[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 22. Calendars]
[B. Consent Calendar]
[Â§ 5. Calling Measures on the Calendar]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4470-4475]
 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                          B. CONSENT CALENDAR
 
Sec. 5. Calling Measures on the Calendar

    Rule XIII clause 4 provides that measures on the Consent Calendar 
shall be called in numerical order on the first and third Mondays of 
the month after they have been on the calendar for three legislative 
days,(10) that a measure will be passed over until the next 
call when one objection to its consideration is heard, that the measure 
will be stricken from the calendar when three objections to its 
consideration are heard on the second call, and that any measure so 
stricken shall not be restored to the calendar within the same session 
of a Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The status of bills on the Consent Calendar is not affected by 
        their consideration from another calendar and such bills may be 
        called up for consideration from the Consent Calendar while 
        pending as unfinished business in the House or Committee of the 
        Whole. Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     However, the House has used the unanimous-consent procedure to 
bypass some of these requirements and call bills that have not been on 
the calendar for three legislative days,(11) or which have 
not been on the Consent Calendar at all, to strike bills from the 
calendar,(12) to recommit a measure after withdrawal 
thereof,(13) to restore a measure to the 
calendar,(14) and to have a measure laid on the 
table.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 5.3, 5.4, infra.
12. See Sec. 5.7, infra.
13. See Sec. 5.8, infra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 5.9, 5.10, infra.
15. See Sec. 5.12, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three Legislative Days on Calendar Required

Sec. 5.1 Bills must be on the Consent Calendar three legisla

[[Page 4471]]

    tive days in order to be called.

    On Jan. 18, 1932,(16) during the call of the Consent 
Calendar, Mr. Scott Leavitt, of Montana, objected that certain measures 
had not been included. The Speaker quoted an exchange between himself 
and former Speaker Longworth stating the rule that a measure must be on 
the calendar for three consecutive legislative days before its 
consideration would be in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 75 Cong. Rec. 2167, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (17) . . . The reasoning of the rule 
    seems to be this: The present occupant of the Chair took the same 
    position that the gentleman from Montana is now taking, and Speaker 
    Longworth, in stating the reasons for his interpretation of the 
    rule, said that the reasons for having bills on the Calendar for 
    three successive legislative days was for the purpose of informing 
    the membership of the House what legislation was likely to come up 
    on Consent Calendar day. In case the House was not in session on 
    Saturday, there was no printed calendar. The result therefore was 
    that the House could not be informed as to the legislation that 
    might come up on the following Consent Calendar day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver of Objection

Sec. 5.2 Bills have been called up on the Consent Calendar, with no 
    objection, even though they had not been on the calendar for three 
    legislative days.

    On Feb. 4, 1963,(18) at the beginning of the call of the 
Consent Calendar, Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, said:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 1630, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rules of the House these bills are not eligible at 
    the present time for consideration.
        I have no objection to the consideration of the bills, however, 
    because I consider each one of them is in order.

    There was no other objection to the consideration of the bills, and 
the calendar was called.

Waiver of Objection by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 5.3 The House has granted consent that certain bills reported by a 
    committee be eligible for consideration on the Consent Calendar 
    although they did not meet the requirement of being on such 
    calendar for three legislative days.

    On June 14, 1951,(19) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, asked unanimous consent that 13 bills reported by the 
Committee on

[[Page 4472]]

 Veterans' Affairs be placed on the Consent Calendar for the following 
Monday even though the measures would not then have been on the 
calendar for the requisite three legislative days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 97 Cong. Rec. 6605, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection. .

Sec. 5.4 Unanimous consent has been granted that, in the call of the 
    Consent Calendar, the rule requiring bills to have been on the 
    calendar three legislative days be waived.

    On July 30, 1955,(20) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that during the call of the 
Consent Calendar on that day the provision of the rule requiring bills 
to be on that calendar three legislative days in order to be considered 
be waived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 101 Cong. Rec. 12380, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Discretion of Speaker

Sec. 5.5 On Consent Calendar days the Speaker may decline to recognize 
    Members for unanimous consent requests for consideration of bills 
    which have not been on such calendar for three legislative days.

    On May 6, 1946,(1) Mr. Overton Brooks, of Louisiana, 
made a parliamentary inquiry as to whether unanimous consent could be 
granted to consider a bill that had not been on the calendar for three 
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 92 Cong. Rec. 4527, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (2) responded that he would not recognize 
for such a request unless the bill involved an emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Replacing Bill on Calendar in Subsequent Session

Sec. 5.6 Bills stricken from the Consent Calendar during the first 
    session of a Congress may be replaced on such calendar during the 
    second session.

