[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[A. General Principles]
[§ 7. Special-order Speeches]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 3880-3892]
CHAPTER 21
Order of Business; Special Orders
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Sec. 7. Special-order Speeches
Like one-minute speeches, special-order speeches are not
specifically provided for by the rules of the House. Special orders to
address the House (for the purpose of debate only) may extend up to one
hour and must follow the legislative business for the
day.(1) Such speeches must be distinguished from one-minute
speeches, which under normal practice are limited to one minute and
precede the legislative business of the day.(2) The order of
special-order speeches may be varied. For example, where further
legislative business is scheduled but is not yet ready for
consideration, the Speaker may recognize for special-order speeches
with the understanding that legislative business will be
resumed.(3) Once special orders have begun, the Speaker
generally declines to recognize for legislative business, although
there is no rule to prohibit the resumption of business.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For discussion of the evolution of the present practice as to
special-order speeches, see Sec. 7.1, infra.
Special-order speeches are strictly limited to one hour
(see Sec. 7.5, infra).
For further discussion of special-order speeches as related
to recognition and debate, see Ch. 29, infra. And for
discussion of the recently adopted prohibition on points of no
quorum during special-order speeches, see supplements to this
edition.
2. On occasion, one-minute speeches have followed the legislative
business (see Sec. 6.3, supra) and where there is no
legislative business, one-minute speeches, like special orders,
have extended for one hour (see Sec. 6.5, supra).
3. See Sec. Sec. 7.3, 7.4, infra.
4. See Sec. 7.4, infra.
House Rule XV, clause 6, as amended in the 93d Congress
(Apr. 9, 1974, H. Res. 998), now prohibits points of order of
no quorum when the Speaker is recognizing Members to address
the House under special orders with no measure pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special orders are taken up in the sequence in which they were
[[Page 3881]]
requested; that sequence may be varied, or special orders for one day
rescheduled to another day, by unanimous consent.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. Sec. 7.7, 7.8 (rescheduling) and Sec. Sec. 7.10-7.12
(varying sequence), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special orders to address the House may be requested either on the
day of delivery or on a day in
advance. -------------------
In Order After Legislative Business
Sec. 7.1 Under the modern procedure of the House, special orders of
Members to address the House for more than one minute follow the
conclusion of the legislative program of the day and may not
preempt business which is privileged under the rules.
On Apr. 20, 1937,(6) Majority Leader Sam Rayburn, of
Texas, indicated the future procedure to be followed for conducting
special-order speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 81 Cong. Rec. 3645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in this situation
today, and it has been the situation several times since the
Congress met. Unanimous consent has been secured by different
gentleman to speak on a certain day. Today we have an hour and
forty-five minutes set aside for addresses immediately after
disposition of matters on the Speaker's table. Hereafter I shall be
called upon, when gentlemen get unanimous consent to speak on a day
certain, to request that those unanimous consents shall be subject
to matters like conference reports, privileged bills, and I think I
may add special rules from the Committee on Rules. Today, as I have
said, we have an hour and forty-five minutes devoted to addresses.
There is a rule on the table which a great many Members think
important, and I think the House is in favor of it. I am serving
notice to this effect so that, if I have to make these conditions
hereafter, Members will understand why they are made.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See also 84 Cong. Rec. 125, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1939,
where Majority Leader Rayburn announced the policy of objecting
to requests to address the House unless the address would
follow the completion of the legislative program for the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 1937,(8) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, ruled that a privileged report from the Committee on Rules
took precedence over special-order speeches which had been obtained for
that day, and the practice of special-order speeches was discussed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 81 Cong. Rec. 5307, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I call up
House Resolution 216.
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York calls up a resolution,
which the Clerk will report.
[[Page 3882]]
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York] rose.
The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to raise
the point of order?
Mr. Mapes: I simply wanted to call the attention of the Chair
to the fact that there are some special orders on the calendar.
The Speaker: All special orders are contingent upon being
called after the disposition of privileged matters.
Mr. Mapes: The calendar of today does not so indicate, and that
is the only point I have in mind.
Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker----
The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York
rise?
Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
special orders are in order at this time in preference to a
resolution from the Committee on Rules.
Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker----
The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York
rise?
Mr. O'Connor of New York: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
This question has been raised several times, and I have forgotten
the date, but the Record will show that the Chair announced that
from then on all special orders for addresses would he subject to,
and would follow, any privileged matters to be brought up on that
day.
Mr. Snell: Then, if there has been a ruling of the Chair, it
should so state on the calendar that has been printed for today.
