Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6 - § 3. Unfinished and Postponed Business

[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[A. General Principles]
[§ 3. Unfinished and Postponed Business]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[Page 3793-3827]

CHAPTER 21

Order of Business; Special Orders

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Sec. 3. Unfinished and Postponed Business

Rule XXIV clauses 1 ⁽¹⁸⁾ and 3 ⁽¹⁾ provide
for the consideration of unfinished business and its place in the order
of business. Thus, clause 3 provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1979).
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 885 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The consideration of the unfinished business in which the House
may be engaged at an adjournment, except business in the morning
hour, shall be resumed as soon as the business on the Speaker's
table is finished, and at the same time each day thereafter until
disposed of, and the consideration of all other unfinished business
shall be resumed whenever the class of business to which it belongs
shall be in order under the rules.

Generally, unfinished business coming over from a previous day does
not automatically come before the House for consideration, but must be
called up by a Member in charge of the legislation.⁽²⁾
Moreover, as indicated by Rule XXIV clause 3, where unfinished business
belongs to a certain class of business, such as Private Calendar
business ⁽³⁾ and District of Columbia
business,⁽⁴⁾ the legislation goes over to the next day eli
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. Sec. 3.1-3.5, infra. Certain categories of business do
come up automatically when unfinished or postponed. Examples
are the consideration of a veto message postponed to a day
certain (see Sec. 3.38, infra), questions on which the previous
question has been ordered (see Sec. 3.20, infra), and recorded
votes postponed to a certain day (see Sec. 3.18, infra).
3. See Sec. 3.35, infra.
4. See Sec. Sec. 3.25, 3.26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3794]]

gible for the call of the appropriate calendar. If, however, the
previous question has been ordered on business unfinished when the
House adjourns, such business becomes in order on the next legislative
day after the approval of the Journal,⁽⁵⁾ except on Calendar
Wednesday. Discharged bills, brought before the House by a successful
motion to discharge under Rule XXVII clause 4,⁽⁶⁾ remain the
unfinished business (when called up for consideration) until disposed
of.⁽⁷⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. Sec. 3.20, 3.21, infra. And see 7 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 854.
6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
7. See Sec. 3.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition to call up unfinished business or to control the floor
thereon, where the previous question has been rejected on a prior day
and the House has proceeded to other business, should pass to a Member
who had opposed the previous question, except where no such opposition
Member immediately seeks recognition and the committee manager is
directed to call up the matter on the day set aside for that class of
business (e.g., District Day) and to offer committee amendments.
Unfinished business is preceded by otherwise privileged business,
such as the receipt of a message and motions to discharge on discharge
days.⁽⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See Sec. Sec. 3.7, 3.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Votes on questions may become the unfinished business on a
following day when votes are postponed (by special order) or when a
quorum fails to vote on a question and the House
adjourns.⁽⁹⁾ Votes on unfinished business are put de novo,
if previously postponed by unanimous consent pending an objection to a
vote for lack of a quorum, and any Member has the same rights as when
the question was first put.⁽¹⁰⁾ If the Committee of the
Whole rises having ordered tellers, the appointment of tellers is the
unfinished business when the Committee resumes, and ordering tellers
may be vacated only by unanimous consent.⁽¹¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See Sec. Sec. 3.15-3.19, infra.
10. See Sec. 3.18, infra.
11. See Sec. 3.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under prior practice, before Rule XXI was amended ⁽¹²⁾
to delete the right of any Member to demand the reading in full of the
engrossed copy of a bill, such a demand could render the bill
unfinished business until the engrossed copy could be
provided.⁽¹³⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 830 and note thereto (1979).
13. See Sec. 3.32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where a measure before the House is postponed to a day cer

[[Page 3795]]

tain either by motion (when in order) or by unanimous consent, the
measure becomes the unfinished business on the day to which
postponed.⁽¹⁴⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 3.18, 3.29 (postponed roll call votes), 3.22
(postponed conference report), 3.36-3.38 (veto messages
postponed by motion),
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling Up Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.1 Unfinished business on a District of Columbia Monday 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.

On May 9, 1932,⁽¹⁵⁾ Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of business on District
of Columbia Monday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 75 Cong. Rec. 9836, 72d Cong. 1st 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,
was 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.

Sec. 3.2 On one occasion, it was held that the rule that recognition
passes to the opposition after rejection of the previous question
is subject to the following exception: where other business inter-
venes and occupies the remainder of the day immediately after
defeat of the previous question, the bill on which the previous
question was rejected must be subsequently called up as unfinished
business by a Member directed by his committee to call up that
special class of business on a day when that business is in order
(since the Speaker does not lay such special bills before the

[[Page 3796]]

House as unfinished business). Once that Member has called up the
bill, however, the Speaker stated he would recognize a Member
opposed who immediately sought to offer an amendment.

On Feb. 8, 1932,⁽¹⁶⁾ Vincent L. Palmisano, of Maryland,
Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, called up as
unfinished business S. 1306, to provide for the incorporation of the
District of Columbia Commission on the George Washington Bicentennial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 75 Cong. Rec. 3548-50, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, raised an inquiry as to the
parlimentary situation. He stated that the bill had previously been
before the House (on the preceding District of Columbia Monday) and
that the previous question had been rejected, requiring recognition to
offer amendments or motions to pass to the opposition. [On the
preceding District of Columbia Monday, the Chair had recognized another
Member, immediately after rejection of the previous question on S.
1306, to call up a general appropriation bill, which was considered
until adjournment on that day.]
Speaker pro tempore Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, however, ruled
that the chairman of the reporting committee was entitled to
recognition since the bill could come before the House only by being
called up as unfinished business.
The proceedings were as follows:

Mr. LaGuardia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LaGuardia: The bill which the gentleman calls up was before
the House two weeks ago.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is unfinished business. We have
had a second reading of the bill at the former meeting when the
bill was considered on last District day.
Mr. LaGuardia: But the previous question was voted down.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The previous question was then voted
down. It is before the House now for further consideration, just
where we left off before.
Mr. LaGuardia: I ask recognition in opposition.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Palmisano], who is the ranking majority member of the committee, is
entitled to recognition first to offer committee amendments, and
then the gentleman from New York will be recognized.
Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I assume
that when this bill is now brought up we are brought back to the
same legislative situation we were in when it was last considered.

