Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13 (Sections 35-end, plus index) - § 73. One-minute, Special-order Speeches, and Morning Hour

[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[H. Duration of Debate in the House]
[§ 73. One-minute, Special-order Speeches, and Morning Hour]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[Page 11017-11036]

CHAPTER 29

Consideration and Debate

H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE

Sec. 73. One-minute, Special-order Speeches, and Morning Hour

The one-minute speech and the special-order speech are two

[[Page 11018]]

methods whereby a Member by unanimous consent may debate a subject on
the floor, after or before the legislative business of the day. Neither
procedure is specifically provided for in the standing rules other than
the prohibition in clause 6 of Rule XV against points of no quorum
during special-order speeches, but their use is permitted by long-
standing custom of the House.⁽⁹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. For an occasion where the Speaker discussed the use and practice of
the one-minute speech with Members, see Sec. 73.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The one-minute speech is entertained by unanimous consent after the
approval of the Journal but before legislative business.⁽¹⁰⁾
Such speeches are--both by tradition and the Speaker's recognition
policy--limited to one minute, although the Speaker may in his
discretion and by unanimous consent entertain a request for a longer
one; but a Member may deliver only one such speech.⁽¹¹⁾
Recognition for such speeches is entirely in the discretion of the
Speaker, who may forego the procedure.⁽¹²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 73.6, infra, for the Speaker's power to recognize for one-
minute speeches after the closing of legislative business.
A Member recognized for a one-minute speech may not yield
to another to make a motion (see Sec. 30.30, supra) or ask for
the unanimous-consent consideration of a bill (see Sec. 10.13,
supra).
11. See Sec. Sec. 73.9, 73.10, infra.
For an occasion where the Speaker entertained a request for
a five-minute speech, to avoid a question of personal
privilege, see Sec. 73.11, infra.
Where no legislative business is scheduled for the day,
Members may be recognized for longer than one minute, see
Sec. 73.3, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 73.3-73.6, infra. All unanimous-consent requests are
entertained in the discretion of the Chair (see Sec. 10,
supra.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special orders are requested, either in advance or on the day in
question, to address the House on a certain day at the conclusion of
all legislative business.⁽¹³⁾ Such speeches may not exceed
one hour, even by unanimous consent.⁽¹⁴⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 73.12 et seq., infra.
14. See Sec. 73.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the House customarily does not consider legislation after the
Speaker has begun to recognize Members for special-order speeches,
there is no House rule prohibiting consideration of legislative
business at any time the House is in session; thus, for example, the
Speaker has recognized a Member between special-order speeches to
request consideration of a House concurrent resolution by unanimous
consent.⁽¹⁵⁾ The Speaker may announce that

[[Page 11019]]

he will recognize for special-order speeches but that the House ``may
return to legislative business.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 18.25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beginning in the second session of the 103d Congress, the House by
unanimous consent agreed (without prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate
power of recognition) to convene 90 minutes early on Mondays and
Tuesdays for morning-hour debate.⁽¹⁶⁾ On May 12,
1995,⁽¹⁷⁾ the House extended and modified this order,
changing morning-hour debates on Tuesdays after May 14 of each year
in the following manner: (1) the House convenes one hour early (rather
than 90 minutes); (2) time for debate is limited to 25 minutes for each
party; and (3) in no event is morning-hour debate to continue beyond 10
minutes before the House is to convene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 73.24, infra.
17. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also in the 103d Congress,⁽¹⁸⁾ the House agreed by
unanimous consent to conduct, at a time designated by the Speaker,
``Oxford-style'' debates: structured debate on a mutually agreeable
topic announced by the Speaker, with four participants from each party
in a format announced by the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 73.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross References
The Congressional Record in relation to speeches and extensions of
remarks, see Ch. 5, supra.
The order of business generally, see Ch. 21, supra.
Recognition by Speaker for unanimous-consent requests, see Sec. 10,
supra.
Speaker's power of recognition, see Sec. 9, supra.
Yielding time in relation to special-order speeches, see Sec. 31,
supra. -------------------

Generally

Sec. 73.1 The custom of permitting one-minute speeches in the House is
regarded as beneficial to the democratic processes of the House,
and timely requests therefor are seldom refused.