The Speaker: The Chair thinks it proper to state in regard to
the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York, that a
good many days ago, in fact, several weeks ago, the Chair stated,
not only once but probably two or three times, that where special
orders were agreed to for gentlemen to address the House the
understanding upon the part of the Chair would be that they should
follow, and not precede, privileged matters that might be subject
to be brought up by the House leadership or the Committee on Rules.
In this particular instance the Record of May 27, at page 6604,
shows that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] submitted a
request to speak today, as the Chair understands it and the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn], the majority leader, said:
Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I must, of
course, ask that the gentleman's time come after the
disposition of privileged matters, such as conference reports,
special rules, and so forth.
And the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] said:
I understand that.
So the gentleman evidently acquiesced in that statement.
Mr. Snell: I think the Chair is right about that.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Does that mean that hereafter when there are
special orders for gentlemen to speak, that if the Committee on
Rules wants to consider any bill, it takes precedence over the
special orders.
[[Page 3883]]
The Speaker: That is the statement made by the Chair and
acquiesced in by the House. It is a matter entirely with the House,
of course, if an appeal is taken from that decision.
Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Rankin: I yield to the gentleman from New- York, if I have
the floor.
Mr. O'Connor of New York: Of course, Rules Committee never call
up a rule without first consulting the Speaker and the majority
leader.
Mr. Rankin: I understand. Here is what I am driving at. It
certainly is not my view, and I doubt if it is the view of the
House, that the Rules Committee can bring in a rule to consider any
legislation and take a Member off the floor who has obtained
unanimous consent to address the House. If that is the case, it
simply means that the House is subservient to the R.ules Committee
so far as these special orders are concerned.
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield? I think this ought to be settled.
Mr. Snell: That is the reason that I raised this point at this
time.
Mr. Rankin: I thank the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, being in the position that I am, I
have to try to protect the program of the House. At least three
times when unanimous consent has been requested I have made the
statement that at all times I would object unless it were
understood that the time asked for would come after conference
reports, privileged bills, and special rules.
Mr. Rankin: Let me ask the gentleman from Texas this question.
There are at least three or four gentlemen who have special orders
to speak today. If the Committee on Rules steps in under these
orders and takes up the remainder of the afternoon, does that mean
that these gentlemen shall have this time tomorrow?
Mr. Rayburn: No; it does not.
Mr. Rankin: Does it mean entirely taking the time away from
them?
Mr. Rayburn: That is it.
On June 7, 1937, a colloquy took place on the place of special-
order speeches in the business of the House:
The Speaker [William B. Bankhead]: The gentleman propounds a
parliamentary inquiry which is of some importance to the Chair. It
is not the province of the Chair to undertake to say under what
circumstances Members shall be allowed to address the House. The
Chair thinks at this point there should be a firm decision and
determination with reference to the particular question raised by
the gentleman from New York. This matter arose a few days ago in
the House, and the Chair stated at that time it was his
understanding that all these consents which have recently been
obtained have been based upon the premise that they would not be in
order if there were a regular calendar call or if there were
privileged matters which it was desired to call up before the
speeches were made. Therefore, for the guidance of the Chair, the
Chair thinks this matter ought to be definitely determined once and
for all, in as much as the question has been raised.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page 3884]]
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Would it not require an amendment to the rules of
the House to establish a rule on this question? The far-reaching
attitude assumed the other day would certainly amount to a change
in the rules of the House, which must be submitted to the
membership in written form. . . .
The Speaker: In reply to the parliamentary inquiry of the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] the Chair is of the opinion
it would not require a change of the rules to effectuate the
procedure which has been suggested, but the Chair upon reflection
is of the opinion that if a request is made such as the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Dickstein] has just made, that on Calendar
Wednesday after the call of the committee having the call, he may
be permitted to address the House for 10 minutes, the Chair would
feel it to be his duty under such an agreement to recognize the
gentleman from New York for 10 minutes.
The Chair desires to make the further observation, that this is
a matter entirely within the control of the membership of the
House. The leadership of the House or any individual Member may
interpose at the time such a request is made the condition that the
request shall follow privileged business. In order to protect the
Chair and to remove from the shoulders of the Chair any
responsibility with respect to saying what are privileged matters
and what matters should be considered, the Chair thinks it only
proper that that rule should be established.
Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, I have stated in the House over and
over again that when any Member rises and asks the privilege of
addressing the House for the moment or for any day in the future,
any Member of the House can prevent this by a single objection. I
further stated that wanting to accommodate the Members of the House
insofar as we can and yet protect and expedite the legislative
program, that when any Member asks consent to address the House, it
must be understood I would interpose an objection unless the Member
understood and agreed that the time so requested would be subject
to privileged matters, such as conference reports, privileged bills
from committees that have the right to report privileged bills,
reports from the Committee on Rules, or special rules making
certain legislation in order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Id. at pp. 5373, 5374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.2 It is the general custom that when the House starts on special
order speeches, no further business will be transacted unless an
emergency arises, although no rule of the House prohibits such
transaction of business.
