be 
    deleted from the Record.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the words objected to.

    After the Clerk reported the words that were objected to, the 
following occurred:

        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it is very clear that this is a 
    reflection on a committee of the House of a very serious type and, 
    therefore, holds that the language is not parliamentary.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    language objected to be expunged from the Record and that the 
    gentleman from Missouri be permitted to proceed in order.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already ruled. It is as clear to the 
    Chair as anything in the world.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Arkansas?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Motions to expunge from the Record and to 
permit a Member to proceed in order are privileged, therefore unanimous 
consent is not required.

Insertions in the Record

Sec.  47.11 The committee voting record of a Member was, at his request 
    and by unanimous consent, inserted in the Record in the form of a

[[Page 4765]]

    memorandum prepared by the committee counsel.

    On Dec. 11, 1969,(1) Mr. Arnold Olsen, of Montana, made 
the following statement on the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 38556, 38557, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Olsen: Mr. Speaker, during my 9 years here in the House of 
    Representatives I have established a record in committee and here 
    on the floor of the House. It has been a consistent record. I am 
    proud of it and I have campaigned on it in the last four elections.
        Last week a nationally syndicated columnist released certain 
    allegations and implications which, if left unanswered, could cast 
    a shadow on that record. For that reason I have asked Chairman 
    Dulski of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee to 
    release a review of my position on the legislation in question 
    during executive committee sessions over the last 9 years. Chairman 
    Dulski directed counsel to prepare a summary of the previously 
    unreported and confidential record and, with the advice and 
    permission of my chairman, I am inserting this document in the 
    Record today for the information of all of my distinguished 
    colleagues. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I ask that notwithstanding the rules of the House 
    that the following documents be inserted at this time in the 
    Congressional Record: First, the statement I released to the press 
    last Friday following publication of the column in question; 
    second, the letter from Committee Counsel Charles E. Johnson 
    transmitting a compilation of my voting record in executive 
    committee sessions and here on the floor of the House; and third, 
    the record compiled by Mr. Johnson at the direction of Chairman 
    Thaddeus J. Dulski.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(2) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Montana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.