On July 22, 1968,⁽¹⁹⁾ Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, speaking from the floor, discussed with minority Members
of the House the use and practice of ``one-minute'' speeches before the
legislative business of the day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. . . .
Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: You said that this might
be ``dynamic

[[Page 11020]]

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.

Chair's Discretion Over One-minute Speeches

Sec. 73.2 While the Chair's calculation of time under the ``one-minute
rule'' is not subject to challenge, the Chair endeavors to
recognize majority and then minority Members by allocating time in
a nonpartisan manner.

The following exchange occurred in the House on Aug. 4, 1982:
⁽²⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 128 Cong. Rec. 19319, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a
parliamentary inquiry. . . .
[C]an the Chair tell me how long 1 minute is?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽¹⁾ Does the gentleman
request additional time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cecil Heftel (Ha.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am just inquiring. We have had
several long speeches here this morning. I thought that we were
limited in the 1-minute time frame to 1 minute each. . . .
I am making a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair as to whether
or not that is the rule of the House that is supposed to be obeyed.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is, by precedent, and since the
Chair wants to be fair, the Chair would like to extend to the
gentleman and his side
of the aisle any additional 1-minute speeches that they require
immediately. Would the gentleman like to use it now?
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair. I think there are a
number of Members who are waiting yet to speak, and I would
certainly yield such time as I might consume to Members on the
Republican side who have yet to speak so that everyone has an
opportunity to speak this morning.
I thank the Chair.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will recognize them after
recognizing Members on the right side of the aisle, and the Chair
will in fairness extend to them as much time under the 1-minute
rule as they need.

Sec. 73.3 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion
of the Speaker; and his evaluation of the time consumed is a matter
for the Chair and is not subject to challenge or question by a
parliamentary inquiry.

On May 9, 1972,⁽²⁾ Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 118 Cong. Rec. 16288, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Donald W.] Riegle [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11021]]

The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Riegle: Mr. Speaker, I have observed different speakers
being given very different lengths of time to speak under the 1-
minute rule.
I just noticed, for example, the gentleman from California who
was given approximately half the time that the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Devine) and several other speakers were given today. I object
to that and I think if we are going to use the 1-minute rule, let
us use it fairly.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair is trying to
enforce the 1-minute rule. That is not a parliamentary inquiry and
the gentleman was out of order in making it.

Sec. 73.4 The Speaker refused to recognize Members to proceed for one
minute on the second Monday of the month where a motion to
discharge was in order under Rule XXVII clause 4 (now clause 3);
however, he announced that he would make a single exception to
permit a Member to proceed for one minute for the purpose of
announcing to the House the death of a sitting Member.

On Aug. 10, 1970,⁽³⁾ a motion to discharge the Committee
on the Judiciary from further consideration of House Joint Resolution
264, amending the Constitution relative to equal rights for men and
women, was in order under Rule XXVII clause 4 (now clause 3). Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, made the following announcement on
recognition for one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27994, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair would like to announce that the Chair is not going to
recognize Members for the usual 1-minute speeches at this time, due
to the situation with respect to the rules that exist in relation
to the consideration of a constitutional amendment, with one
exception: and that is that the Chair will recognize the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Corbett) to announce the death of our late
and beloved colleague and friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Watkins).

Sec. 73.5 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion
of the Speaker and he sometimes foregoes that procedure in the hope
of expediting the business of the House.

On June 17, 1970,⁽⁴⁾ Mr. William V. Alexander, Jr., of
Arkansas, asked unanimous consent to address the House for one minute
and to revise and extend his remarks, after legislative business had
been conducted. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, reserved the right to object
and referred to the

[[Page 11022]]

Speaker's announcement, earlier in the day, that he would not recognize
for one-minute speeches, in order to expedite the pending business.
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded from the chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 116 Cong. Rec. 20245, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Gross: . . . Mr. Speaker, when the session opened this
morning the Speaker--very providently, I thought--in the interest
of getting on with the legislative business, precluded 1-minute
speeches. However, I am not at all certain that it was done for the
purpose of expediting the legislation, but rather to prevent 1-
minute speeches on the resolution just passed.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to object in this instance, but I
know of no reason why political speeches such as we have heard from
two of the preceding speakers should further delay the legislative
process at this time.
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa
that earlier in the 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.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.⁽⁵⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See also the remarks of the Speaker at 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634,
90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 22, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 73.6 While one-minute speeches are normally entertained at the
beginning of the legislative day, immediately following the
approval of the Journal, the Speaker has on occasion recognized
Members to proceed for one minute after business has been
completed.

