[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 22. Calendars]
[B. Consent Calendar]
[Â§ 9. Debate; Amendment of Measures]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4482-4486]
 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                          B. CONSENT CALENDAR
 
Sec. 9. Debate; Amendment of Measures

Consideration as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 9.1 Parliamentarian's Note: Bills (and amendments thereto) on the 
    Consent Calendar (if also pending on the Union Calendar) are 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole under the 
    five-minute rule (Sec. Sec. 9.3, 9.4, infra). However, where a bill 
    is on the House Calendar and is considered on the Consent Calendar, 
    or where

[[Page 4483]]

    a Union Calendar bill or any bill requiring consideration in 
    Committee of the Whole is considered by unanimous consent and the 
    request includes a stipulation that the bill be considered in the 
    House, it is considered under the ``hour rule'' and no amendments 
    are in order except by the Member calling up the bill or unless the 
    previous question is rejected.

Sec. 9.2 Where the House, during the call of the Consent Calendar, 
    grants unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of a Union 
    Calendar bill it is considered in the House as in Committee of the 
    Whole, and any Member may offer a germane amendment.

    On Aug. 3, 1970,(5) during the call on the Consent 
Calendar of the bill (H.R. 9804), to authorize the construction of 
supplemental irrigation facilities for an irrigation district, Mr. John 
P. Saylor, of Pennsylvania, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to 
whether it would be in order to offer an amendment to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 26981, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair responded:

        The Speaker: (6) If the bill comes up by unanimous 
    consent, an amendment would be in order because the bill then would 
    be before the House (as in Committee of the Whole) for 
    consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Debate

Sec. 9.3 In the consideration of bills on the Consent Calendar there 
    may be debate under the five-minute rule, but such debate must be 
    confined to the bill.

    On May 3, 1948,(7) during consideration of a bill (S. 
1545) for the construction of a bridge and roads in Colonial National 
Historical Park, Yorktown, Va., the debate strayed to partisan national 
issues. On objection, the Chair (8) ruled that such debate 
was out of order, but allowed such debate to continue by unanimous 
consent for a limited period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 94 Cong. Rec. 5198, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Five-minute Rule

Sec. 9.4 Debate on an amendment to a bill on the Consent Calendar is 
    under the five-minute rule.

    On July 30, 1955,(9) during consideration of the bill on 
the Con

[[Page 4484]]

sent Calendar (H.R. 6857) to authorize the conveyance of certain land 
to the city of Milwaukee, Wis., Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered an amendment. The Speaker (10) recognized the 
gentleman for five minutes in support of his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 12409, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offering Amendments

Sec. 9.5 Unanimous consent is not required to offer an amendment to a 
    Union Calendar bill on the Consent Calendar which is being 
    considered by unanimous consent in the House as in the Committee of 
    the Whole under the five-minute rule.

    On Aug. 3, 1970,(11) during consideration on the Consent 
Calendar of the bill (H.R. 9804), to authorize the construction of 
certain irrigation facilities, Mr. John P. Saylor, of Pennsylvania, 
announced his intention to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 26982, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Harold T. Johnson, of California, then raised a parliamentary 
inquiry as to whether Mr. Saylor must obtain unanimous consent to offer 
his amendment.
    The Chair responded as follows:

        The Speaker: (12) The Chair will state that if 
    unanimous consent is granted for the consideration of the House 
    bill . . . then the matter would be before the House (as in 
    Committee of the Whole) under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advance Notice of Amendments

Sec. 9.6 In considering bills on the Consent Calendar, it is the 
    practice of those Members desiring to offer material amendments to 
    give notice of their intentions before consent is granted for the 
    consideration of the measure.

    On Feb. 1, 1932,(13) during consideration of a bill to 
expand McKinley National Park, Mr. James Wickersham, the Delegate from 
Alaska, offered an amendment that was objected to on the grounds that 
no prior notice of the amendment had been given. The Chair made the 
following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 75 Cong. Rec. 1610, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (14) The Chair will make this 
    statement: It has been customary for gentlemen asking unanimous 
    consent for the consideration of a bill to give notice to the House 
    if they propose to offer a material amendment so that the House may 
    have knowledge of the amendment and give consent to the 
    consideration of the amendment as well as to the bill; otherwise a 
    bill

[[Page 4485]]

    could be called up and amendments could be offered which would be 
    very material and far-reaching in their nature. The Chair thinks 
    that notice should be given before consent is given for the 
    consideration of a bill, that amendments will be proposed, so that 
    the membership of the House may have knowledge of what is coming 
    up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the Chair suggests to the Delegate from Alaska that he 
    either withdraw his amendment or allow the bill to go over so that 
    the matter may be considered on the next consent day.

Recommitting Amended Bill

Sec. 9.7 A bill on the Consent Calendar, having been considered and 
    amended, was by motion recommitted to committee.

    On Apr. 4, 1949,(15) during consideration of a bill 
(H.R. 1823) on the Consent Calendar to establish a Women's Reserve as a 
branch of the Coast Guard Reserve, Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, 
offered an amendment to prohibit segregation or discrimination in such 
reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 3806, 3807, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment was agreed to.
    Mr. Herbert C. Bonner, of North Carolina, offered a motion to 
recommit the bill.
    The motion was agreed to.

Striking Enacting Clause

Sec. 9.8 The enacting clause of a bill on the Consent Calendar was 
    stricken after consideration had been granted to such bill.

    On Dec. 19, 1932,(16) Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New 
York, moved, after the time for objection had passed, that the enacting 
clause be stricken from a bill on the Consent Calendar providing for 
the construction of a bridge over the Mississippi River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 76 Cong. Rec. 695, 696, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion was agreed to.

Raising Point of Order

Sec. 9.9 A point of order that a committee report on a bill does not 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule (17) will not lie when 
    such bill is called on the Consent Calendar until consideration of 
    such bill is granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 15, 1941,(18) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
made the point of order during the call for objections that the bill 
(H.R. 4648), for the construction of water conservation projects, did 
not comply with the Ramseyer rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 87 Cong. Rec. 9799, 9800, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair replied:

[[Page 4486]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The gentleman's point 
    of order is premature, inasmuch as the bill is not now before the 
    House for consideration. The Chair overrules the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William M. Whittington (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------