Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6 - § 1. Order Fixed by Rule and Precedent; Scheduling Business

[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[A. General Principles]
[§ 1. Order Fixed by Rule and Precedent; Scheduling Business]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[Page 3759-3777]

CHAPTER 21

Order of Business; Special Orders

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Sec. 1. Order Fixed by Rule and Precedent; Scheduling Business

The order of business in the House is governed, first, by the
provisions of Rule XXIV, which prescribes the daily order of business,
including the approval of the Journal, business on the Speaker's table,
unfinished business, the morning hour call of committees (no longer in
use), private business, and District of Columbia
business.⁽¹⁾ The motion to suspend the rules on certain days
is made in order by Rule XXVII,⁽²⁾ and the Consent and
Discharge Calendars are provided for by Rule XIII.⁽³⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 878-899 (1979).
2. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 902-907 (1979).
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 746, 747 (1979).
For corresponding treatment of earlier precedents, see 4
Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3056 et seq. (the order of
business), Sec. Sec. 3152 et seq. (special orders),
Sec. Sec. 3266 et seq. (private and District of Columbia
business); 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6790 et seq.
(suspension of the rules); 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 708
et seq. (order of business); 7 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 758 et seq. (special orders), Sec. Sec. 846 et seq.
(private and District of Columbia business), Sec. Sec. 881 et
seq. (Calendar Wednesday), Sec. Sec. 972 et seq. (Consent
Calendar), Sec. Sec. 1007 et seq. (calendar of motions to
discharge a committee); 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3397 et
seq. (suspension of the rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The order of business may be interrupted for business privileged
under the rules and practices of the House.^~(4) In addition,
the regular order of business, including the relative precedence of
privileged questions, may be varied by three methods: unanimous-consent
requests, motions to suspend the rules, and resolutions reported from
the Committee on Rules that pertain to the order of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. Sec. 28-31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair may refuse to recognize for unanimous-consent requests
and motions to suspend the rules, and holds the power of recognition at
all times. Thus the order of business may be subject to the Chair's
power of recognition. The Speaker of the House, and the Members who
with him

[[Page 3760]]

constitute the leadership of the House, have the duty of scheduling the
business of the House, in concert with the leadership of each standing
committee thereof.^(~5~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. Sec. 1.1-1.6 and 1.14-1.19, 1.22, 1.23, infra. For
recognition for the motion to suspend the rules, see Sec. 11,
infra. For the Chair's power of recognition in general, see Ch.
29, infra. And for discussion of the functions and duties of
the Speaker, see Ch. 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the order of business in the House is always subject to
the will of the majority of the House, who may refuse to consider most
matters brought before it, or may change the order of business or
create a new order of business.⁽⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. Sec. 1.19-1.21, infra. The question of consideration, and
situations where the question of consideration is not in order,
are discussed in Sec. 30, infra. For changing the order of
business, see those sections of this chapter concerned with
varying the order of business by unanimous consent (Sec. 8,
infra), with motions to suspend the rules, and with special
orders from the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross References
Assembly of Congress (for discussion of the order of business at the
convening of the House), Ch. 1, supra.
Officers and staff (for discussion of the Speaker and his authority),
Ch. 6, supra.
Privilege (for discussion of questions of privilege and their
precedence over the regular order of business), Ch. 11, supra.
Committees (for discussion of the order of business in committees), Ch.
17, supra.
Discharging Measures From Committees. Ch. 18, supra.
Calendars, Ch. 22, infra.
Motions and Requests, Ch. 23, infra.
Consideration and Debate, Ch. 29
infra. -------------------

Role of Speaker and Leadership Scheduling Legislation

Sec. 1.1 The legislative schedule or program for the House is announced
to the Members by the Majority Leader or Whip, or in their absence
may be announced by the Speaker himself.

On May 21, 1964,⁽⁷⁾ after the disposition of legislative
business on the last legislative day of the week, Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, took the floor, in the absence of both the
Majority Leader and Majority Whip, to announce the program for the
following week:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 110 Cong. Rec. 11690, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [James] Harvey of Michigan: 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 Michigan?