On Oct. 15, 1969,⁽⁶⁾ after legislative business had been
conducted, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr.
William E. Brock, 3d, of Tennessee, for one minute. Mr. Brock
criticized unnamed Members for following double standards as to the
right of free speech and dissent. Mr. Arnold Olsen, of Montana, then
attempted to rise

[[Page 11023]]

to a question of personal privilege, based on Mr. Brock's remarks, and
stated that Mr. Brock's address was entitled to a response of one
minute. Speaker McCormack stated that under the circumstances he would
grant that right and by unanimous consent recognized Mr. Olsen for one
minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 115 Cong. Rec. 30080, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: Words uttered in debate do not raise a
question of personal privilege, but instead of ruling on that point the
Speaker recognized Mr. Olsen for a one-minute speech to reply to the
remark he considered derogatory.

Restrictions on One-minute Speeches

Sec. 73.7 The Speaker reminded Members of the policy of some years that
when there is a legislative program for the day, so-called one-
minute speeches that contain more than 300 words would be put in
the Record after the business of the day or in the appendix of the
Record.

On Jan. 17, 1949,⁽⁷⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made
the following announcement, shortly after the convening of the 81st
Congress, on the use and reporting of ``one-minute'' speeches before
the legislative business of the day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 95 Cong. Rec. 403, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair desires to make an announcement.
It has been the policy for some years now that when there is a
legislative program for the day the so-called 1-minute speeches
that contain more than 300 words will be put in the Record after
the business of the day or in the Appendix of the Record. The Chair
trusts that Members will regard this agreement that we have had for
quite a while.⁽⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. For the evolution of the rule announced by the Speaker, see the
following line of precedents: 91 Cong. Rec. 1788, 79th Cong.
1st Sess., Mar. 6, 1945; 91 Cong. Rec. 839, 79th Cong. 1st
Sess., Feb. 6, 1945. (Discussions of Speaker's rulings that
one-minute speeches exceeding 300 words go in appendix); 87
Cong. Rec. 7189, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 15, 1941; 87 Cong.
Rec. 6006, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., July 14, 1941. (Speaker ruled
no extensions of
one-minute speeches exceeding 300 words); 84 Cong. Rec. 8779,
76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 10, 1939 (extension of remarks go in
appendix); 84 Cong. Rec. 7108, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13,
1939 (extensions printed in appendix of Record unless
pertaining to present legislation); 84 Cong. Rec. 6949, 76th
Cong. 1st Sess., June 10, 1939 (Majority Leader would object to
extensions of remarks on one-minute speeches).
Where a Member has secured unanimous consent to address the
House and revise and extend his remarks, he may not without
further consent include in those remarks extraneous matter,
such as a speech made by another person. 92 Cong. Rec. 129,
79th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 18, 1946.

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

[[Page 11024]]

Parliamentarian's Note: The regulation on this subject promulgated
by the Joint Committee on Printing (governing House proceedings printed
in the Record) reads as follows:

1. Extensions of Remarks in the daily Congressional Record.--
When the House has granted leave to print (1) a newspaper or
magazine article, or (2) any other matter not germane to the
proceedings, it shall be published un-der Extensions of Remarks.
This rule shall not apply to quotations which form part of a speech
of a Member, or to an authorized extension of his own remarks:
Provided, That no address, speech, or article delivered or released
subsequently to the sine die adjournment of a session of Congress
may be printed in the Congressional Record. One-minute speeches
delivered during the morning business of Congress shall not exceed
300 words. Statements exceeding this will be printed following the
business of the day.⁽⁹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. This admonition reflected current policy of the joint committee as
recently as Feb. 25, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 73.8 The Speaker stated that when the House meets and Members are
recognized to extend remarks or to proceed for one minute and then
a point of order of no quorum is made signalling the start of
legislative business, it is not proper to recommence recognition to
extend remarks and for one-minute speeches.

