[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1438-H1439]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


    QUESTION ON CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THREE-FIFTHS VOTE FOR TAX RATE 
                             INCREASE BILLS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a lawsuit is 
being filed by the former counselor to Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill 
Clinton over the constitutionality of the new House rule that requires 
a three-fifths vote to pass tax rate increases, and I guess we know on 
whose behalf it is being brought, for the tax-and-spend Democrats of 
this Congress, no doubt.
  Mr. Speaker, while I do not pretend to be a constitutional lawyer, as 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I do have enough understanding 
of the constitutional rulemaking authority of Congress to assert that 
this new rule is on all fours with the Constitution. I am not alone in 
that assertion. I am backed by the Supreme Court itself in previous 
decisions.
  The constitutionality of such lies in article I, section 5, which 
states that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. If 
the House majority decides to adopt rules requiring a super majority on 
certain classes of bills, it may do so. That same majority at any time 
can repeal or waive that same rule.
  The Supreme Court in the case of the United States versus Ballin, in 
1892, way back then, indicated that the only constraints on the 
rulemaking power of this Congress are that Congress may not ignore 
constitutional constraints or violate fundamental rights, but within 
these limitations, all matters of method are open to the determination 
of the House, that means this House of Representatives. The power to 
make rules is not one which, once exercised, is exhausted. It is a 
continuous power always subject to be exercised and, within the 
limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other 
body or tribunal.
  Ironically, this case was about what constituted a quorum of the 
Congress for conducting business. The Court upheld a ruling of the 
Speaker that as long as a majority of the body was present, it did not 
matter whether the number of Members actually voted added up to a 
majority.
  Some have used the Court's findings that a majority quorum must be 
present to assert that nothing more than a simple majority may be 
required to pass legislation. That is not what the Court said in that 
case. All the Court said was that the act of a majority of the quorum 
is the act of the body.
  The requirement in the new House rule that a super majority of three-
fifths must vote in favor of any income 
[[Page H1439]] tax rate increase does not violate the constitutional 
requirements that a majority must be present to do business.
  The bottom line is this: A majority of the House, under the 
Constitution, may determine the rules of the proceedings including a 
requirement that a larger majority may be required to do certain 
things. For instance, for 125 years in this body we have required a 
two-thirds vote to suspend House rules and pass legislation under this 
procedure. No one has ever challenged that rule.
  This House has also adopted a rule that says it does not even want to 
have introduced, let alone considered, certain commemorative bills. We 
banned bills by the rules of this House, and it was a very good rule 
which I helped to put in.
  So long as no basic constitutional principle or rights are being 
violated, which they are not in any of these rules, a House majority 
may adopt the rules of its proceedings regarding the introduction, 
consideration, or passage of legislation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, that is something which, according to the Supreme 
Court, cannot be challenged in any other body or any other tribunal. A 
court challenge to our new rules will be dismissed on these very 
grounds, and thank goodness for the American taxpayer.


                          ____________________