On Jan. 20, 1964,(10) a unanimous-consent request made
during special-order speeches was objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 614, 615, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Under previous order
of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] is recognized
for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Roland V. Libonati (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Wright] Patman: Mr. Speaker, since there is a Democratic
caucus at
[[Page 3885]]
10 o'clock tomorrow when we expected to have our committee meeting,
we cannot have the committee meeting until 11 o'clock tomorrow. I
therefore ask unanimous consent that on tomorrow afternoon the
Subcommittee on Domestic Finance of the Committee on Banking and
Currency may be allowed to sit during general debate.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Texas? . . .
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right
to object, do I understand the parliamentary situation to be that
we are on special orders?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: We are on special orders.
Mr. Gross: It has been the unwritten rule and the custom that
when the House starts on special orders, business of general
interest to the House is not to be transacted. In view of the fact
that we now are on special orders, I must agree with the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Kilburn], that this request should be taken up
tomorrow noon when we are in general session in the House.
Mr. Patman: Mr. Speaker, I am not permitting the gentleman's
statement to go unchallenged.
Mr. Gross: I reserve the right to object. Mr. Speaker, do I
have the floor?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has the floor, but the
gentleman from Texas may propound a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Gross: Of course, and it is also my privilege to reserve
the right to object, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Gross: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I
am constrained to object to the request.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
Sec. 7.3 Special orders are normally scheduled to follow the
legislative business of the day, but on occasion the Speaker has
recognized for special orders prior to legislative business where
the latter was not ready for floor consideration, and has on such
occasions notified the House that there would be legislative
business following special-order speeches.
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, made the following announcement
on Dec. 14, 1971:
The Chair would like to advise the Members that in order to get
as much accomplished as we can, and in view of the fact that we
have no legislative business ready at this moment, we will call
special orders, and after they are completed declare a recess,
unless legislative business is in order.
The Chair in making this announcement will state that we are
not setting this as a precedent, but that we are calling special
orders today, and then going back to the legislative business, if
any, after recessing if necessary.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 46801, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar announcement was made on Oct. 14, 1972:
[[Page 3886]]
The Speaker: The Chair would desire to make a statement.
The Chair is going to call for special orders at this time.
The Chair desires also to notify the House that there will be
business following the special orders. We are merely using this
time now because we do not have any business ready for transaction
before the House.
Does the gentleman from Missouri desire recognition at this
time?
Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Well, Mr. Speaker, is it
contemplated that the special orders will follow if we adopt this
unusual procedure, and then we will go back into legislative
business? Heretofore most of us have always presumed that once the
special orders had started we were free.
The Speaker: That is why the Chair made that statement, because
the Chair always heretofore adhered to the philosophy that there
should be no business subsequent to the calling of special orders.
Mr. Hall: The business of the House has been conducted in
keeping with that procedure, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: It is the procedure we have always used
heretofore.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 36446, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 22, 1968, Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, made an
announcement relating to the order of business:
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, we have another matter of legislative
business. More than an hour ago the Senate agreed to a resolution
which we expect to receive momentarily. The gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Patman] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis] have been
standing by. I would like to advise Members that that resolution
has to do with the extension of time for the filing of the
President's Economic Report. If we do proceed with special orders,
I would like the Members of the House to know that as soon as
Senate Joint Resolution 132 comes over, we would like to take it
up.
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Albert: I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. Gross: Does the gentleman anticipate any controversy over
the matter?
Mr. Albert: I have not heard of any point of controversy. There
will be some discussion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 430, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another occasion the House, having completed scheduled business,
proceeded to special-order speeches, recessed to await a message from
the Senate, and then acted on a conference report following the receipt
of the message informing the House of the Senate's action
thereon.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 40227, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.4 Unanimous-consent requests for the transaction of business are
not customarily entertained after special orders have begun, but on
oc
[[Page 3887]]
casion the House has permitted the transaction of such legislative
business after scheduled business has been concluded and special-
order speeches have begun.
On Mar. 17, 1971,(16) ``special order'' speeches had
begun, following the conclusion of legislative business for the day. A
unanimous consent request was made, discussed, and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 6848, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration
have permission until midnight tonight to file certain privileged
reports.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Brock Adams (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right
to object, I do so only for the purpose of trying to ascertain here
and now whether we are to follow the custom of no business of the
House being transacted after embarking on special orders. That has
been the custom in the past, and I should like to have some
assurance from the Speaker or the distinguished majority whip that
we can rely upon the custom that has been in practice for a long
time, that no business will be transacted after special orders are
begun.