On Mar. 7, 1941,⁽¹⁰⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made
the following statement on recognition for nonlegislative matters at
the beginning of the day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 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. 73.9 Members may not address the House for one-minute speeches
more than once before the business of the day.

On Jan. 25, 1956,⁽¹¹⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
recognized Mr. J. Arthur Younger, of California, before the commence

[[Page 11025]]

ment of legislative business for the day, to make a one-minute speech
on the subject of military figures criticizing ``principles of
government.'' Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, was later
recognized for a one-minute speech on the same subject, and mentioned
Mr. Younger's remarks. Mr. Younger sought recognition and the Speaker
ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 1274, 1275, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Mr. Flood asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, in further reference to the controversy
in connection with General Ridgeway I must take diametric
opposition to the gentleman from California [Mr. Younger]. . . .
Mr. Younger: Mr. Speaker, may I have the privilege of
addressing the House, my name having been mentioned?
The Speaker: No; not without unanimous consent of the House.
Mr. Younger: Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent----
The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize Members to speak for 1
minute more than once before the business of the day has been
dispensed with. That has been the policy heretofore.⁽¹²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 10634, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension of One-minute Speeches

Sec. 73.10 The Speaker has refused to recognize Members for unanimous-
consent requests to proceed for longer than one minute before the
business of the day.

On June 11, 1963,⁽¹³⁾ Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri,
had the floor for a one-minute speech prior to the legislative business
of the day and yielded to Mr. James C. Fulton, of Pennsylvania. Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, interrupted Mr. Fulton to state
that Mr. Jones' one minute had expired, and Mr. Fulton asked unanimous
consent that Mr. Jones be given one additional minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 10633, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker ruled that such a request was not in order and refused
to recognize Mr. Fulton for the request.⁽¹⁴⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For a discussion of the practice forbidding speeches extending
longer than one minute before the legislative business of the
day, see 91 Cong. Rec. 1788, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 6,
1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 73.11 The Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House,
permitted a Member to proceed for five minutes, during that part of
the session when he would normally have recognized only for one-
minute speeches, to refute a newspaper charge of im

[[Page 11026]]

proper conduct (in lieu of recognizing for one hour on a question
of personal privilege).

On June 29, 1962,⁽¹⁵⁾ before the commencement of
legislative business, and during the period when one-minute speeches
were normally entertained, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
recognized Mr. H. Carl Andersen, of Minnesota, for a unanimous-consent
request to proceed for five minutes and to revise and extend his
remarks. There was no objection. Mr. Andersen discussed newspaper
charges of improper conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 12297, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Andersen had requested, before the
opening of the session, that he be recognized on a point of personal
privilege. Since the House had a busy schedule, the Speaker suggested
that the business of the House could be expedited if Mr. Andersen would
simply ask to proceed for five minutes rather than to take an hour
under a point of personal privilege.⁽¹⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For another occasion on which a Member took time (one minute)
during the time for one-minute speeches to discuss newspaper
charges against him, rather than to consume time on a point of
personal privilege, see 113 Cong. Rec. 33693, 90th Cong. 1st
Sess., Nov. 22, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special-order Speeches; When Permitted

Sec. 73.12 Special orders of Members to address the House must follow
the conclusion of the legislative program of the day, and the
Speaker decides when the legislative program of the day has been
completed.

On June 3, 1937,⁽¹⁷⁾ after Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New
York, called up on behalf of the Committee on Rules a privileged
resolution providing a special order, a point of order was made that
there were some special orders on the calendar for Members to address
the House, and the calendar did not indicate that privileged business
was to precede those special orders. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, overruled the point of order and stated that under the new
practice, special orders were to follow legislative business, including
any privileged matters brought up by the House leadership or by the
Committee on Rules.⁽¹⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 5307, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 3645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 20, 1937,
when Majority Leader Sam Rayburn (Tex.), stated that he would
thereafter object to all unanimous-consent requests to address
the House unless the special orders should come after the
conclusion of the legislative program of the day.