    On Feb. 3, 1936,(3) Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
made a parliamentary inquiry as to why certain measures were on the 
Consent Calendar when they had been objected to and stricken during the 
previous session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 80 Cong. Rec. 1389, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair ruled that the measures were properly on the Consent 
Calendar. He stated the rule as follows:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The rule is plain. It 
    reads as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).

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

[[Page 4473]]

            Should objection be made to the consideration of any bill 
        so called it shall be carried over on the calendar without 
        prejudice to the next day when the Consent Calendar is again 
        called, and if objected to by three or more Members it shall 
        immediately be stricken from the calendar and shall not 
        thereafter during the same session of that Congress be placed 
        again thereon.

Striking Bill by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 5.7 A bill has been stricken from the Consent Calendar by 
    unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 21, 1960,(5) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of 
Wisconsin, asked unanimous consent that House Concurrent Resolution 393 
(to promote peace through the reduction of armaments) be stricken from 
the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 106 Cong. Rec. 6132, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Bills Restored to Calendar After Recommittal

Sec. 5.8 A bill withdrawn from the Consent Calendar following one 
    objection and, by unanimous consent, recommitted to the reporting 
    committee, is considered de novo when rereported and replaced on 
    the Consent Calendar, and such bill is carried over until the next 
    call when only one objection to its consideration is again 
    necessary.

    On Aug. 6, 1962,(6) Mr. John V. Lindsay, of New York, 
objected to the consideration on the Consent Calendar of the bill (H.R. 
11363) to amend the Internal Security Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 108 Cong. Rec. 15610, 15611, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, made the following 
parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Walter: In view of the fact that this bill was objected to 
    previously, and was rereferred to the committee for the purpose of 
    amplifying the report, that this was done and it was then 
    reinstated on the calendar, are not three objections necessary?
        The Speaker: (7) The present bill is on the calendar 
    de novo. It has a new number and a new report. At this stage one 
    objection is all that is necessary.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 8. See Sec. 8, infra, for a general discussion of the effect of 
        objections to measures called on the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restoring Bill by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 5.9 A bill objected to by three Members and stricken from the 
    Consent Calendar may be restored to such calendar by unanimous 
    consent.

    On May 16, 1938,(9) Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, 
raised the

[[Page 4474]]

point of order that it was improper to consider on the Consent Calendar 
a bill to provide for the establishment of a national monument, since 
that bill had previously been objected to and stricken from the 
calendar. The Chair responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 83 Cong. Rec. 6921, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (10) The Chair is informed that the 
    Record will show that on May 3 on motion of Mr. McLean, by 
    unanimous consent, the bill was restored to the Consent Calendar. 
    Under these circumstances the Chair feels, the action having been 
    taken by unanimous consent of the House, that the point of order is 
    not well taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: I may say to the Chair that I was not advised that 
    it had been restored by unanimous consent. I withdraw my point of 
    order.

Restoring Bill by Vacating Previous Proceedings

Sec. 5.10 Proceedings whereby a bill was passed on the Consent Calendar 
    have been, by unanimous consent, vacated and the bill restored to 
    the Consent Calendar.

    On Feb. 2, 1960,(11) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, asked 
unanimous consent that the proceedings by which the bill (H.R. 8074) to 
amend the Agricultural Act of 1954 was passed on the Consent Calendar 
be vacated and the bill be restored to the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 1782, 1784, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Sec. 5.11 Proceedings where a resolution on the Consent Calendar had 
    been agreed to have been vacated and the measure restored to the 
    calendar and later passed under suspension of the rules.

    On Feb. 2, 1960,(12) Mr. Barratt O'Hara, of Illinois, 
asked unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby House Concurrent 
Resolution 465 (expressing the indignation of Congress at the recent 
desecration of houses of worship) was agreed to on the Consent Calendar 
be vacated. The measure was restored to the calendar and scheduled for 
vote under suspension of the rules. The resolution was then called up 
under suspension of the rules and agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 106 Cong. Rec. 1784, 1809, 1816, 1817, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tabling Measures Called on Calendar

Sec. 5.12 A joint resolution called on the Consent Calendar was by 
    unanimous consent laid on the table, an identical Senate measure 
    having passed the House several days before.

[[Page 4475]]

    On Dec. 17, 1963,(13) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent that a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 852) to 
authorize subpena power for the Commission on the Assassination of 
President John F. Kennedy called on the Consent Calendar be tabled 
since an identical Senate measure had passed the House several days 
before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 24788, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.