Mr. O'Neill: I would be happy to answer the gentleman from
Iowa.
Mr. Gross: I would be glad to have the answer.
Mr. O'Neill: When I went to the minority leader and explained
to him what had happened, that this notification did not come to me
until we went into special orders, the gentleman heard the
colloquy. I went to the Speaker of the House, and the Speaker has
assured us that it is unprecedented and it will not happen again
during the session.
Mr. Gross: I thank the gentleman for that assurance.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Limited to One Hour
Sec. 7.5 Special orders to address the House at the conclusion of the
business of the day are limited to one hour per Member, and when a
Member has used one hour, the Chair will decline to recognize him
for extensions of time or for an additional special order.
On Feb. 9, 1966, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
declined to recognize a Member to request a second special order for
the same day:
Mr. [Joseph] Resnick [of New York]: Will the gentleman yield
for a unanimous-consent request?
Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: I yield for that
purpose.
[[Page 3888]]
Mr. Resnick: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may
have a special order after all other special orders of the day and
other legislative business of the day have been concluded to
address the House for a period of 15 minutes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman
that pursuant to the practice of the House, Members are limited to
a 1-hour special order per day. The Chair would be glad to
entertain a request for a special order for a later
day.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 2794, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 30, 1967, Speaker pro tempore Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas,
advised a Member that he could only be recognized for one hour to speak
under a special order, and that his time could not be extended, even by
unanimous consent.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 113 Cong. Rec. 30472, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Since Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 758 (1979), provides that a Member may not be recognized
for more than one hour of debate on any question, a special-order
speech may not extend beyond one hour even by unanimous consent.
However, another Member obtaining the floor in his own right may yield
to a Member who has already consumed a special order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 114 Cong. Rec. 14265, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 21, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.6 A Member was granted a special order to address the House at
the conclusion of other special orders previously granted (which
totaled over 22 hours) with the understanding that his time would
terminate at the end of 60 minutes or when the House convened on
the next calendar day, whichever occurred earlier.
On Oct. 14, 1969,(3) where the House had granted special
orders totaling over 22 hours at the conclusion of business (with the
intention of Members opposing the Vietnam conflict to keep the House in
session throughout the night), another special order was granted as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 115 Cong. Rec. 29938, 29939, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that I be given 60 minutes for a special order
either this afternoon or tomorrow morning immediately after the
time allotted to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Halpern), my time
to expire prior to the regular time that the House will convene
tomorrow.
The Speaker: (4) Will the gentleman from California
please repeat his request through the microphone so that all
Members may hear the gentleman's request?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. John W. McCormack (Mass.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Leggett: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
ex
[[Page 3889]]
tend my remarks, and I ask unanimous consent that I be given
unanimous consent--rather, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to address the House for 60 minutes, either this afternoon
or tomorrow morning immediately after the time allotted to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Halpern), my said 60 minutes to expire
prior to the regular time set for the convening of the House
tomorrow morning. . . .
The Speaker: . . . Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett)?
There was no objection.
Requesting and Rescheduling
Sec. 7.7 Special-order speeches may be rescheduled to a following day
by unanimous consent, to precede special-order speeches scheduled
for that day.
On Oct. 9, 1962,(5) before the House adjourned out of
respect to a deceased Member (Clement W. Miller, of California), a
unanimous-consent request made by the Majority Leader was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 108 Cong. Rec. 22850, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Abbert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the special orders heretofore entered for today be
transferred to tomorrow and be placed at the top of the list of
special orders for tomorrow.
The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Special-order speeches were similarly transferred to the following
day on July 22, 1963, due to the death of a Member.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 109 Cong. Rec. 13004, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.8 When the House adjourns and does not reach special-order
speeches scheduled for that day, such speeches are not
automatically in order on the next legislative day; a unanimous-
consent request to reschedule those special orders must be agreed
to by the House.
On Jan. 26, 1971, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a
parliamentary inquiry on rescheduling special-order speeches:
(Mr. Montgomery asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. [Gillespie V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I
take this time for the purpose of asking the majority leader about
the rescheduling of special orders. I was given unanimous consent
for a special order on this Wednesday. In the light of the request
of the majority leader that the House go over to Friday, I should
like to ask him what procedures we should now follow.
Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: The gentleman simply will have
to ask unanimous consent that his special order be rescheduled for
Friday or some other time.
