[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[D. Vacating Legislative Actions]
[Â§ 24. Procedure]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4959-4967]
 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                    D. VACATING LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
 
Sec. 24. Procedure


Passage of Bills


Sec. 24.1 By unanimous consent, the proceedings whereby a bill had been 
    passed were vacated, so that an error in an amendment to the bill 
    could be corrected.

    On Feb. 12, 1951,(7) it was announced to the House that 
during a previous day's proceedings incident to the passage of a bill 
(8) the Committee of the Whole and the House by separate 
vote had agreed to a two-page amendment, the second page of which 
erroneously had not been read by the Clerk. Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, asked unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby the bill 
had been passed be vacated and that an amendment to the bill be agreed 
to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 1233, 1234, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 1612, to extend the authority of the President to enter into 
        trade agreements under Sec. 310 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.
    Thereupon, the Speaker (9) announced that without 
objection
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4960]]

the proceedings whereby the bill had been passed would be vacated, the 
amendment read by Mr. Mills agreed to, the bill be considered as 
engrossed, read a third time and passed, and that a motion to 
reconsider be laid on the table.

    There was no objection.

Sec. 24.2 By unanimous consent, the House may vacate the proceedings 
    whereby a bill was passed so that the Chair can entertain a motion 
    to recommit.

    On Mar. 23, 1970,(10) immediately after a voice vote by 
the House whereby a bill (11) was passed, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 8568, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.R. 15728, to authorize the extension of certain naval vessel 
        loans and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Parliamentary Inquiry

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fraser: I was on my feet seeking recognition for the 
    purpose of making a motion to recommit at the time the Speaker was 
    beginning to move to the point of putting the question.

        The Speaker: The Chair wants to be absolutely fair. The Chair 
    believes the Members know that.
        Without objection, the action taken on the question of the 
    passage of the bill will be vacated.
        There was no objection.

     Thereupon, a motion to recommit the bill was offered by Mr. Silvio 
O. Conte, of Massachusetts. The motion was rejected.

Sec. 24.3 In the situation where the House and Senate have passed 
    similar bills, an action sometimes taken by the House is to amend 
    the Senate bill to conform to the provisions of the House bill, and 
    then to vacate, by unanimous consent, those proceedings whereby the 
    House bill was passed.

    On May 18, 1961,(13) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, asked 
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of a Senate bill 
(14) and then moved to strike out of all its provisions 
after the enacting clause, and to insert the provisions of a previously 
passed House bill (15) in lieu thereof. There being no 
objection, both the bill and an amendment subsequently offered by Mr. 
Harris were read to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 8367, 8368, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. S. 610, providing for the establishment of a U.S. Travel Service 
        within the Department of Commerce and a Travel Advisory Board.
15. H.R. 4614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 4961]]

    The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed.
    By unanimous consent the proceedings by which the House bill (H.R. 
4614) was passed were vacated, and that bill was laid on the table.

Sec. 24.4 By unanimous consent, the proceedings whereby a Senate bill 
    had been considered in the House, amended (to include the 
    provisions of a similar House-passed bill), and passed, were 
    vacated, and the bill was indefinitely postponed.

    On May 12, 1970,(16) Mr. Don Fuqua, of Florida, asked 
unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby the House considered, 
amended, and passed a bill of the Senate (17) be vacated and 
that further proceedings on that bill be indefinitely postponed. There 
was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 15150, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.; see also 116 Cong. Rec. 
        14951-60, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1970, for proceedings 
        incident to the passage of the bill. For a further example see 
        108 Cong. Rec. 18300, 18301, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 
        1962; and 105 Cong. Rec. 7313, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 4, 
        1959.
17. S. 2694, to amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's 
        Salary Act of 1958 and the District of Columbia Teacher's 
        Salary Act of 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: After passage of the Senate bill it was 
found that it contained a tax provision and therefore could not under 
the Constitution originate in the Senate. After vacating the House 
passage of the Senate bill, the House passed its own bill (H.R. 17138) 
and sent it to the Senate.

Tabling of Bills

Sec. 24.5 By unanimous consent, proceedings whereby a House bill had 
    been laid on the table were vacated and the bill was again 
    considered, amended, and passed.

    On May 4, 1959,(18) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, asked 
unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby a bill (19) 
was laid on the table be vacated for the purpose of offering an 
amendment. There was no objection. Thereupon, Mr. Harris moved to 
strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof an 
amendment which he sent to the Clerk's desk. The amendment was read to 
the House, whereupon the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 7310-13, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 5610, to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, the 
        Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and the Railroad Unemployment 
        Insurance Act, so as to provide increases in benefits and for 
        other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Members of 
    the

[[Page 4962]]

