Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25 - § 8. Objection to or Passing Over Measures on the Calendar

[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 22. Calendars]
[B. Consent Calendar]
[§ 8. Objection to or Passing Over Measures on the Calendar]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4479-4482]
 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                          B. CONSENT CALENDAR
 
Sec. 8. Objection to or Passing Over Measures on the Calendar

    The leadership of each party will ordinarily appoint official 
objectors at the beginning of each Congress to screen measures on the 
Consent Calendar to determine whether or not they are properly placed 
thereon. They may interpose an objection whenever a measure fails to 
meet the announced criteria that it must satisfy in order to be called 
on a Consent Calendar day.⁽²⁾ Objection may also be raised 
to such a measure by one or more Members under the Consent Calendar 
rule. It provides that the first time a measure is called on the 
Consent Calendar only one objection is required to prevent its 
consideration. The measure is then called on the next calendar day and 
will be considered for debate and passage unless three or more Members 
object. If three Members then object, the measure is stricken from the 
calendar.⁽³⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 7.4, supra, as to Consent Calendar criteria.
 3. See Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Objection to the consideration of a measure comes too late when 
debate has begun.⁽⁴⁾ However, a Member may reserve the right 
to object and proceed to debate the measure.⁽⁵⁾ And the 
unanimous-consent procedure has been used to pass over a measure 
without prejudice ⁽⁶⁾ and to restore a measure to the 
calendar.⁽⁷⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sec. Sec. 8.1 et seq., infra. Also see 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 998.
 5. Sec. Sec. 8.4, infra.
 6. Sec. Sec. 8.6, infra.
 7. Sec. Sec. 5.9, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timeliness of Objections

Sec. 8.1 An objection to the consideration of a bill on the Consent 
    Calendar comes too late after an amendment to the bill has been 
    offered and debated.

[[Page 4480]]

    On Aug. 7, 1961,⁽⁸⁾ Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South 
Carolina, asked that the bill (H.R. 7913), to bring the number of 
cadets at the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Air Force Academy up 
to full strength, be passed over without prejudice. His request came 
while the bill was being considered and after an amendment thereto had 
been offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 14738, 14739, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker pro tempore ⁽⁹⁾ ruled that the objection 
came too late, the question on the floor being the amendment to the 
bill, not whether it should be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.2 Objections to the consideration of a bill on the Consent 
    Calendar come too late after the bill and amendments have been read 
    and the pending question is on the passage of the bill.

    On Aug. 31, 1959,⁽¹⁰⁾ Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, 
raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether three objections could be 
heard to a bill (H.R. 2247) conveying certain real property of the 
United States. The Speaker pro tempore ⁽¹¹⁾ ruled that such 
objections could not be heard since the time therefor had passed, 
amendments had been read and the pending question was on the passage of 
the bill itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 17404, 17405, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. Frank N. Ikard (Tex).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.3 An objection to passing over a bill without prejudice on the 
    Consent Calendar comes too late after consideration of the next 
    bill has begun.

    On Jan. 16, 1956,⁽¹²⁾ Mr. Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, objected to a unanimous-consent request to pass over a 
bill without prejudice, after such unanimous consent had been granted 
and consideration of the next bill had begun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 102 Cong. Rec. 593, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker ⁽¹³⁾ ruled that such objection came too late 
and was of no effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reservation of Objection

Sec. 8.4 When the Chair inquires whether there is objection to 
    consideration of a bill on the Consent Calendar, any Member may 
    reserve the right to object and thus secure time for debate. 
    However, any Member may demand the regular order and thus re

[[Page 4481]]

    quire that the objection be exercised or withdrawn.

    On Apr. 4, 1932,⁽¹⁴⁾ Mr. William H. Stafford, of 
Wisconsin, addressed a parliamentary inquiry as to the effect of a 
reservation of the right to object to a measure on the Consent 
Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 7412, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inquire whether when a 
    bill has been objected to and is again on the Consent Calendar and 
    the bill is called is it permissible to reserve objection, or is it 
    necessary to object forthwith? . . .
        The Speaker: ⁽¹⁵⁾ Objection can be reserved and the 
    bill discussed for three hours, or more if the House would permit 
    it, and whenever any gentleman calls for the regular order then the 
    Member must object or else withdraw his objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stafford: Then if three Members reserve the right to 
    object, that will meet the requirements of the objection stage 
    until the regular order is demanded?
        The Speaker: It is the Chair's understanding of the rule that 
    any one Member can reserve the right to object and as long as the 
    House permits him to discuss the matter he may continue. That is 
    within the control of the membership of the House.

Objection by the Speaker

Sec. 8.5 The Speaker has objected to the consideration of a bill on the 
    Consent Calendar.

    On July 16, 1946,⁽¹⁶⁾ the Speaker ⁽¹⁷⁾ from 
the chair objected to the consideration of a bill on the Consent 
Calendar (H.R. 3129) to amend the Securities Exchange Act to limit the 
power of the Securities Exchange Commission to regulate transactions in 
exempted securities, such bill having been passed over the first time 
it was called on the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 9095, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Passing Over Without Prejudice

Sec. 8.6 Official objectors may ask unanimous consent to pass over a 
    measure without prejudice ⁽¹⁸⁾ when in their opin

[[Page 4482]]

    ion time is needed to apprise all Members as to the status of the 
    measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual (1981), provides that 
        the first time a measure is called on the Consent Calendar and 
        objection is heard ``. . . 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. . . .'' The term `without prejudice' in the rule means 
        merely that a measure will remain on the calendar until the 
        next call of the calendar. However, the term ``without 
        prejudice'' as used by the official objectors means that the 
        measure will be treated as though it had not been called the 
        first time, so that only one objection would be required to 
        prevent consideration the next time the measure is called on 
        the Consent Calendar. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 15, 1955,⁽¹⁾ during the call of the Consent 
Calendar of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 107) to release United 
States reversionary rights to school land in California, Mr. Paul 
Cunningham, of Iowa, made the following remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 2931, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . (T)he Members of the Consent Calendar objectors committee 
    are not here to obstruct the passage of the legislation nor to 
    interfere with the proper consideration or passage of the bill of 
    any Member. On the contrary, our purpose is, in addition to what 
    the gentleman from North Carolina has already said, to expedite the 
    passage of legislation, at the same time protecting Members from 
    having bills passed by unanimous consent that should not be passed 
    by unanimous consent. . . . Therefore, we have at times asked 
    unanimous consent to pass over bills without prejudice when we were 
    not opposed to the bill at all and would personally vote for it if 
    it came up under a rule. However, the Members of the objectors 
    committee feel that time should be given so that all of the Members 
    of the House can be fully apprised of what is happening or what may 
    happen.⁽²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For a similar statement of the purpose of passing over without 
        prejudice see the remarks of Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall (Colo.) at 
        103 Cong. Rec. 2249, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 19, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.7 A bill called on the Consent Calendar has been passed over 
    without prejudice at the Speaker's request.

    On Apr. 4, 1966,⁽³⁾ at the call on the Consent Calendar 
of the resolution (H.J. Res. 837) to authorize the President to 
proclaim State and Municipal Bond Week, the Speaker ⁽⁴⁾ 
asked that the resolution be passed over without prejudice. There was 
no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 7482, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------