[[Page 3797]]

The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is the situation.
Mr. Stafford: The previous question was then voted down. At
that moment any person who wished to propose an amendment would
have had the privilege of being recognized. I claim that any person
who wishes to offer an amendment has prior recognition to the
gentleman from Maryland.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: But the previous question having been
voted down, it did not take off the floor the gentleman from
Maryland, who stands in the position of chairman of the committee,
so the parliamentarian informs the Chair.
Mr. Stafford: The very fact that the previous question was
voted down granted the right to the opposition to offer an
amendment and have control of the time. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state the parliamentary
situation. On a previous District day when this bill was up for
consideration, the previous question was moved and the House voted
down that motion. Then the opposition clearly was entitled to
recognition. This is another legislative day; and that being true,
it is the duty of the Chair to recognize the one standing as
chairman of the committee, who is the gentleman from Maryland, to
offer committee amendments. Then the Chair will recognize someone
in opposition to the bill. The Chair is advised by the
parliamentarian that such is the correct procedure.
Mr. LaGuardia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LaGuardia: I can not follow the statement of the Chair that
the bill is coming before the House de novo. The Chair properly
stated that the bill now is the unfinished business. A bill can not
change its status because it is the unfinished business and carried
over to another day. The previous question having been voted down,
the bill is now open to the House for amendment, and on that I have
asked for recognition by the Chair to offer an amendment.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the one
acting for the committee in calling up the bill has a right to
first offer committee amendments. If the proceedings had continued
on the day the previous question was voted down, then any Member
opposing the bill gaining recognition could have offered an
amendment; but this being another legislative day, it is the duty
of the Chair to recognize the acting chairman of the committee in
calling up the bill to offer committee amendments, and the Chair
has done that. Regardless of his own opinion, the Chair is guided
by the parliamentarian. When a parliamentary situation arises
whereby the Chair can recognize some one opposed to the bill, the
Chair will do that. . . .
Mr. LaGuardia: I desire recognition for the purpose of getting
the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the first proposition before us, which I believe
is more important than the passage of the bill or the merits of
this particular bill, is the parliamentary situation.
The bill was before the House two weeks ago and was considered
under the House rules. At that time the time was entirely under the
control of the

[[Page 3798]]

chairman of the committee, and after holding the floor for some
time the gentlewoman from New Jersey moved the previous question
and the previous question was voted down. Thereafter the House took
up other business.
The bill comes back to us today and I submit that the previous
question having been voted down, the bill retains that status. It
can not acquire a new status. The previous question having been
voted down, that can not be ignored at this time; and that being
so, the bill comes before the House as unfinished business, and the
bill is before the House now for amendment.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will so hold, that the bill
is now before the House for amendment, but the committee had the
right first to offer its committee amendments. If there are any
other amendments, the Chair will recognize any Member to offer
them.

Parliamentarian's Note: Bills which are in order on certain days
under the rules of the House do not automatically come before the
House, but must be called up by an authorized committee member.
Therefore, in this instance, the Chair recognized the Chairman of the
Committee on the District of Columbia to bring the bill before the
House, while indicating he would recognize a Member opposed who
immediately sought to offer an amendment.

Sec. 3.3 The question as to when the House will consider a bill that
was unfinished on a previous day is always within the control of a
majority of the House.

On Apr. 26, 1948,⁽¹⁷⁾ 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 4877, 4878, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3799]]

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. 3.4 The adoption of a resolution making in order the consideration
of a bill does not 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,⁽¹⁸⁾ 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 bill thereby made in order as unfinished
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Sec. 3.5 When the Committee of the Whole during consideration of a bill
on Calendar Wednesday votes to rise and the House then rejects a
motion to adjourn, Calendar Wednesday business is still before the
House, and if the chairman of the appropriate committee calls up
the same bill and the question of consideration is decided in the
afflrmative, the House automatically resolves itself into the
Committee of the Whole and resumes consideration of the bill where
it left off.

[[Page 3800]]

On Feb. 22, 1950,⁽¹⁹⁾ the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice
Act, which had been called up by the Committee on Education and Labor
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure. The Committee agreed to a
motion to rise, and, pending a demand for the yeas and nays on the
motion to adjourn, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a
parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 2238-40, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Harris: As I understand, the roll call now is on the motion
to adjourn.
The Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Harris: If the motion to adjourn is not agreed to, then
what will be the parliamentary situation?
The Speaker: It will be Calendar Wednesday business.
Mr. Harris: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Harris: Do we automatically then go back into Committee?
The Speaker: If the gentleman from Michigan calls the bill up
again, yes.

Following the rejection of the motion to adjourn, Mr. John
Lesinski, of Michigan, called up, by direction of the Committee on
Education and Labor, the same bill. After the House decided the
question of consideration in the affirmative, the Speaker directed that
the House automatically resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
for the further consideration of the bill.

Precedence and Order of Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.6 Where the House has postponed to a day certain a veto message
and for the same day created a special order for the reading of
Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, after the reading of
the Journal and disposition of matters on the Speaker's table, the
veto message is first considered.

On Apr. 14, 1948, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts,
stated, following the approval of the Journal, the order of business:
(1) the unfinished business, a veto message postponed to that day by
motion; (2) the reading of Jefferson's First Inaugural Address by a
Member designated by the Speaker pursuant to a special order for that
day (providing for the reading after the approval of the Journal and
disposition of matters on the Speaker's table); and (3) unanimous-
consent re

[[Page 3801]]

quests and one minute speeches.⁽²⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.7 Messages from the President, including one received the
preceding day, were read and referred before the House proceeded
with the unfinished business (the vote on a resolution pending on
the preceding day when the House adjourned in the absence of a
quorum).

On Oct. 19, 1966,⁽²¹⁾ following the approval of the
Journal, the Speaker laid before the House two messages from the
President, which were read and referred, before announcing that the
unfinished business was the vote on agreeing to a resolution coming
over from the preceding day. (On Oct. 18, a quorum had failed to appear
on an automatic roll call vote on agreeing to the resolution, and the
House had adjourned without completing action thereon.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 112 Cong. Rec. 27640, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.8 The Chair declined to recognize Members for extensions of
remarks and oneminute speeches before proceeding with unfinished
business on which the previous question had been ordered.

On Oct. 19, 1966,⁽¹⁾ 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 on which the previous
question had been ordered before the House adjourned in the absence of
a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 112 Cong. Rec. 27640, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.9 The regular order of business, such as the relative precedence
of a motion to discharge on discharge days over unfinished
business, may be varied by unanimous consent.