    House, I have asked unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby 
    the bill H.R. 5610 was laid on the table, the amendment agreed to, 
    the bill engrossed and read a third time and passed, be vacated, 
    for the purpose of offering an amendment.
        The unanimous-consent request was agreed to, and I have offered 
    an amendment, which has just been read.
        The amendment to the bill H.R. 5610 which I have just offered 
    strikes out all after the enacting clause and inserts the 
    provisions of the bill that passed the Senate last week. . . .
        The necessity for this action is that last week after the House 
    had taken the action it did, we, as usual, when we have a bill from 
    the other body on the same subject on the Speaker's table, asked 
    that that bill be taken from the Speaker's desk, that all after the 
    enacting clause be stricken out, and that the House-passed bill be 
    inserted. That was the usual procedure we followed, and I made the 
    request after the House had taken its action last week. It later 
    developed that that was not the correct action that should have 
    been taken because there are tax provisions in this legislation. 
    The Constitution provides, as you know, that all legislation 
    relating directly to tax measures, revenues, must originate in the 
    House of Representatives. Therefore, this action to vacate that 
    proceeding is in order to comply with the constitutional provision 
    by passing this legislation in order to accomplish what the House 
    intended last week after it considered this matter rather 
    extensively. . . .
        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The question is on the 
    amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        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, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        The bill was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings whereby S. 226, an act to amend the Railroad Retirement 
    Act of 1937, the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and the Railroad 
    Unemployment Insurance Act, so as to provide increases in benefits, 
    and for other purposes, as amended, was read a third time, and 
    passed, be vacated, and the bill be indefinitely postponed.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Arkansas?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: There is no motion in the House to take a 
measure from the table. A unanimous-consent request to vacate 
proceedings whereby a measure was laid on the table is the available 
procedure.

Order That Bill Be Reported

Sec. 24.6 By unanimous consent, the House vacated proceedings whereby a 
    committee had ordered a bill reported to the House, prior to

[[Page 4963]]

    actual reporting of the bill, so that the committee could consider 
    proposed amendments thereto.

    On Dec. 5, 1944,(20) Mr. Schuyler Otis Bland, of 
Virginia, asked unanimous consent that the proceedings in the Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries by which a bill (H.R. 5387) was 
ordered to be reported to the House be vacated, for the purpose of 
considering proposed amendments. The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 8863, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, what is the request of the gentleman?
        Mr. Bland: It is a bill amending section 101(a) of the Merchant 
    Marine Act of 1936. The purpose is to vacate certain proceedings of 
    the committee, which ordered the bill reported.
        The Speaker: (1) As the Chair understands, the 
    committee ordered the bill reported, but it has not yet been 
    reported, and the gentleman from Virginia desires it to go back to 
    the committee for further consideration by the committee. Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Adoption of Amendments

Sec. 24.7 By unanimous consent, proceedings in the Committee of the 
    Whole, whereby an amendment to a bill had been adopted, were 
    vacated, and the Chair again asked if any Member desired to debate 
    it.

    On Mar. 27, 1947,(2) after the adoption by the Committee 
of the Whole of an amendment to a pending bill,(3) Mr. John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that the 
proceedings by which the amendment had been adopted be vacated. There 
was no objection to the gentleman's request. Thereupon, the Chairman 
(4) invited any Member, who so desired, to speak on the 
amendment. Some debate ensued, at the conclusion of which, the 
amendment was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 2773, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 1, to reduce individual income tax payments.
 4. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreements to Simple Resolutions

Sec. 24.8 At the request of the Minority Leader, by unanimous consent, 
    the House agreed to vacate the proceedings whereby it had agreed to 
    a resolution electing minority members to committees of

[[Page 4964]]

    the House, then reconsidered the resolution and agreed to it with 
    an amendment changing the order of names (and thus the seniority on 
    a committee) in the resolution.

     On Feb. 3, 1969,(5) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 2433, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to vacate the proceedings whereby the House agreed to House 
    Resolution 176 (6) on January 29, and ask for its 
    immediate consideration with an amendment which I send to the desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H. Res. 176, establishing the order of names on a resolution 
        electing Members to various committees of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    A reading of both the resolution and the amendment offered by Mr. 
Ford ensued, at the conclusion of which the amendment and the 
resolution as amended were agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid 
on the table.

Sec. 24.9 By unanimous consent, the House vacated the proceedings 
    whereby it had agreed, on a previous day, to a resolution, 
    reconsidered the resolution, and then again agreed to the 
    resolution with a corrective amendment.

    On Feb. 3, 1969,(8) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked 
unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings whereby the House agreed to 
a resolution (9) and asked for its immediate reconsideration 
with an amendment which he sent to the desk. There was no objection to 
the gentleman's request. Thereupon, both the resolution and the 
amendment offered by Mr. Albert were read to the House. The amendment 
and the resolution as amended were agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 2433, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H. Res. 177, correcting the name of the Resident Commissioner to 
        correspond with that on the Clerk's official roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Agreement to Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 24.10 By unanimous consent, the House vacated the proceedings 
    whereby it had agreed to a concurrent resolution with an amendment, 
    again considered the resolution, and agreed to it without an 
    amendment.