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

[[Page 11027]]

On Jan. 5, 1939,⁽¹⁹⁾ shortly after the convening of the
76th Congress, Majority Leader Rayburn made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 125, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, in order that there
may be no misunderstanding may I say that last year the policy was
adopted that when unanimous-consent requests were preferred that a
Member might speak on a day certain it was always understood that
he would speak after the disposition of matters on the Speaker's
table and following the legislative program of that day, if there
was any such program. Whether or not there will be a legislative
program on Monday I do not know, but I doubt it. However, I want it
understood that it will be the custom this year that when a Member
requests time to speak this condition is coupled with his request.

Sec. 73.13 The Speaker may in his discretion, recognize for special
orders when no legislative business is available
for consideration with the
understanding that further business, if ready for presentation, may
follow.

On Dec. 14, 1971,⁽²⁰⁾ Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
made an announcement concerning recognition by the Chair for special-
order speeches before the conclusion of remaining legislative business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 46801, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.⁽¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 5373, 5374, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 7,
1937.
Before the inception of the policy that special-order
speeches follow the legislative business of the day, it was
held that a motion to correct the reference of a bill took
precedence over a special order to address the House for a
specified time after the reading and approval of the Journal.
78 Cong. Rec. 2425, 2426, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 12, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 73.14 Requests to proceed ``for one additional minute,'' while not
entertained by the Chair at the beginning of the day, are
permissible when business has been concluded (the request
constituting, in substance, a request for a special order).

[[Page 11028]]

On June 13, 1963,⁽²⁾ after legislative business had been
concluded for the day and there being no special orders scheduled, Mr.
Ezekiel C. Gathings, of Arkansas, obtained unanimous consent to address
the House for one minute and to revise and extend his remarks. At the
expiration of the one minute, Mr. Gathings requested unanimous consent
to proceed for an additional minute. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, stated that if there was no objection, the business
being disposed of, the gentleman could proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 109 Cong. Rec. 10891, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the conclusion of Mr. Gathings' additional minute, Mr. Joe D.
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, asked unanimous consent that Mr. Gathings
be allowed to proceed for one additional minute. The Speaker
entertained the request and made the following statement:

The Chair will state that the Chair is permitting this request
although the Chair does not consider this is to be the 1-minute
period such as we have before proceeding with the regular business
of the House.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.

Duration of Special-order Speeches

Sec. 73.15 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 declines to recognize him for
extensions of time or for an additional special order.

On Feb. 9, 1966,⁽³⁾ Mr. Joseph Y. Resnick, of New York,
who already had scheduled a special order for the day, asked unanimous
consent that he have an additional special order to address the House
for 15 minutes at the close of legislative business. Speaker Pro
Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, declined to recognize him for that
purpose, stating as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 112 Cong. Rec. 2794, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.⁽⁴⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. A Member may consume an hour for a special order and then be
yielded time by the next Member with a special order; see 114
Cong. Rec. 14265-71, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 21, 1968.

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

[[Page 11029]]

Sec. 73.16 By unanimous consent, a Member may be recognized for a one-
hour speech to precede other special-order speeches already
scheduled by the House.

On July 31, 1973,⁽⁵⁾ Mr. David R. Obey, of Wisconsin,
asked unanimous consent that he be allowed to proceed for one hour
preceding the special orders scheduled for the day. There was no
objection to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 119 Cong. Rec. 27023, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker normally will not entertain
such a request without advance consent from all Members whose special
orders would be affected.

Extension of Special-order Speeches

Sec. 73.17 A Member recognized under a special order in the House may
have his time for debate extended by unanimous consent, but a
motion to that effect is not in order.

On June 13, 1972,⁽⁶⁾ Mr. Jack F. Kemp, of New York, was
recognized to speak for 10 minutes on a special order. At the
conclusion of the 10 minutes, Mr. Charles S. Gubser, of California,
asked unanimous consent that Mr. Kemp be given an additional 10
minutes. Mr. William D. Ford, of Michigan, objected to the request, and
Mr. John E. Hunt, of New Jersey, moved that Mr. Kemp be given 10
minutes additional time. Speaker Pro Tempore William J. Randall, of
Missouri, ruled that the motion was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 118 Cong. Rec. 20681, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair will have to state that a motion to that effect is
not in order at this time. Other special orders have previously
been granted, and the Chair will state that the motion is not in
order.