On May 8, 1936,⁽²⁾ Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of business
and the power of the House to change such order by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 80 Cong. Rec. 7010, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House adjourns

[[Page 3802]]

today it adjourn to meet on Monday next.
Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, and I shall not object, will the Speaker make
the situation clear with reference to the legislative program for
Monday?
As I understand it, it will be in order before we complete this
bill to take up the question of the discharge of the Rules
Committee from further consideration of the Frazier-Lemke bill. I
would like to ask the Speaker if my understanding is correct, if
consideration of the discharge petition would come up before the
vote on this bill?
The Speaker: The Chair thinks it would unless there is a
previous understanding. The matter of which shall take precedence
can be fixed by consent.
Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Many Members
interested in the Frazier-Lemke bill are anxious to know just what
the situation is going to be.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: It would seem to me if
the Speaker will permit, that the vote on the pending bill would be
the unfinished business before the House on Monday.
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Wisconsin that, by consent, an agreement can be made whereby the
vote on the motion to recommit the pending bill, or a roll call on
its passage, can be had first, and then to take up the motion to
discharge the committee.
Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XXVII clause 4, discharge
motions are in order immediately after approval of the Journal, and
thus ordinarily take precedence under Rule XXIV over unfinished
business (see Sec. 3.23, infra).

Sec. 3.10 By unanimous consent, the House proceeded to the immediate
consideration of an important bill pending on the Union Calendar
before taking up unfinished business (votes on certain bills
carried over from preceding days).

On Apr. 6, 1966,⁽³⁾ Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 112 Cong. Rec. 7749, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next order of business is the matters that were passed over
from Monday and Tuesday. However, the Chair desires to state that
there is a bill out of the Committee on Ways and Means relating to
the extension of time for filing for medicare. If there is no
objection on the part of the House, the Chair would like to
recognize the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Mills] to submit a
unanimous-consent request to bring this bill up. The Chair also
understands it is the intention to have a rollcall on the bill. The
Chair is trying to work this out for the benefit of the Members. Is
there objection to the Chair recognizing the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Mills], for the purpose stated by the Chair? The
Chair hears none and recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr.
Mills].

[[Page 3803]]

In Committee of the Whole

Sec. 3.11 Business unfinished on District of Columbia Day does not come
up until the next day on which that business is in order.

On June 26, 1939,⁽⁴⁾ the Committee of the Whole was
considering District of Columbia business brought up on District of
Columbia Day. Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, answered a
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect on the pending bill should the
Committee rise without completing the bill on that day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 84 Cong. Rec. 7927, 7938, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise.
Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Keller: Mr. Chairman, what would be the effect on this bill
if we should vote to rise?
The Chairman: It would be the unfinished business of the
Committee on the District of Columbia on the next day that
committee is called.
Mr. Keller: What day would that be?
The Chairman: The second and fourth Monday of each month are
District days.
Mr. Keller: If we want present consideration of this bill we
will have to vote against the motion?
The Chairman: I think the membership is sufficiently informed
with reference to the motion. The question is on the motion to
rise.

Sec. 3.12 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,⁽⁵⁾ Chairman Leslie C. Arends, of
Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows in the Committee
of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 94 Cong. Rec. 4873, 4874, 80th Cong. 2d 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 deter

[[Page 3804]]

mine. It is not something within the jurisdiction of the Chair to
decide.

Sec. 3.13 When the Committee of the Whole rises with an order for
tellers pending, it is the unfinished business and may be dispensed
with only by unanimous consent when the Committee resumes its
sitting.

On July 2, 1947, Chairman Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, answered a
parliamentary inquiry as to the unfinished business in the Committee of
the Whole, the Committee having risen on the preceding day after
tellers were demanded and ordered on an amendment to the pending bill:

Mr. [George A.] Dondero [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, has the
Committee reached the item of flood control on page 8, line 14, of
the bill?
The Chairman: It has not.
When the Committee rose yesterday, the so-called Rankin
amendment was pending. A voice vote had been taken. Tellers were
demanded and ordered.
Without objection, the Clerk will again read the so-called
Rankin amendment.
There was no objection.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, is it not in order to vacate or
disregard the standing vote and take the standing or voice vote
again?
The Chairman: Tellers have already been ordered.
Mr. Rankin: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that
where a vote is not completed on one day it is taken again when the
question again comes up for consideration.
The Chairman: The gentleman's inquiry is: Can the order for
tellers be vacated, and the Committee proceed de novo on the
amendment? That can be done by unanimous consent.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that be
done.
The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi asks unanimous
consent that the proceedings on the vote on the Rankin amendment
when the Committee was last in session be vacated and that the vote
be taken de novo. Is there objection?
Mr. [Albert J.] Engel of Michigan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: The Clerk will again report the amendment.
The Clerk again reported the amendment offered by Mr. Rankin.
The Chairman: The Chair appoints the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Engel] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] to act
as tellers.
The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there
were--ayes 71, noes 115.⁽⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 93 Cong. Rec. 8136, 8137, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfinished Business Following Recess

Sec. 3.14 Upon concluding a recess, called by the Speaker pending
receipt of an en

[[Page 3805]]

grossed 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,⁽⁷⁾ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 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 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 occurred before the 89th
Congress, when Rule XXI was amended to eliminate the provision allowing
any Member to demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy of a
bill.

Roll Call Votes Coming Over From Previous Day

Sec. 3.15 When a Member objects to a vote on an amendment on the ground
that a quorum is not present and further proceedings are then
postponed to a future day by unanimous consent, the question on
adoption of the amendment is put de novo on such future day and a
roll call is not necessarily automatic at that time.

On Mar. 23, 1953,⁽⁸⁾ Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of a
unanimous-consent agreement to post
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 99 Cong. Rec. 2251, 2252, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3806]]

pone to a future day the question on adoption of an amendment to a bill
on the District of Columbia Calendar, where the vote had been objected
to on the ground that a quorum was not present:

Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that the
second order of business on Wednesday next will be a rollcall on
this amendment.
The Speaker: Not a rollcall; it will be a vote on the
amendment.
Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I made the point of order that a
quorum was not present, and under those circumstances the rollcall
is automatic. I will not agree to any withholding of it unless
there is a rollcall, because a rollcall is automatic. I think the
Speaker will agree that a quorum is not present now.
The Speaker: The gentleman is mistaken in his impression. Today
a rollcall would be automatic, but not on Wednesday, unless the
House so orders.
Mr. Hays of Ohio: I do not want to agree to anything like that,
Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: It has already been agreed to. The gentleman has
forfeited any rights he might have. I am very sorry if he did not
understand the situation.