[[Page 3761]]

There was no objection.
Mr. Harvey of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this time
in order to inquire of the distinguished acting majority leader if
he will inform us of the schedule for the balance of this week and
for next week.
Mr. McCormack: The program for next week is as follows:
Monday is District Day, but there are no bills. We will
consider H.R. 10041--hospital and medical facilities amendments of
1964. This has an open rule and provides 3 hours of general debate.
. . .
On Wednesday H.R. 5130, increase in federal deposit and savings
insurance. This has an open rule and provides 2 hours of general
debate.
On the same day there are eight unanimous-consent bills from
the Committee on Ways and Means, as follows:
H.R. 4198, free importation of instant coffee. . . .
On Thursday and the balance of the week the program is as
follows:
On Thursday, at 12:30 p.m., the House and Senate will receive
in joint meeting the President of Ireland, His Excellency, Eamon de
Valera.
The usual reservation is made that conference reports may be
brought up at any time and any further program will be announced
later.

Parliamentarian's Note: The announcement of the legislative
schedule for the following week is normally made by the Majority Leader
or Majority Whip following the legislative program for the week. If the
announcement is made on Thursday or Friday, with intent to adjourn
until Monday, the unanimous-consent request (or motion, if the request
is objected to) is made to adjourn over until Monday next. Also at that
time, the unanimous-consent request is made to dispense with Calendar
Wednesday business on the following Wednesday.

Sec. 1.2 The Speaker made a statement from the Chair regarding the
scheduling of legislation.

On Aug. 16, 1962,⁽⁸⁾ Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, made a statement from the chair pending a motion that
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the
consideration of the public works appropriation bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 108 Cong. Rec. 16730, 16731, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The Chair would like the attention of the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford]. The Chair desires to state that
a number of Members have spoken to me as Speaker about the problems
that confront them, which problems I thoroughly appreciate. In my
years of experience as majority leader I always bore these problems
in mind. But this situation did not develop until within 24 hours
where arrangements could be made for next week. There are problems
of the leadership, and there are problems of all the Members.
The Chair felt if this bill could be brought up today, and
these other

[[Page 3762]]

three bills, we could adjourn over today until Monday of next week,
and from Monday of next week to Thursday of next week, and from
Thursday of next week to the following Monday. The Chair takes
complete responsibility, the responsibility, as the Chair felt,
being in the interest of the Members of the House that
consideration could be given at this time because later on the
Chair could see where there would be extreme difficulty and next
week afforded an excellent opportunity. These decisions are made
rather quickly because we just do not know what problems might
arise. As a matter of fact, the Chair did not definitely make the
decision until this morning, although the Chair had pretty well
formulated it in the mind of the Chair yesterday afternoon and last
evening.

Sec. 1.3 The Speaker advised Members that he was amenable to
recognizing for unanimous-consent requests to call up bills
requiring disposition before adjournment, providing that such
measures were carefully screened by the leadership on both sides of
the aisle,

On Aug. 17, 1964,⁽⁹⁾ the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request giving the Speaker the authority to recognize for
motions to suspend the rules and pass certain bills on a date to be
agreed upon by himself, and the Majority and Minority Leaders. Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 110 Cong. Rec. 19944, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair will state that if arrangements can be worked out on
this or any other bill, through a unanimous-consent request, where
the matter has been carefully screened, the Chair will be glad to
recognize for that purpose. That does not mean today. It means
sometime this week, if it is carefully screened through the
leadership. Members are protected in the knowledge that the
screening has taken place.

Sec. 1.4 Members desiring to ask unanimous consent for the
consideration of bills should first consult the Speaker and
Majority and Minority Leaders, and in the absence of such
consultation the Speaker may decline to recognize for such
requests.

On July 11, 1946,⁽¹⁰⁾ Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, of
Connecticut, sought recognition for a unanimous-consent request for the
immediate consideration of a bill. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
declined recognition for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 8726, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: Did the gentlewoman consult the Speaker about this
and notify him that she was going to make this request?

[[Page 3763]]

Mrs. Luce: I did not, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Chair refuses to recognize the gentlewoman for
that purpose.