Parliamentarian's Note: An extension of time for debate under
a special order, even though by unanimous consent, is technically not
possible where the extension would extend the time beyond one hour. The
Chair would not normally entertain a request which would permit debate
in violation of the hour rule.

Sec. 73.18 When additional time to speak under a special order was
requested, the Speaker advised the Member that other Members were
also waiting to be recognized on special orders.

On June 23, 1964,⁽⁷⁾ Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, was
addressing

[[Page 11030]]

the House, at the conclusion of business, on a special order and asked
unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. Speaker John
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, advised him that there were three other
special orders following Mr. Patman. Mr. Patman withdrew his request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 110 Cong. Rec. 14719, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interruption of Special-order Speech

Sec. 73.19 A motion to suspend the rules may be entertained while
another Member controls the floor for a ``special-order speech'' if
the Member with the floor voluntarily yields the floor for that
purpose.

On Oct. 2, 1973,⁽⁸⁾ Mr. J. J. Pickle, of Texas, had the
floor for one hour for a special-order speech. He had consumed 31
minutes when he suspended temporarily to allow Mr. Wright Patman, of
Texas, to move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, Senate Joint
Resolution 160, to extend laws on the payment of interest on savings
deposits. After disposition of the motion to suspend the rules, Mr.
Pickle was again recognized by Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to
consume his remaining 29 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 119 Cong. Rec. 32395, 32397, 32404, 32410, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Special-order Speeches

Sec. 73.20 The Speaker announced that Members would not be recognized
for special orders, which were transferred to the following day by
unanimous consent, due to the death of a Senator.

On Jan. 20, 1958,⁽⁹⁾ following the death of Senator
Matthew M. Nelly, of West Virginia, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made
an announcement on the disposition of special orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 104 Cong. Rec. 670, 674, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair will state to those Members who have special orders
for today, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Bailey], the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman], and the gentleman from Arkansas
[Mr. Gathings] that we will not have any special orders today. So
they may govern themselves accordingly.

Special orders were then transferred by unanimous consent:

Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all special orders entered for today may be
transferred to tomorrow.
The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.

[[Page 11031]]

Sec. 73.21 Special orders to address the House, totaling more than 21
hours, were requested for a certain day but were later withdrawn at
the request of the Majority Leader, who suggested that they be
again requested when the Members desiring the time were on the
floor.

On Oct. 8, 1969,⁽¹⁰⁾ Mr. Michael J. Harrington, of
Massachusetts, made a series of requests for certain Members to address
the House on Oct. 14, 1969, following legislative business; the special
orders requested for that day totaled 21 hours and 45 minutes. Mr.
Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, reserved the right to object and inquired
whether legislative business for Oct. 14 could not be expected to total
more than three hours. Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
responded that it was entirely possible that legislative business could
consume more than three hours on Oct. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 29228, 29229, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Hall then objected to any special orders over the first 12
hours requested for Oct. 14. All the special orders requested were then
withdrawn at the request of Mr. Albert:

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there has been objection
and that some of the special orders will be necessarily stricken
and Members who are not here now are involved, I would request the
gentleman from Massachusetts not to make the request tonight, in
order that it might be made tomorrow when those concerned are
present.

Parliamentarian's Note: Most of the Members for whom special orders
were requested were opponents of the Vietnam war. Their announced
intention was to use the special orders to keep the House in session
throughout the night to dramatize the war protest scheduled to begin in
major cities of the nation, including Washington, on Oct. 14, 1969.

Sec. 73.22 The Speaker announced the procedure whereby (and the time at
which) Members would be recognized to make speeches up to one
minute in length.

On Jan. 23, 1975,⁽¹¹⁾ Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 1163, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

The Speaker: May the Chair state, particularly for the benefit
of new Members, that we generally open the proceedings, after the
prayer and disposition of the Journal and things which are
immediately on the Speaker's desk, by recognizing Members for

[[Page 11032]]

individual requests and for speeches up to 1 minute.
The Chair habitually and regularly starts at the extreme right
and goes all the way around; then comes back and starts over. If
Members want to be heard, the Chair wants to take them in that
order. So, Members will be recognized in the order from the first
seat to the Speaker's right to the last seat on the Speaker's left,
and then the process will be repeated, if other Members come in.