Sec. 3.16 Where a quorum fails to respond on an automatic roll call
vote on a pending resolution, and the House then adjourns, the
unfinished business when the House again convenes is the vote on
the resolution, and the Speaker puts the question on its adoption
de novo.

On Oct. 18, 1966,⁽⁹⁾ Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, put the question on agreeing to House Resolution 1062,
directing the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney a report
of the Committee on Un-American Activities on the refusal of Jeremiah
Stamler to testify before the said committee. Objection was made to the
vote on the ground that a quorum was not present, and a quorum failed
to respond on the ensuing automatic roll call. In response to a
parliamentary inquiry propounded by Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois,
the Speaker stated that in the event a quorum did not develop and the
House adjourned, the first order of business on the following day would
be the vote on the resolution. A quorum not having appeared, the House
adjourned before completing action on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 112 Cong. Rec. 27512, 27513, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Oct. 19, 1966,⁽¹⁰⁾ Speaker McCormack laid before the
House
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 27640, 27641.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3807]]

several messages from the President following the approval of the
Journal, and then announced that the unfinished business was the vote
on agreeing to House Resolution 1062. The Speaker put the question on
the resolution, and Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi, objected to
the division vote on the ground that a quorum was not present. On the
automatic roll call vote, the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 3.17 Where a quorum fails to respond on an automatic roll call
vote on a pending motion, and the House adjourns, the unfinished
business when the House again convenes is the vote on the motion,
and the Speaker puts the question de novo.

On Oct. 13, 1962,⁽¹¹⁾ Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, made the following statement as to the unfinished
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 23474, 23475, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon].
Without objection, the Clerk will again report the motion of
the gentleman from Missouri.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. [Clarence] Cannon moves that the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 2 and
concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the
sum proposed by said amendment, insert ``$791,580,500''.

The Speaker: The question is on the motion.

On Oct. 12, the preceding day, the House had adjourned following
the failure of a quorum to appear on an automatic rollcall vote on the
motion offered by Mr. Cannon.⁽¹²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 23434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.18 Where a Member objects to a vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present and further proceedings are postponed (pursuant to a
unanimous-consent request putting roll call votes over until later
in the week), the Speaker puts the question de novo when the bill
is again before the House as unfinished business, and any Member
has the same rights as when the question was originally put and may
ask for the yeas and nags (unless previously refused) or, if a
quorum is not present, may object on that ground; but the fact that
a quorum was not present on the prior day, when the vote was
objected to, does not assure a roll call vote when the

[[Page 3808]]

question is again put as unfinished business.

On Oct. 7, 1965, the unfinished business was the final action on
several bills which had been considered on Oct. 5 and 6 but whose
further consideration had been postponed to Oct. 7, pursuant to a
unanimous-consent agreement on Oct. 1 that all roll call votes demanded
on Oct. 5 or 6 be put over until Oct. 7. Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquries on the procedures to be
followed on the unfinished business and on the rights of Members in
relation thereto:

Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, if on a previous day where under the
unanimousconsent agreement of October 1, 1965, of this House
objection was made on the basis that a quorum was not present and
the point of order was made that a quorum was not present and the
Speaker thereafter did state that evidently a quorum was not
present and that the bill would be put over per the prior
agreement; should that rollcall come automatically today when we
are back in session and released from that agreement?
The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry, the
Chair will state that the vote comes up de novo and Members have
the same rights that they had when the matter was being considered
on the previous day.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
If I understand the distinguished Speaker correctly, then being
de novo, objection would still have to be made on the same basis
and as to whether a quorum was then present, it would still be
honored?
The Speaker: A Member could demand the yeas and nays and if a
sufficient number of Members are in favor of taking the vote by the
yeas and nays there would be a rollcall vote of course. Or a Member
could object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present
and, of course, if a quorum is not present the rollcall would be
automatic.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
If there was then a quorum present, however, it would not
revert to the previous fact and therefore an individual Member
would have to have stood on his rights at the time the
unanimousconsent request was given rather than make the point of
order that a quorum was not present on the current day?
The Speaker: The Chair will state that further consideration of
certain bills was passed over in accordance with the unaminous-
consent request entered into by the House on October 1 and the
question of final passage comes up before the House today.
As the Chair has previously stated, if any Member wants a
rollcall vote, he can demand a rollcall vote or if he objects to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, he can make
the point that he objects to the vote on

[[Page 3809]]

the ground that a quorum is not present.
Mr. Hall: I thank the Speaker. I think it is crystal clear that
Members lose the right to object that they had at the time the
unanimous-consent request was made.
The Speaker: Every Member has the same right today as they had
on the day that the bill originally was being
considered.⁽¹³⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 26243, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.19 Where final action on several bills is put over from one day
to the next pursuant to a special order postponing roll call votes,
the further consideration of those measures is the unfinished
business on the day when roll calls are again in order; the Chair
puts the question on each bill de novo, in the order in which they
were considered on the prior day.

On Oct. 7, 1965,⁽¹⁴⁾ the House resumed the consideration
of several bills which had been considered on Oct. 5 and 6, pursuant to
a special order on Oct. 1 postponing to Oct. 7 any roll call votes,
other than on matters of procedure, demanded on Oct. 5 or 6. Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, put the question on each such
postponed bill de novo, in the order in which the bills had been
considered on Oct. 5 and 6. For example, proceedings on the first two
of such postponed bills were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 26242, 26243, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The unfinished business is further consideration
of the veto message from the President of October 4, 1965, on H.R.
5902, an act for the relief of Cecil Graham.
Without objection the bill and message will be referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary and ordered printed.
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The further unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the joint resolution (S.J. Res.
106) to allow the showing of the U.S. Information Agency film
``John F. Kennedy--Years of Lightning, Day of Drums.''
The Clerk read the title of the Senate joint resolution.
The question is: Shall the House suspend the rules and pass
Senate Joint Resolution 106?
The question was taken; and two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof, the rules were suspended, and the Senate joint resolution
was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Calendar Wednesday Business as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.20 The previous question having been ordered on a bill on
Calendar Wednesday, the bill becomes the unfinished business after
the reading of the Journal on the next legis

[[Page 3810]]

lative day, or on any day thereafter.