[[Page 4965]]

    On June 22, 1965,(10) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, 
asked unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby a Senate 
concurrent resolution (11) was amended and agreed to be 
vacated and that the resolution be considered as agreed to without 
amendment. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 14425, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. S. Con. Res. 36, relating to the 20th anniversary of the United 
        Nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Passage of Joint Resolution

Sec. 24.11 A motion to take a matter from the table is not in order in 
    the House; and when a joint resolution has been engrossed, read a 
    third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider laid on the 
    table, the matter can be reopened only by a unanimous-consent 
    request that the proceedings be vacated.

     On Feb. 8, 1973,(12) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, asked for and was granted unanimous consent for the immediate 
consideration of a joint resolution.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 3929, 3930, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.J. Res. 331, to extend the Railway Labor Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A reading of the resolution to the House ensued, at the conclusion 
of which the joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to 
reconsider was laid on the table.
    Thereafter, Mr. Staggers, who had been recognized to continue his 
remarks after passage, yielded for a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Devine: It was the understanding of the minority, and I 
    think of a majority of the people on the floor of the House, that 
    when the gentleman from West Virginia made his unanimous-consent 
    request that this bill be brought up, the question was whether or 
    not it could be brought up for immediate consideration without 
    objection. There was no objection, but I am not sure whether I 
    heard the Speaker correctly. The Speaker said that it was engrossed 
    and read a third time and passed.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct. The Chair had no 
    knowledge of any other procedure. The only procedure the Chair had 
    in his knowledge was it was going to be called up by a unanimous-
    consent request. Then the Chair said, ``without objection, the bill 
    is engrossed, read a third time, and passed.'' Any Member during 
    that entire procedure could have objected if he desired to do so.
        Mr. Devine: Is the gentleman from West Virginia now making a 
    statement

[[Page 4966]]

    after the fact, or is this in support of the bill already passed?
        The Speaker: The gentleman . . . is doing what is often done on 
    a unanimous-consent bill, and that is explain the bill to the House 
    after passage.
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 5 minutes to explain and 
    say to the gentleman from Ohio that I did not intend for this to be 
    in this fashion; that I thought I would ask for unanimous consent 
    to bring it to the floor, and that was my intent. The Speaker did 
    make a statement that the bill was engrossed, read a third time, 
    and passed.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Devine: In view of the statement made by the chairman of 
    the committee that he had no intention that it be brought up under 
    that set of circumstances, and the fact that the Chair has stated 
    that a motion to reconsider has been laid on the table, I would ask 
    the Speaker if a motion would not be in order to remove from the 
    table the motion for reconsideration.
        The Speaker: It takes unanimous consent to vacate the 
    proceedings by which a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, I ask, therefore, unanimous consent to 
    vacate the order of the Chair in connection with this legislation.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio has asked unanimous 
    consent that the proceedings by which the joint resolution was 
    engrossed, read a third time, and passed, and the motion to 
    reconsider laid upon the table, be vacated.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

    There was no objection. Subsequently, the request for the immediate 
consideration of the House joint resolution was withdrawn.
    Thereupon, without objection, Senate Joint Resolution 59, which had 
been delivered to the House during discussion of House Joint Resolution 
331, and which also dealt with the Railway Labor Act, and differed 
little from the House joint resolution, was brought before the House 
for immediate consideration. After Senate Joint Resolution 59 had been 
read, Mr. Staggers explained the points wherein it differed from the 
House joint resolution earlier considered, and offered an amendment to 
the Senate joint resolution. The amendment was agreed to. Senate Joint 
Resolution 59 was then ordered read a third time, was read the third 
time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider laid on the 
table.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 3933-35, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Joint Resolution

Sec. 24.12 By unanimous consent, the proceedings whereby a joint 
    resolution had been indefinitely postponed were

[[Page 4967]]

    vacated and the resolution restored to the Consent Calendar.

    On Jan. 6, 1936,(16) the Clerk called Senate Joint 
Resolution 118, providing for the filling of a vacancy on the Board of 
Regents of the Smithsonian Institution of the class other than Members 
of Congress. By unanimous consent, the Senate joint resolution was 
indefinitely postponed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 112, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 3, 1936,(17) Mr. Kent E. Keller, of Illinois, 
the same Member who had requested that the Senate joint resolution be 
postponed indefinitely on Jan. 6, 1936, requested unanimous consent 
that those proceedings be vacated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 1381, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keller: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the 
    proceedings by which Senate Joint Resolution 118, providing for the 
    appointment of Mr. Morris, a member of the Board of Regents was 
    indefinitely postponed, and reinstate the same on the calendar.
        The Speaker: (18) Is there objection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Subsequently, on Feb. 17, 1936,(19) after the Clerk's 
call of Senate Joint Resolution 118, the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 2224, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is there objection (to the consideration of the 
    resolution)?
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Reserving the right to 
    object, this is the first time this has been on the Consent 
    Calendar. This is numbered 375. I would like to ask the Chair how 
    it got on the calendar?
        The Speaker: The Chair is informed that this joint resolution 
    was indefinitely postponed and later the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Keller) asked unanimous consent that the proceedings be 
    vacated and the joint resolution restored to the calendar. That 
    request was granted and the joint resolution was restored to the 
    calendar by the order of the House.
        Is there objection to the consideration of the joint 
    resolution?
        There was no objection.