Later in the proceedings, Mr. John Phillips, of California,
commented in debate on the failure of the same bill to be brought up
for consideration. The Speaker stated as follows in response:

The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
The Chair desires to make a statement. For a long time, ever
since 1937 at least, the present occupant of the chair knows that
when Members intend to ask unanimous consent to bring up a bill
they have always properly consulted with both the majority and
minority leaders of the House and with the Speaker. That has been
the unfailing custom. The Chair is exercising that right and
intends to continue to exercise it as long as he occupies the
present position because the Chair wants the House to proceed in an
orderly fashion.
Mrs. Luck: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask unanimous consent to
bring up the bill tomorrow?
The Speaker: The Chair will meet that question when the time
comes.
The Chair would certainly like the courtesy of being consulted
in advance.¹¹
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 8728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.5 Upon concluding a recess, called by the Speaker pending
receipt of an engrossed bill while a House resolution was pending
before the House, the Speaker announced the unfinished business to
be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill, the Food Stamp
Act of 1964.

On Apr. 8, 1964,⁽¹²⁾ Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, put the question on the engrossment and third reading of
H.R. 10222, the Food Stamp Act of 1964, and Mr. Charles S. Gubser, of
California, demanded the reading of the engrossed copy, which was not
yet prepared. The House then proceeded to the consideration of House
Resolution 665, dealing with certain Senate amendments to a House bill.
Pending such consideration, the Speaker declared a recess subject to
the call of the Chair (pursuant to such authority granted the Speaker
for any time during that day), pending the receipt of the engrossed
copy of H.R. 10222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The recess having expired, the Speaker called the House to order
and stated that the unfinished business was the reading of the
engrossed copy of H.R. 10222, which he directed the Clerk to read. When
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio, propounded a parliamentary inquiry
regarding the status of House Resolution 665 as the

[[Page 3764]]

unfinished business properly before the House, the Speaker recognized
Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, to withdraw House Resolution 665,
thereby terminating the reason for the inquiry.
Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent predated the 1965 revision
to the rules eliminating the right of any Member to demand the reading
of the engrossed bill (see Sec. Sec. 3.31-3.33, infra).

Sec. 1.6 The death of a sitting Member of the House was announced to
the House, which then proceeded with scheduled business before
adjourning out of respect.

On May 4, 1970,⁽¹³⁾ Mr. John S. Monagan, of Connecticut,
announced to the House, following the offering of prayer and the
approval of the Journal, the death of a sitting Member of the House,
William L. St. Onge, of Connecticut. Before adjourning out of respect,
the House conducted its scheduled business, the consideration of a
conference report and the consideration of the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 13987-14043, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: On many occasions, the House adjourns out
of respect to a deceased Member without conducting scheduled
legislative business. On this occasion, there existed a full
legislative schedule for the week and the leadership, after
consultation with the deceased's family, determined to proceed with
business.

Order May Be Subject to Chair's Recognition

Sec. 1.7 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated
that where matters of equal privilege are pending, the order of
their consideration is subject to the Speaker's recognition.

On Sept. 22, 1966,⁽¹⁴⁾ Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, made the following statement on recognition, in response
to a parliamentary inquiry related to the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . Of course, the question of recognition is with the Chair,
where there are two similar preferential matters, but the
gentleman's understanding is correct that after 7 legislative days
a member of the Rules Committee could call it up.
If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential
status existed at the same time. recognition rests with I the
Chair.

Sec. 1.8 If a resolution providing a special order of business is

[[Page 3765]]

not called up for consideration by the Member reporting the
resolution from the Committee on Rules within seven days, any
member of the committee may call it up for consideration as a
privileged matter, for which purpose the Speaker would be obliged
to recognize such Member, unless a matter of equal or higher
privilege was pending. In the latter case, the order of
consideration would be determined by the Speaker's recognition.