On Apr. 25, 1930,⁽¹⁵⁾ the previous question was ordered
on a Calendar Wednesday bill, and then a Member demanded the reading of
the engrossed copy, which was not yet prepared. Speaker Nicholas
Longworth, of Ohio, answered a parliamentary inquiry on when the bill
would come up as unfinished business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 72 Cong. Rec. 7774, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the
reading of the engrossed bill.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Minnesota demands the reading
of the engrossed bill. It is plainly impossible to read the
engrossed bill at this time.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Snell: As I understand the situation, there is a decision
by Speaker Gillett that, if the reading of the engrossed copy of
the bill at this time is demanded, it will be in order to take this
up on the next legislative day.
The Speaker: The Chair would consider it the unfinished
business.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand.
The Speaker: The Clerk will read the bill by title for the
third time.

Similarly, Speaker Longworth answered a parliamentary inquiry on
May 14, 1930, as to the status of Calendar Wednesday business as
unfinished business:

Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Crisp: Mr. Speaker, the previous question having been
ordered on the bill and amendments to final passage, if the House
adjourns now, ordinarily would not the matter come up the next day,
and to-morrow being set apart under special order for memorial
exercises, if the House adjourns now, will not this matter, the
previous question having been ordered, come up after the reading of
the Journal on Friday?
The Speaker: On Friday, to-morrow not being a legislative day.
. . .⁽¹⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 8964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Feb. 22, 1950, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a
parliamentary inquiry after the House had ordered the previous question
on a Calendar Wednesday bill and after a Member had demanded the
reading of the engrossed copy thereof:

Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, that means the House will have to stay
in

[[Page 3811]]

session until the engrossed copy is secured?
The Speaker: It does not.
Mr. Rankin: We cannot take a recess on Calendar Wednesday?
The Speaker: The House can adjourn.
Mr. Rankin: We can adjourn but that ends Calendar Wednesday.
The Speaker: The previous question has been ordered and the
next time the House meets, whether this week or any other week, it
is the pending business.
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Colmer: Can the Speaker advise us when the engrossed copy
will be available and when the vote will be taken?
The Speaker: Not until the gentleman from Massachusetts makes a
request about adjournment or offers a motion.
The Chair wants all Members to understand that on the convening
of the House at its next session, the final disposition of this
matter is the pending business.⁽¹⁷⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 2254, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.21 Where the House adjourns after ordering the previous question
on a bill and amendments thereto on a Calendar Wednesday, the bill
becomes the unfinished business the next day and separate votes may
be demanded on amendments the next day.

On May 17, 1939,⁽¹⁸⁾ Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of adjournment
on a pending Calendar Wednesday bill with amendments thereto, where the
previous question has been ordered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 5682, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the bill and all amendments to final passage.
The previous question was ordered.
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rayburn: Were the House to adjourn at this time, would the
present bill be the pending business tomorrow?
The Speaker: Answering the parliamentary inquiry of the
gentleman from Texas, the Chair will state that the previous
question having been ordered on the bill and all amendments to
final passage, it would be the unfinished and privileged order of
business tomorrow morning.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Can these individual amendments then be voted on?
The Speaker: A separate vote can be demanded on them when that
question is reached.

[[Page 3812]]

Conference Reports as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.22 Further consideration of a conference report on which the
previous question had been ordered was, by unanimous consent,
postponed and made the unfinished business on the following day.

On Dec. 15, 1970,⁽¹⁹⁾ further consideration of a
conference report (H.R. 17867, foreign assistance appropriations) was
postponed by unanimous consent after the previous question had been
ordered thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 41544. 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: ⁽²⁰⁾ The question is on the conference
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that there are five
amendments in disagreement.
Mr. Hall: I want a vote on the acceptance of the conference
report, to which I object violently, and I object to the vote on
the ground that a quorum is not present and, I repeat, I make a
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Speaker: The Chair will count.
Will the gentleman withhold his point of order?
Mr. Hall: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not withhold the point of
order. I insist on my point of order. The point of order has been
properly made.
The Speaker: Will the gentleman indulge the Chair? There are
quite a few Members at the White House, and it would be the purpose
of the gentleman from Texas if the gentleman from Missouri will
withhold his point of order, to ask that further proceedings on the
conference report and the amendments in disagreement be postponed
until tomorrow, because there are many Members at the White House
with their wives.
Mr. Hall: The only question of the gentleman from Missouri is:
Why was this not considered before the conference report was called
up?
Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, and with that
understanding and for no other purpose, I will yield until the
gentleman from Texas makes his request.
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that further proceedings on the conference report be
postponed until tomorrow and that this be the first order of
business on tomorrow. . . .
Mr. Hall: . . . Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection. . . .
The Speaker: Accordingly, the matter is postponed until
tomorrow, when it will be the first order of business.

[[Page 3813]]

On Dec. 16, the following day, the question was put on the
conference report as unfinished business following the approval of the
Journal and following the receipt of message from the
Senate.⁽¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 116 Cong. Rec. 41933, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discharged Bills as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.23 A bill before the House by way of a motion to discharge, if
unfinished before adjournment on the day on which it is called up,
remains the unfinished business until fully disposed of and may be
called up as unfinished business on any day, not necessarily on the
next day.

On Apr. 26, 1948,⁽²⁾ Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
propounded a parliamentary inquiry to Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, on the status of H.R. 2245, to repeal the tax on
oleomargarine, which had been brought up on that day by a successful
motion to discharge under Rule XXVII clause 4:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 94 Cong. Rec. 4877, 4878, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Rayburn: Since this is the pending business, suppose the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Rivers] determines not to move
tomorrow that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the pending bill; would that jeopardize his chances of making
that motion on Wednesday?

Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, was heard on the inquiry:

Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, my only purpose in saying anything
now is that we are establishing a precedent here that is most
important. I think it is clear that the House can do almost
anything by unanimous consent, but I am just as convinced that a
special privilege created by a special rule like the discharge
rule, is entirely different from a privilege under the general
rules attaching, for instance, to appropriation bills. It is my
thought that when this discharge rule was written, as amended, the
rule was specific in providing that when by discharge petition the
ordinary procedure of the House was changed and interfered with,
and the House voted to discharge the committee, those in favor of
considering the legislation effected by the discharge petition, may
immediately--and I stress the word immediately--bring the matter
before House, and the House shall immediately proceed to a
conclusion of the consideration; and if the conclusion is not
reached on the first day, then this legislation shall be the
unfinished business until it is completed.
I am wondering whether, as a matter of reason and logic and
parliamentary procedure, if other business intervenes, that special
discharge rule privilege is not lost. If that were not true, the
bill could be put over in the discretion of those who were
responsible for the petition and who had changed the

[[Page 3814]]

rules of the House temporarily. If the bill can be called up
Wednesday instead of the following day, as unfinished, then it can
be called up Thursday, or the next Thursday, or the last day before
the session ended, and this bill would have a special privilege the
rest of the session, conditioned only upon the general rules of the
House affecting privileges like those of appropriation bills and
bills from the Committee on Ways and Means.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that my only interest in this matter is
as to the precedent.

Speaker Martin then answered the parliamentary inquiry as follows:

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 of.''
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 some one 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.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gross: Must it be called up by unanimous consent on
Wednesday?
The Speaker: No. It remains the unfinished business and can be
called up by the gentleman from South Carolina or someone delegated
by his side to do so.

Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVII clause 4 specifically pro

[[Page 3815]]

vides that in the event that it is agreed to proceed to the immediate
consideration of a bill brought up by way of a motion to discharge, the
bill if unfinished before adjournment on the day on which it is called
up shall remain the unfinished business until it is fully disposed of.

Unfinished Business Yields to Motion to Discharge

Sec. 3.24 A motion to discharge a committee, which motion has been on
the Discharge Calendar for seven legislative days, is of higher
privilege for consideration on the second and fourth Mondays of the
month than the unfinished business coming over from a preceding day
with the previous question ordered.

On May 8, 1936,⁽³⁾ Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the relative
precedence of unfinished business on which the previous question had
been ordered, and a motion on the Discharge Calendar (which had been on
the calendar for seven days) on a day on which motions to discharge
were in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 80 Cong. Rec. 7010, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourns to
meet on Monday next.
Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, and I shall not object, will the Speaker make
the situation clear with reference to the legislative program for
Monday?
As I understand it, it will be in order before we complete this
bill to take up the question of the discharge of the Rules
Committee from further consideration of the Frazier-Lemke bill. I
would like to ask the Speaker if my understanding is correct, if
consideration of the discharge petition would come up before the
vote on this bill?
The Speaker: The Chair thinks it would unless there is a
previous understanding. The matter of which shall take precedence
can be fixed by consent.
Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Many Members
interested in the Frazier-Lemke bill are anxious to know just what
the situation is going to be.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: It would seem to me, if
the Speaker will permit, that the vote on the pending bill would be
the unfinished business before the House on Monday.
The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from
Wisconsin that, by consent, an agreement can be made whereby the
vote on the motion to recommit the pending bill, or a roll call on
its passage can be had first, and then to take up the motion to
discharge the committee.⁽⁴⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. While the 21-day discharge rule was in effect, the House in one
instance adjourned before completing consideration of a
resolution taken from the Committee on Rules under the 21-day
rule, thus causing the matter to go over to another second or
fourth Monday as unfinished business under that rule. 95 Cong.
Rec. 14161, 14169, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 10, 1949.

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

[[Page 3816]]

District of Columbia Business as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.25 Unfinished business on a District of Columbia Monday 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.

On May 9, 1932,⁽⁵⁾ Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of business on District
of Columbia Monday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 75 Cong. Rec. 9836, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.26 Business unfinished on District of Columbia Day does not come
up until the next day on which that business is in order.

On June 26, 1939,⁽⁶⁾ the Committee of the Whole was
considering District of Clolumbia business brought up on District of
Columbia Day. Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, answered a
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect on the pending bill should the
Committee rise without completing the bill on that day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 84 Cong. Rec. 7927, 7928, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3817]]

Mr. Keller: Mr. Chairman, what would be the effect on this bill
if we should vote to rise?
The Chairman: It would be the unfinished business of the
Committee on the District of Columbia on the next day that
committee is called.
Mr. Keller: What day would that be?
The Chairman: The second and fourth Monday of each month are
District days.
Mr. Keller: If we want present consideration of this bill we
will have to vote against the motion?
The Chairman: I think the membership is sufficiently informed
with reference to the motion. The question is on the motion to
rise.

Messages as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.27 The reception of a Presidential message being a matter of
high privilege in the House, the Speaker pro tempore indicated in
response to a parliamentary inquiry that where such a message is
received it is laid before the House as soon as business permits,
and that the precedents do not justify its being held at the desk
until another legislative day.

On June 24, 1968,⁽⁷⁾ following the legislative business
for the day, a message from the President was received and laid before
the House by Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma. The Speaker
pro tempore responded to a parliamentary inquiry as to whether the
message could be laid down on the following legislative day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 114 Cong. Rec. 18330, 18331, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair lays before the House a
message from the President of the United States.
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker. a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of the Chair is it
necessary that a Presidential message when delivered in writing be
presented to the Members of the House immediately or could it be
held until the next legislative day?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the
distinguished gentleman that when the House is in session, a
message from the President is laid before the House.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry, is this
done by tradition, at the will of the Chair, or is it supported by
a rule of the House?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is supported by the custom of the
House and the provisions of the constitution.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
Could the Chair advise the Members of the House as to the
subject of this particular message, arriving at 4:45 in the
evening?

[[Page 3818]]

The Speaker Pro Tempore: It relates to the matter of firearms
legislation.
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the Members of the House
should hear anything that is this important and I make a point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently, a quorum is not present.
Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker. I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to
answer to their names: . . .

A quorum responded to the call of the House, and the message was
then laid before the House and read by the Clerk

Sec. 3.28 Where messages from the Senate and the President were
received during a call of the House, and the House adjourned when a
quorum failed to appear on the call, the messages were held at the
Speaker's table until it next convened.

On Oct. 11, 1968,⁽⁸⁾ a message from the Senate and a
message from the President were received while a call of the House was
in progress. A quorum having failed to appear, the House adjourned. The
messages were held at the Speaker's table until the House next convened
on the following day and were then laid before the House.⁽⁹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 114 Cong. Rec. 30816, 30817, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
9. 114 Cong. Rec. 31116, 31117, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1968.
See also Sec. 3.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions to Suspend the Rules as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.29 Pursuant to a special order postponing roll calls until the
following Thursday, consideration of the vote on a bill called up
under suspension of the rules was postponed and made the unfinished
business on the day when roll calls would again be in order.