Sec. 73.23 While debate on a conference report is limited to one hour
⁽¹²⁾ to be equally
divided between majority
and minority parties,⁽¹³⁾ the House may, by unanimous
consent, either extend that time or permit debate by ``special
order'' on the conference report prior to actual consideration
thereof; thus, on one occasion, by unanimous consent, two Members,
the chairman and ranking minority member of the House conferees,
were permitted ``special orders'' of one hour each to debate a
conference report following adoption of a resolution making in
order the consideration of the report but prior to actual
consideration of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1995).
13. See Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mar. 26, 1975,⁽¹⁴⁾ the following proceedings occurred
in the House relative to consideration of the conference report on H.R.
2166, the Tax Reduction Act of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 8899, 8900, 8916, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).

conference report on h.r. 2166, tax reduction act of 1975

Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon] submitted the following conference
report and statement on the bill (H.R. 2166) to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 . . . to increase the investment credit and
the surtax exemption, and for other purposes:

Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2166) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 . . . having
met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend
and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by
the Senate amendment insert the following:

[[Page 11033]]

Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax
Reduction Act of 1975''. . . .

Mr. Ullman: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that upon the
adoption of the rule I be granted a 60-minute special order.
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁵⁾ Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to
object, Mr. Speaker, we have in the rules of the House an adequate
rule for the consideration of conference reports. . . . I have no
way of knowing, nor does any Member in this Chamber know, who will
control the time during a special order, except the gentleman from
Oregon, whether questions, once raised, will be answered, or
whether or not debate will deteriorate into partisan debate.
The Speaker: The gentleman is very effectively but improperly
stating the rules. The minority has 30 minutes and the majority has
30 minutes on the conference report.
Mr. Bauman: I am talking about the lack of protection contained
in the request for the 1-hour special order that was just made by
the gentleman from Oregon.
The Speaker: Any Member of the House may make a request for a
special order.

Mr. Bauman: I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker,
further reserving the right to object, I also ask for a 60-minute
special order following that of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Ullman).
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

Recognition and Limitation
of Time for Special-order Speeches; ``Oxford-style'' Debates

Sec. 73.24 Pursuant to several unanimous-consent requests, the House
agreed to a 90-day trial period from February 23 through May 23,
1994, [subsequently extended on several occasions] and agreed on a
format of recognition and limitation of time for each party for
special-order speeches, including periodic ``Oxford style''
structured debates and morning-hour debates; the Speaker then
announced the applicable guidelines for recognition during such
speeches and debate.

The following unanimous-consent request was agreed to on Feb. 11,
1994: ⁽¹⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, following
my

[[Page 11034]]

unanimous-consent request to put in place an agreed upon format for
recognitions to address the House during a 90-day trial period
beginning February 23, 1994, including a morning hour debate, an
Oxford style debate and a restriction on special order speeches,
the Speaker will announce his guidelines for recognition. In so
doing it is stipulated that the establishment of this format for
recognition by the Speaker is without prejudice to the Speaker's
ultimate power of recognition under clause 1, rule XIV should
circumstances so warrant.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the special orders
previously granted by the House to address the House on dates
through May 23, 1994 be vacated;
Further that during the period beginning February 23, 1994 and
for 90 days thereafter, on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week the
House convene 90 minutes earlier than the time otherwise
established by order of the House solely for the purpose of
conducting morning hour debates to be followed by a recess declared
by the Speaker pursuant to clause 12, rule I under the following
conditions:
(1) Prayer by the Chaplain, approval of the Journal and the
pledge of allegiance to the flag to be postponed until the
resumption of the House session following the completion of morning
hour debate;
(2) Debate to be limited not to exceed 30 minutes allocated to
each party, with initial and subsequent recognition alternating
daily between parties to be conferred by the Speaker only pursuant
to lists submitted by the majority leader and minority leaders
respectively (no Member on such lists to be permitted to address
the House for longer than 5 minutes except for the majority leader
and minority leader respectively);
Further, that on (every third) Wednesday, beginning on a day to
be designated by the Speaker and mutually agreed upon by the
majority leader and minority leader, it shall be in order, at a
time to be determined by the Speaker, for the Speaker to recognize
the majority leader and minority leader (or their designees),
jointly, for a period of not to exceed 2 hours, for the purpose of
holding a structured debate. The topic of the debate, when mutually
agreed upon by the majority leader and minority leader, shall be
announced by the Speaker. The format of the debate, which shall
allow for participation by four Members of the majority party and
four from the minority party in the House, chosen by their
respective party leaders, with specified times for presentations
and rebuttals by all participants, and periods of questioning of
each Member by others participating, shall be announced to the
House by the Speaker.
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁷⁾ Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsequently, the Speaker announced the following guidelines for
implementation of the unanimous-consent agreement:

The Speaker: With respect to special orders to address the
House for up to 1 hour at the conclusion of legislative business or
on days when no legis

[[Page 11035]]

lative business is scheduled, the Chair announced that:
First, Tuesdays, following legislative business, there will be
an unlimited period of special orders not extending beyond
midnight, with recognition for 5-minute and then for longer special
orders alternating between the parties and with initial
recognition, for longer special orders, rotating on a daily basis
between the parties, and with the first hour of recognition on each
side reserved to the House leadership--majority leader and whip and
minority leader or their designee;
Second, on Mondays, Wednesdays, except those Wednesdays when
Oxford style debates are in order, Thursdays and Fridays, the Chair
will recognize Members from each party for up to 2 hours of special
order debate at the conclusion of legislative business and 5-minute
special orders, or when no legislative business is scheduled, not
extending beyond midnight, again with initial recognition
alternating between the parties on a daily basis and with the
allocation of time within each 2-hour period, or short period if
pro rated to end by midnight, to be determined by a list submitted
to the Chair by the House leadership, majority leader and whip and
minority leader or designees, respectively, and with the first hour
of recognition on each side reserved to the House leadership,
majority leader and whip and minority leader or their designees.
Members will be limited to signing up for all such special orders
no earlier than 1 week prior to the special order, and additional
guidelines may be established for such sign-ups by the majority and
minority leaders, respectively. One-minute speeches on those days
both prior to and at the conclusion of legislative business shall
be at the discretion of the Speaker;
Third, pursuant to clause 9(b)(1) of rule I, during this trial
period the television cameras will not pan the Chamber, but a crawl
indicating morning hour or that the House has completed its
legislative business and is proceeding with special order speeches
will appear on the screen. Other television camera adaptations
during this period may be announced by the Chair;
Fourth, special orders to extend beyond the 4-hour period may
be permitted at the discretion of the Chair with advance
consultation between the leaderships and notification to the House.

Parliamentarian's Note: On subsequent occasions, the House extended
the above unanimous-consent agreement.⁽¹⁸⁾ On May 12, 1995,
the House extended the agreement by unanimous consent, but changed the
Tuesday morning hour to 9 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See the proceedings of May 23, 1994; June 10, 1994; Jan. 4, 1995;
Feb. 16, 1995; and May 12, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Richard K.] Armey [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the order of the House of January 4, 1995, relating to
morning hour debates be continued through the adjournment of the 2d
session of the 104th Congress sine die, except that on Tuesdays the
House shall convene for such debate 1 hour earlier then the time
otherwise established by order of the House rather than 90 minutes
earlier; and the time for such debates

[[Page 11036]]

shall be limited to 25 minutes allocated to each party rather than
30 minutes to each; but in no event shall such debates continue
beyond the time that falls 10 minutes before the appointed hour for
the resumption of legislative business, and with the understanding
that the format for recognition for special order speeches first
instituted on February 23, 1994, be continued for the same period.
. . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.

Meetings of the leadership following the February 11 proceedings
produced further guidelines for implementation of the special order and
morning-hour procedures. The guidelines provided, among other matters,
for alternation of recognition between the parties, and for procedures
whereby Members sign up in advance for special orders, the majority in
the Majority Leader's office and the minority in the cloakroom, the
lists to be approved on the floor. For the Oxford-style debates, each
leader would designate four participants for the debate every third
Wednesday, to be held on a mutually agreeable topic announced by the
Speaker. Guidelines for the morning hour on every Monday and Tuesday
also provided for allocation of time and for the procedure of signing
up with the party leaders.⁽¹⁹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See the procedures agreed to in meetings of the leadership for
special orders, Oxford debates, and morning hours (Feb. 17,
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------