On Sept. 22, 1966,⁽¹⁵⁾ Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
Under the rules of the House, as I understand them, this rule,
House Resolution 1007, to bring up the socalled House Un-American
Activities Committee bill, is a privileged matter, and if it is not
programed, then the gentleman handling the rule or any member of
the Rules Committee, may call it up as a privileged matter. Is my
understanding correct about that?
The Speaker: The gentleman's understanding is correct. Of
course, the question of recognition is with the Chair, where there
are two similar preferential matters, but the gentleman's
understanding is correct that after 7 legislative days a member of
the Rules Committee could call it up.
If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential
status existed at the same time, recognition rests with the Chair.
Mr. Colmer: I thank the Speaker for his ruling.
Mr. Speaker, in view of that, if the gentleman will continue to
yield to me, I should like to serve notice now on the majority
leadership that if this resolution is not programed at a reasonably
early date, I shall exercise that privilege as the one who is
designated to handle this rule.
Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
announce further that the program for next week will be announced
later in the day.

Sec. 1.9 While the call of the Consent Calendar is, under Rule XIII
clause 4, mandatory on the first and third Mondays of the month
immediately after the approval of the Journal, the Speaker may
recognize a Member to call up a conference report under Rule XXVIII
clause 1, before directing the Clerk to call the Consent Calendar.

On May 4, 1970,⁽¹⁶⁾ which was Consent Calendar day under
Rule XIII clause 4, requiring that the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 14021-33, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3766]]

Consent Calendar be called immediately after the approval of the
Journal, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr.
Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, to call up a conference report on H.R.
515 (to amend the National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act),
as a privileged matter under Rule XXVIII clause 1, before directing the
call of the Consent Calendar.

Sec. 1.10 On a District Day, the Speaker recognized a member of the
Committee on Rules to call up a privileged resolution relating to
the order of business, and later recognized the chairman of another
committee to call up the business made in order thereby, prior to
recognizing the Chairman of the Committee on the District of
Columbia to call up District business under Rule XXIV clause 8.

On Sept. 24, 1962,⁽¹⁷⁾ which was District of Columbia
Day under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, first recognized Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi,
to call up by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution
804, making in order and providing for the consideration of Senate
Joint Resolution 224, authorizing the President to call up armed forces
reservists. The House having agreed to the resolution, the Speaker
recognized Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services and manager of the joint resolution, to move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of
the joint resolution, which was after debate agreed to by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 20489-94, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker then stated that it was District of Columbia Day and
recognized Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the
Committee on the District of Columbia for District
business.⁽¹⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 20521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.11 When a Member seeks recognition to call up District of
Columbia business on the fourth Monday (privileged under Rule XXIV
clause 8) and another Member seeks recognition to move to suspend
the rules and agree to a Senate joint resolution amending the
Constitution (privileged pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement
making it in order on the fourth Monday for the Speaker to
recognize

[[Page 3767]]

Members to move suspension and passage of bills), it is within the
discretion of the Speaker as to which of the two Members he shall
recognize.

On Aug. 27, 1962,⁽¹⁹⁾ which was the fourth Monday of the
month and therefore a day eligible for District of Columbia business,
under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the
rules and pass a joint resolution (to amend the Constitution to
prohibit the use of a poll tax as a qualification for voting) pursuant
to a previous unanimous-consent request making in order on that day
motions to suspend the rules. The Speaker overruled a point of order
against prior recognition for the motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-60, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relating to qualifications of
electors.
Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
point of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this
is District Day, that there are District bills on the calendar, and
as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia I
respectfully demand recognition so that these bills may be
considered.
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on
the point of order?
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule, but the gentleman
may be heard.
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, suspensions were
transferred to this day, and under the rules the Speaker has power
of recognition at his own discretion.
Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully call the attention
of the chairman to clause 8, rule XXIV, page 432 of the House
Manual. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I submit that rule is clear that when the time is
claimed and the opportunity is claimed the Chair shall permit those
bills to be considered.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my point of order
is well taken, and that I should be permitted to call up bills
which are now pending on the calendar from the Committee on the
District of Columbia.
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to be heard on the point of order.
The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House on
some things are very clear, and the rules of the House either mean
something or they do not mean anything.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy],
has just

[[Page 3768]]

called to the Chair's attention clause 8 of rule XXIV. Nothing
could be clearer; nothing could be more mandatory. I want to repeat
it because I hope the Chair will not fall into an error on this
proposition:

The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the
disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the
disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires
reference only--

And that is all; that is all that you can consider-disposition
of motions to discharge committees--
and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker's table
as requires reference only--

That is all that the Chair is permitted to consider.
Mr. Speaker, after that is done the day--
shall when claimed by the Committee on the District of
Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of such business
as may be presented by said committee.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the majority leader bases his defense
upon the theory that the House having given unanimous consent to
hear suspensions on this Monday instead of last Monday when they
should have been heard--and I doubt if very many Members were here
when that consent order was made and I am quite sure that a great
number of them had no notice that it was going to be made, and
certainly I did not--now the majority leader undertakes to say that
having gotten unanimous consent to consider this motion on this day
to suspend the rules, therefore, it gives the Speaker carte blanche
authority to do away with the rule which gives first consideration
to District of Columbia matters. Mr. Speaker, there was no waiver
of the rule on the District of Columbia. That consent did not
dispose or dispense with the business on the District of Columbia
day. The rule is completely mandatory. The rule says that on the
second and fourth Mondays, if the District of Columbia claims the
time, that the Speaker shall recognize them for such dispositions
as they desire to call.
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to
transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the
rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the
consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the
rules today is a privileged motion. The matter is within the
discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.

Sec. 1.12 On one occasion the Speaker, having recognized one Member to
propound a parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of a
resolution as ``unfinished business,'' then recognized the Member
who had offered the resolution to withdraw it, thus eliminating the
reason for the inquiry.

On Apr. 8, 1964, a demand was made for the reading of the engrossed
copy of a bill where the engrossment was not yet prepared. The bill was
laid aside and

[[Page 3769]]

the House proceeded to consider a resolution (concurring in a Senate
amendment to a House bill). Prior to the disposition of that
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a
recess pursuant to authority previously granted.
At the conclusion of the recess, the Speaker stated the unfinished
business to be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill on which
the demand had been made. A parliamentary inquiry with respect to the
order of business was then raised by Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio. The
ensuing proceedings, during which the Speaker asserted his right of
recognition to permit a Member to withdraw the resolution, are
discussed fully in the next precedent.\⁽²⁰\^{)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------}20. Sec. 1.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.13 The power of recognition rests with the Chair and is subject
to his discretion.

On one occasion, the Speaker, having recognized one Member to
propound a parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of a resolution
as ``unfinished business,'' then recognized another Member to withdraw
the resolution, thus eliminating the reason for the inquiry.
On Apr. 8, 1964, a demand was made for the reading of the engrossed
copy of a bill where the engrossment was not yet prepared. The bill was
laid aside and the House proceeded to consider a resolution (concurring
in Senate amendments to a House bill). Prior to the disposition of that
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a
recess pursuant to authority previously granted.
At the conclusion of the recess, the Speaker stated the unfinished
business to be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill on which
the demand had been made. The following inquiry and its disposition
then ensued:

The Speaker: The unfinished business is the reading of the
engrossed copy of H.R. 10222.
The Clerk will read the engrossed copy.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, when the recess was called,
it is my understanding that we were engaged in the consideration of
what is referred to as a cotton and wheat bill. Is it not the rule
of the House that we must finish the consideration of that measure
before we take up any other measure which has been passed over for
parliamentary and mechanical reasons?
Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker----
The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bolling].

[[Page 3770]]

Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, under the rules I withdraw House
Resolution 66a.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, that takes
unanimous consent, and I object.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that it does not take
unanimous consent to withdraw the resolution in the House.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that
the Speaker was addressing the Member now addressing the Chair and
had not given an answer to my question. Therefore, the recognition
of the Member from the other side the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Bolling] was out of order. Am I incorrect?
The Speaker: The recognition of the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Bolling] terminated the parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: In other words, the Speaker did not
answer the parliamentary inquiry; is that correct?
The Speaker: Since the resolution was withdrawn, the
parliamentary inquiry was ended.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: If the Speaker will respectfully permit,
the gentleman from Ohio would suggest that the question had been
asked before the resolution had been withdrawn.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has the power
of recognition. Now that the resolution has been withdrawn, the
unfinished business is the reading of the engrossed copy of H.R.
10222.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: The Speaker had recognized the gentleman
from Ohio for a parliamentary inquiry. The parliamentary inquiry
had been made. The parliamentary inquiry had not been answered and
yet the Chair recognized the gentleman from Missouri.
The Speaker: Which the Chair has the power to do.
The Clerk will read the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether the
parliamentary inquiry which I addressed to the Chair is-now not to
be answered, because of the action of the gentleman from Missouri?
The Speaker: The gentleman will repeat his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry was
to the effect that inasmuch as the House was engaged at the
business before it at the time the Speaker called the recess,
whether the rules of the House did not call for the conclusion of
that business before other business which had been postponed by the
House under the rules of the House and in accordance with the
procedures of the House did not have to follow consideration of any
business that was before the House at the time of the calling of
the recess?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman from
Missouri withdrew his resolution. If he had not withdrawn the
resolution the situation might have been different.
The Chair has made a ruling that the unfinished business is the
reading

[[Page 3771]]

of the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222. That is the unfinished
business.\⁽¹\^{)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------} 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair May Decline Recognition for Unanimous-consent Requests

Sec. 1.14 The Speaker discussed the practice of recognizing Members for
unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of bills.

On July 1, 1932,\⁽²\⁾ Speaker John N. Garner,
of Texas, made a statement relative to recognition for certain
unanimous-consent requests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 75 Cong. Rec. 14511, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Willam A.] Pittenger [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I had
planned to ask unanimous consent for the consideration of a
measure, but the watchdog of the Treasury from Milwaukee has asked
me to wait until after 6 o'clock, so I can not make the request.
The Speaker: In order that gentlemen may understand the
situation, let the Chair state how it is the Chair recognizes
certain gentlemen. The Chair must decline to recognize a great many
gentlemen who have meritorious matters, because the Chair must have
some yardstick that can be applied to every Member of the House.
The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Pittenger] had a bill that had
passed the House unanimously, had gone to the Senate, and had an
amendment placed on it there, adding one name. The Chair thinks in
a case of that kind, where unanimous consent has to be given, it is
well enough for the Chair to recognize the Member for that purpose;
but the Chair will not recognize gentlemen to take up as an
original proposition private claims or other matters unless they
are of an emergency nature and apply to the general public rather
than to one individual.

Sec. 1.15 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member to request
unanimous consent to make an omnibus private bill eligible for
consideration during a call of the Private Calendar on a specific
day, when the House had previously agreed by unanimous con'' sent
that it be passed over.

On July 15, 1968,\⁽³\⁾ Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, declined to recognize Mr. William L.
Hungate, of Missouri, to make the unanimous-consent request that the
first omnibus private bill of 1968 (H.R. 16187) be placed on the
Private Calendar for July 16. The House had previously agreed, on July
12, 1968, to the unanimous consent request of Majority Leader Carl
Albert, of Oklahoma, that the bill be passed over and not considered
during the call of the Private Calendar on July
16.\⁽⁴)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 114 Cong. Rec. 21326, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
4. Id. at p. 20998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3772]]

Sec. 1.16 The Speaker declines to recognize Members for unanimous
consent requests that bills stricken from the Private Calendar be
restored thereto until they have consulted with the official
objectors.

On Apr. 12, 1948,\⁽⁵\⁾ Mr. Thomas J. Lane, of
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that a bill previously stricken
from the Private Calendar be restored thereto. Speaker Joseph W.
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, inquired whether he had consulted with
the official objectors. Mr. Lane responded that he had not, and the
Speaker responded that ``The Chair cannot entertain the gentleman's
request until he has done so.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 94 Cong. Rec. 4573, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.17 The Chair refuses to recognize Members after the absence of a
quorum has been announced by the Chair, and no business is in order
until a quorum has been established.

On June 8, 1960,\⁽⁶\⁾ Mr. Clare E. Hoffman,
of Michigan, made the point of order that a quorum was not present.
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, counted and announced the absence of a
quorum, and a call of the House was ordered. The Speaker declined to
recognize Mr. Hoffman, who addressed the Chair seeking recognition
after the Chair's announcement and after the call of the House was
ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 106 Cong. Rec. 12142, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.18 The Chair declined to recognize Members for extensions of
remarks and one-minute speeches before proceeding with unfinished
business.