[[Page 3890]]
Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
special orders scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday of this week go
over until Friday, January 29.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Mississippi?
There was no objection.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 117 Cong. Rec. 485, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, responded to a similar parliamentary
inquiry on Mar. 29, 1960 (where the House had adjourned out of respect
to a deceased Member on the previous day)
Mr. [William L.] Springer [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Springer: Mr. Speaker, I had a special order on yesterday
for 40 minutes. My inquiry is, Does that special order hold over
until today so that mine would be the first special order today?
The Speaker: The gentleman will have to ask unanimous consent
to obtain a new special order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 106 Cong. Rec. 6823, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.9 The Chair declined recognition for a unanimous-consent request
that a Member be permitted to address the House on a future day
before legislative business.
On June 14, 1935,(10) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 9330, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
As discussed previously, current practice requires special-
order speeches to follow, not precede, legislative business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that on next Monday after the reading of the
Journal and the completion of business on the Speaker's desk I may
address the House for 15 minutes to answer an attack upon an
amendment I proposed to the Constitution made in the Washington
Times of June 12 by Mr. James P. Williams, Jr.
The Speaker: Under the custom that prevails and the action of
the Chair heretofore, the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman
today to make a speech on Monday. The Chair hopes the gentleman
will defer his request.
Sequence
Sec. 7.10 Special-order speeches are ordinarily made in the order in
which permission has been granted to the requesting Members by the
House, but the House may by unanimous consent change that order to
accommodate Members.
On May 22, 1973,(11) Speaker pro tempore Tom Bevill, of
Ala
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 16578, 16579, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3891]]
bama, recognized for a unanimous-consent request to change the sequence
of special-order speeches:
Mr. [David W.] Dennis [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the special order time assigned to me today
be set over for tomorrow, and that I be granted a 60-minute special
order at that time, as the first special order for tomorrow.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Dennis: I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I make the same unanimous-consent
request as made by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dennis) that my
special order for 60 minutes to be set over for tomorrow, and my
special order follow immediately the special order of the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Dennis).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Sec. 7.11 A Member having a special order was permitted by unanimous
consent to relinquish the floor temporarily to allow the Member
having the next special order to use part of his own time.
On July 11, 1966, the House agreed to a unanimous-consent re quest
varying the regular order of special-order speeches:
Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: I would be happy to
agree. I do have a difficult problem. I have a live broadcast
coming through at exactly 1 o'clock, so I shall go into the
cloakroom to do that. If I could proceed for about 5 minutes and
then have the gentleman proceed, when I am finished out there I
could proceed further, and I would be happy to yield to the
gentleman. Would that be agreeable?
Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: That would be agreeable, or I
could go ahead until the gentleman has finished.
Mr. Curtis: Whichever the gentleman prefers. Either will work
out.
Mr. Patman: That will be satisfactory.
With that understanding, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis] may be allowed to
proceed for 5 minutes at this time, with the time to be taken from
his time, and that I may be permitted to resume after he finishes.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Curtis] is recognized.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 14988, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.12 By unanimous consent, a Member may be granted a special order
to speak ahead
[[Page 3892]]
of those already scheduled for special orders.
On July 14, 1965,(14) a unanimous-consent request
related to the sequence of special-order speeches was objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 16845, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent, with the consent of those who have been
previously granted a special order, to address the House for 30
minutes today relative to the death of Ambassador Adlai Stevenson.
The Speaker: (15) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Yates] asks unanimous consent that he may address the House for 30
minutes as the first special order, with the consent of other
Members who have obtained special orders, in relation to the death
of Ambassador Adlai Stevenson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
Mr. [William T.] Cahill [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I regret
I must object.
Mr. Speaker, I regretted very sincerely what I considered to be
a requirement to interpose an objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois. I only did it because there were a great
number of people from my district who were here in anticipation of
the special order I had requested some time ago and because a great
many of the Members had evidenced a keen interest in the subject
matter. However, I fully recognize the great importance of and the
great contribution that our late and respected and beloved
Ambassador to the United Nations has made to this country. In
deference to that and out of respect for his memory, I would ask
that I be permitted to relinquish the time heretofore asked and
that my special order go over to a later date and that I be
permitted to yield the 1 hour I have in a special order to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and all those who would like to
pay tribute to the memory of the late Adlai Stevenson.
Mr. Yates: I thank the gentleman.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Illinois?
There was no objection.
On Jan. 29, 1971,(16) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
announced that he would, by unanimous consent, recognize the Chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations for
special-order speeches immediately following the reading of the
President's budget message and ahead of other Members who had special
orders previously scheduled for that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 990, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------