On Oct. 5, 1935,⁽¹⁰⁾ Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of
Wisconsin, moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill; when Speaker
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, put the question on the motion,
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, objected to the vote on the ground that a
quorum was not present. The Speaker then stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 25941-44, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
For the proposition that messages from the President or
Senate may be received during a call of the House, see House
Rules and Manual Sec. 562 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to the order of the House of October 1, further
proceedings on

[[Page 3819]]

the Senate joint resolution will go over until Thursday, October 7.

The postponement of the vote on the motion to suspend the rules was
carried as follows in the House Journal:

On a division, demanded by Mr. Gross, there appeared--yeas 55,
nays 12.
Mr. Gross objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was
not present and not voting and made the point of order that a
quorum was not present.
Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of October 1, 1965,
further consideration of the motion to suspend the rules and pass
the joint resolution of the Senate, S.J. Res. 106 was postponed
until Thursday, October 7, 1965. Mr. Gross then withdrew his point
of no quorum.⁽¹¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Jour. 1256, 1257, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 5, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: On Oct. 1, the House had agreed to a
unanimous-consent request that all roll call votes, other than on
matters of procedure, which might be ordered on Oct. 5 or 6, be put
over until Oct. 7.⁽¹²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 25796, 25797, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.30 A motion to suspend the rules which remains undisposed of at
adjournment (after the conclusion of debate on one suspension day),
goes over as unfinished business to the next suspension day.

On Aug. 5, 1935,⁽¹³⁾ Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, announced, on a suspension day, the order of business as to
an unfinished motion to suspend the rules coming over from a previous
suspension day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 79 Cong. Rec. 12506, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: When the House adjourned on the last suspension
day there was under consideration the bill (S. 2865) to amend the
joint resolution establishing the George Rogers Clark
Sesquicentennial Commission, approved May 23, 1928. The question is
on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. This motion
is, therefore, the unfinished business, as the Chair understands
debate was concluded on the measure.

Sec. 3.31 A motion to suspend the rules on which a second had been
ordered, remaining undisposed of at adjournment was, on the next
day when such motion was again in order, withdrawn by unanimous
consent.

On May 5, 1958,⁽¹⁴⁾ which was a day when motions to
suspend the rules were in order, Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, asked
unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings under suspension of the
rules held two weeks prior on H.R. 11414, to amend the Public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 104 Cong. Rec. 8004, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3820]]

Health Service Act. (On the prior occasion, a second had been ordered
on the bill but the House had adjourned before completing its
consideration.) The unanimous-consent request was agreed to, and Mr.
Harris moved to suspend the rules and pass the same bill with
amendments.

Reading Engrossed Copy of Bill as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.32 Where the reading of the engrossed copy of a bill was
demanded under prior practice, the bill was laid aside until the
engrossed copy could be provided.

On June 17, 1948,⁽¹⁵⁾ a bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time. A Member demanded the reading of the engrossed
copy, and Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, responded,
``The bill will have to be laid aside until the engrossed copy can be
provided.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 8713, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 3, 1949,⁽¹⁶⁾ Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York,
demanded the reading of the engrossed copy of a bill. Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, allowed the bill to go over as unfinished business,
stating that ``The Chair thinks it would not be practicable to wait for
that this evening.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 5544, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent and the following ones,
relating to the reading of the engrossed copy of a bill as unfinished
business, predate the 1965 amendments deleting from the rules of the
House the provision in Rule XXI allowing any Member to demand the
reading in full of the engrossed copy of a bill.

Sec. 3.33 A Member who had demanded the reading of the engrossed copy
of a bill (under the prior practice) withdrew the demand the next
day before the reading of the engrossed copy as unfinished
business.

On June 18, 1948,⁽¹⁷⁾ Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of
Massachusetts, announced that the unfinished business was the reading
of the engrossed copy of a bill, the demand for the reading having been
made on the previous day and before the engrossed copy was prepared.
Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, who had demanded the reading of the
engrossed copy on the previous day, withdrew his demand and the bill
was read the third time by title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 8828, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.34 Under prior practice, if the House adjourned after a

[[Page 3821]]

demand for the reading of an engrossed copy of a bill but before
such reading, the bill became the unfinished business of the House.

On Feb. 6, 1946,⁽¹⁸⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, put
the question on the engrossment and third reading of the pending bill,
H.R. 4908, to investigate labor disputes. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of
Michigan, demanded the reading of the engrossed copy, which was not yet
available. The Speaker indicated that pursuant to the demand for the
reading, a final vote could not be had until the engrossed copy was
available. The Speaker answered a parliamentary inquiry propounded by
Mr. Jennings Randolph, of West Virginia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 1027-29, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The Chair has an opinion that in all probability
it could not be here before midnight.
Mr. Randolph: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to propound a
parliamentary inquiry which would not go to the direct point at
issue, but I would like to know approximately the time we might
expect the engrossed copy.
Mr. Randolph: Mr. Speaker, assuming the engrossed copy is here
tomorrow, will the first order of business, on reconvening, be the
vote on the bill?
The Speaker: It is the unfinished business.

On Aug. 22, 1963, following the demand for the reading of the
engrossed copy of a bill but before the engrossed copy was prepared,
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that the vote on
the bill would ``come up on the next legislative day after the bill is
engrossed.⁽¹⁹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 15624, 15625, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Business as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.35 When the House adjourns before completing action upon an
omnibus private bill, such bill goes over as unfinished business
until that class of business is again in order under the rule.

On Mar. 17, 1936,⁽²⁰⁾ Speaker pro tempore Edward T.
Taylor, of Colorado, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of
adjournment on pending omnibus private bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 80 Cong. Rec. 3901, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [John M.] Costello [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. [Fred] Biermann [of Iowa]: Pending that, what will be the
status of this omnibus bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: This bill will be the unfinished
business the next time this calendar is called.

[[Page 3822]]

Mr. Biermann: And that will be a month from today?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Whenever the date is.
The question is on the motion of the gentleman from California
that the House do now adjourn.⁽¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 888 (1979) for resumption of
unfinished business in periods set apart for certain classes of
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veto Messages as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.36 Pursuant to a special order postponing roll calls until the
following Thursday, consideration of a veto message was made the
unfinished business on a day when roll calls would again be in
order (objection having been raised to a unanimous-consent request
that the veto message be referred to committee).