On Oct. 19, 1966,\⁽⁷\⁾ Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, announced, following the approval of the
Journal and the receipt of messages from the President, that the Chair
would receive unanimous-consent requests after the ``disposition of
pending business.'' The pending business was unfinished business from
the prior day, the vote on agreeing to a resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 112 Cong. Rec. 27640, 27641, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House May Determine Order of Consideration

Sec. 1.19 Where two propositions of equal privilege are pending, it is
for the Chair to determine whom he will recognize to call up one of
the

[[Page 3773]]

propositions, but the House may by unanimous consent determine such
precedence.

On Sept. 11, 1945,\⁽⁸\⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn,
of Texas, entertained a unanimous-consent request relating to the order
of business and responded to a parliamentary inquiry as to its effect:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 91 Cong. Rec. 8610, 8511, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on tomorrow,
immediately after the meeting of the House for business, to
consider the bill (H.R. 3974) to repeal war time; that general
debate be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled
by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], chairman of the
subcommittee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Holmes].
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, and I shall not because I want to
congratulate the committee on bringing in the legislation at this
early date, as I understand it, that will be the first order of
business tomorrow?
Mr. Bulwinkle: Yes; that is my understanding.
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I was under the impression that H.R. 3660 was
to be the next order of business.
The Speaker: That is a question for the Chair, as to whether
the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Illinois to call up the
rule or recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma to call up the bill
repealing war time. The request being made at this time is for the
war time repeal bill to take precedence.

Sec. 1.20 The question as to when the House will consider a bill
unfinished on a previous day is always within the control of a
majority of the House.

On Apr. 26, 1948,\⁽⁹\⁾ Speaker Joseph W.
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to
when a bill, brought up in the House by a motion to discharge, could be
considered if not finished on the day on which brought up. The Speaker
heard Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, on the inquiry and then stated
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 94 Cong. Rec. 4877, 4878, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair is interested in the valued comments of the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan. Of course, the Chair is
unaware of the intent or purpose back of the rule when it was first
formulated. All he has to guide him is the rule itself as it
appears before him in print. The Chair agrees with the gentleman
from Michigan that the House can immediately consider the
legislation after the motion to discharge the committee is agreed
to, but the rule states ``and if unfinished before adjournment of
the day on which it is called up, it shall remain the unfinished
business until it is fully disposed .''

[[Page 3774]]

That provision does not state definitely that the bill must
come up on the following day, but that it shall remain the
unfinished business. The gentleman's point that the bill could be
postponed indefinitely of course is correct, in a sense, but after
all the rules are based on common sense, and no one would
anticipate that the side that procured enough signatures to a
discharge petition to bring a bill before the House would
filibuster their own bill.
While the rule perhaps is not quite as definite as it might be,
it is the opinion of the Chair that the consideration of the bill
could go over until Wednesday if the proponents of the bill do not
call it up on tomorrow, and that it would be in order on Wednesday
as the unfinished business.
The Chair believes that unless the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. Rivers] or someone on his side of the issue, calls it
up on tomorrow, it can be called up on Wednesday and will be the
unfinished business on that day. The Chair also wishes to state
that he will not recognize anyone on the affirmative side of this
matter unless the gentleman from South Carolina is absent. It is
not necessary to call it up on tomorrow and it can be called up on
Wednesday, at which time it will be the unfinished business.
The Chair will also remind Members that it is always within the
control of the majority of the House to determine what should be
done.

Sec. 1.21 The question as to when the Committee of the Whole will
resume the consideration of a bill unfinished when the Committee
rises is for the Speaker and the House to determine, and not for
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

On Apr. 26, 1948,⁽¹⁰⁾ Chairman Leslie C. Arends, of
Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows in the Committee
of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 4873, 4874, 80th Cong. 21 Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the
Committee will rise at 4 o'clock. It is also my understanding of
the rules that this Committee should meet tomorrow in order to have
continuous consideration of the pending legislation.
I would like to have a ruling of the Chair as to whether or not
the rules provide that a day may intervene so that this legislation
may be taken up on Wednesday.
The Chairman: The Chair may say that is a matter for the
Speaker of the House and the House itself to determine. It is not
something within the jurisdiction of the Chair to decide.