On Oct. 5, 1965,⁽²⁾ a veto message from the President
was laid before the House by Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, and read by the Clerk. The Speaker pro tempore immediately
stated that if there was no objection, the message would be referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered printed, but Mr. H. R.
Gross, of Iowa, objected to such disposition of the message. The
Speaker pro tempore therefore stated that pursuant to the order of the
House on Oct. 1, the veto message would be the pending business on
Thursday, Oct. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 111 Cong. Rec. 25940, 25941, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
3. Id. at pp. 25796, 25797.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: On Oct. 1, 1965, the House had agreed to a
unanimous-consent request, propounded by Mr. Albert and due to
religious holidays on Oct. 5 and 6, that any roll call votes, other
than on questions of procedure, which might be demanded on Oct. 5 or 6,
be put over until Oct. 7.⁽³⁾ Consideration of the message
was postponed in anticipation that any disposition would generate a
roll call.

Sec. 3.37 The Speaker made a statement as to the order of business
where a veto postponed to a day certain was the unfinished
business.

On Apr. 14, 1948, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts,
made the following statement on the order of business, a veto message
having been postponed to that day: \⁽⁴\^{)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------} 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair wishes to state the order of business.
The unfinished business is the further consideration of the
veto message of the President of the United States

[[Page 3823]]

on the bill (H.R. 5052) to exclude certain vendors of newspapers or
magazines from certain provisions of the Social Security Act and
the Internal Revenue Code.
Following that, under a special order Jefferson's First
Inaugural Address will be read. Following that, the Chair will
recognize Members to submit consent requests to extend remarks and
to address the House for 1 minute.

Parliamentarian's Note: Consideration of a veto message on the day
to which it has been postponed is highly privileged and becomes the
unfinished business following the approval of the
Journal.\⁽⁵\^{)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------} 5. See 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 14, 1948;
116 Cong. Rec. 1483, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Jan. 28, 1970; and 119
Cong. Rec. 36202, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 7, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.38 Where a veto message postponed to a day certain is announced
as the unfinished business, no motion is required from the floor
for consideration of such veto, and the question, ``Will the House,
on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President
to the contrary notwithstanding'' is pending.

On Jan. 28, 1970, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, put
the following question, following the approval of the Journal and a
call of the House, on a veto message postponed to that day by motion on
Jan. 27:

The Speaker: The unfinished business is: Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, H.R. 13111, an act making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education,
and Welfare, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1970, and for other purposes, the objections of the President
to the contrary notwithstanding?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) for 1
hour.\⁽⁶\⁾Withdrawal of Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.39 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 116 Cong. Rec. 1483, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 3824]]

amendments to a House bill). Prior to the disposition of the
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: \⁽⁷\^{)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------} 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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].
Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, under the rules I withdraw House
Resolution 665.
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

[[Page 3825]]

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 of the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222. That is the unfinished
business.

Sec. 3.40 Where a Member has obtained unanimous consent for the
consideration of a bill in the House, he may withdraw such request
before the bill has been amended, even though an amendment is
pending, and, if withdrawn, the bill does not become the unfinished
business of the House.

On May 16, 1938,\⁽⁸\⁾ a bill was called up on
the Consent Calender. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, answered
a parliamentary inquiry as to the status of the bill and as to whether
it was unfinished business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 83 Cong. Rec. 6927, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [August H.] Andresen of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Andresen of Minnesota: On Tuesday last this bill was
brought up under unanimous consent. The bill was read. No objection
was raised to the consideration of the bill. The bill was read as
amended by the Committee on Agriculture. Debate was had upon it and
I offered an amendment at the conclusion of the reading of the
bill. Debate was had upon my amendment. The chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones]
stated at the conclusion of the debate upon my amendment:

I would much rather withdraw the request, and I will notify
the gentleman before it is called up.

[[Page 3826]]

He further said:

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the request.

But the Record does not show that the gentleman from Texas
asked unanimous consent to withdraw the bill from further
consideration of the House. My parliamentary inquiry is as to
whether or not the bill is now the unfinished business on the
Speaker's desk and requires no further action here as far as
objection is concerned and that it comes up automatically.
The Speaker: In reply to the parliamentary inquiry of the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Andresen], it is the recollection of
the Chair that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones] asked unanimous
consent for the consideration of the bill and that the gentleman
from Minnesota did offer an amendment and debated it, whereupon the
gentleman from Texas rose in his place and said that rather than
have the matter pressed to an issue on the amendment which the
gentleman from Minnesota proposed, he would prefer to withdraw his
request for consideration of the bill. The amendment was not acted
upon by the House. The Chair is of opinion that under rule XVI,
section 2, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones] could withdraw the
consideration of the bill without unanimous consent. The Chair,
therefore, is of opinion that the matter is not unfinished business
on the Speaker's desk.
Mr. [Fred C.] Gilchrist [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask unanimous
consent that the bill go over without prejudice.
The Speaker: Is there objection?
There was no objection.

Unfinished Business Not Affected by Adjournment Between Sessions

Sec. 3.41 The enactment of a law changing the date of meeting of the
second session of a Congress does not affect the status of
discharge motions on the desk or of other legislative matters
pending at the end of the first session.

On Dec. 19, 1945,\⁽⁹\⁾ Mr. John W. McCormack,
of Massachusetts, offered a privileged resolution changing the meeting
date of the second session of the 79th Congress to Jan. 14, 1946,
rather than Jan. 3, 1946. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect of the resolution on a discharge
petition or other legislative matters pending in the first session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 91 Cong. Rec. 12346, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [John H.] Folger [of North Carolina]: I have a discharge
petition on the desk, No. 10, in which I am very, very much
interested. I have no objection to this adjournment until the 14th
unless I have to go back and get that signed anew. Will that carry
over?
The Speaker: It will carry over.
Mr. Folger: If it will I am all right.
The Speaker: Everything remains on the calendar just as it is
now.

Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVI, House Rules and Manual

[[Page 3827]]

Sec. 901 (1979), entitled ``Unfinished Business of the Session,''
provides that business before committees continues from session to
session; under the practice of the House that rule applies to business
pending before the House as well as before committees.