Role of Committee in Scheduling Legislation

Sec. 1.22 The Speaker declined to recognize the chairman of one
committee for a unani

[[Page 3775]]

mous-consent request to rerefer a bill until the chairman of the
other committee involved was consulted.

On Mar. 25, 1948,⁽¹¹⁾ Edith Nourse Rogers, of
Massachusetts, Chairwoman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, asked
unanimous consent that the committee be discharged from further
consideration of the bill and that it be rereferred to the Committee on
the Judiciary. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts,
inquired whether Mrs. Rogers had consulted with the Chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary and Mrs. Rogers responded that she had not.
The Speaker declined to recognize her for the request, stating that,
``it is customary to consult with the chairman of the committee to whom
the bill is to be referred.'' He indicated that the matter could again
be brought up on the following week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 3673, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.23 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member for a unanimous-
consent request to take a bill from the Speaker's table and concur
in the Senate amendments where such a request was made without the
authorization of the chairman of the committee involved and where
Members had been informed there would be no further legislative
business for the day.

On July 31, 1969,⁽¹²⁾ Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana,
sought recognition to ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's
table a bill (H.R. 9951) providing for the collection of federal
unemployment tax, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the
Senate amendments. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
declined to recognize for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The Chair will state that at this time the Chair
does not recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for that purpose.
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is at present
appearing before the Committee on Rules seeking a rule and Members
have been told that there would be no further business tonight.
The Chair does not want to enter into an argument with any
Member, particularly the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana
whom I admire very much. But the Chair has stated that the Chair
does not recognize the gentlem an for that purpose.
Mr. Boggs: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman fr om Louisiana equally
admires the gentle man in the chair. I thoroughly understand the
position of the distinguish ed Speaker.⁽¹³⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1960,
for a statement by the Speaker that only the chairman of the
committee with jurisdiction would be recognized to ask
unanimous consent to take a bill from the table, disagree to
the Senate amendment, and ask for a conference.

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

[[Page 3776]]

Sec. 1.24 Unfinished business in the Committee of the Whole does not
come up automatically when that class of business is again in
order, but may be called up by a Member in charge of the
legislation (by a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole
for the further consideration of the measure).

On May 9, 1932,⁽¹⁴⁾ Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of business on District
of Columbia Monday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 9836, 72d Cong. Ist Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to call up concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res.
27), and yield five minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Harlan,
to offer an amendment thereto.
Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, on the last day given over to
District business, House Joint Resolution 154, providing for a
merger of the street-railway systems in the District of Columbia,
uas the unfinished business. As this joint resolution was the
unfinished business when the District Committee last had the call,
is it not the unfinished business when the House resumes
consideration of District business?
The Speaker: The Chair thinks not, because a motion to consider
it is necessary. Wherever a motion is required, the unfinished
business has no precedence over any other business.

Parliamentarian's Note: House Joint Resolution 154 had last been
under consideration on District Monday, Apr. 25, 1932, in Committee of
the Whole; the Committee of the Whole had come to no conclusion
thereon.

Sec. 1.25 The adoption of a resolution making in order the
consideration of a bill does not necessarily make the bill the
unfinished business the next day, and the bill can only be called
up by a Member designated by the committee to do so.

On July 19, 1939,⁽¹⁵⁾ the House adopted a resolution
from the Committee on Rules making in order the consideration of a
bill. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, answered a parliamentary
inquiry on the status of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3777]]

bill thereby made in order as unfinished business:

Mr. [Claude V.] Parsons [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Parsons: Mr. Speaker, the House having adopted the rule, is
not this bill the unfinished business of the House on tomorrow?
The Speaker: Not necessarily. The rule adopted by the House
makes the bill in order for consideration, but it is not
necessarily the unfinished business. It can only come up, after the
adoption of the rule, by being called up by the gentleman in charge
of the bill.