[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 17, Chapters 34 - 40]
[Ch. 34. Constitutional Amendments]
[B. House Consideration]
[Â§ 4. Procedures for Floor Consideration]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 7-39]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
                         B. House Consideration
 
Sec. 4. Procedures for Floor Consideration

    The House has used a number of procedures to consider joint 
resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution. Most of the 
procedures used for any other variety of legislative measure have been 
used, but special conditions have been applied in some circumstances.
    The House has considered joint resolutions proposing amendments to 
the Constitution--
    (1) under suspension of the rules (under Rule XV clause 
1),(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 885 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) under a special order-of-business resolution reported from the 
Committee on Rules (pursuant to Rule XIII clause 6(a)),(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at Sec. 857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) pursuant to a motion to discharge the Committee on the 
Judiciary from further consideration of the joint resolution (pursuant 
to Rule XV clause 2),(3) and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at Sec. 892.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) under a special order-of-business resolution from which the 
Committee on Rules has been discharged (pursuant to Rule XV clause 
2).(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Ibid.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of the Rules

Sec. 4.1 The joint resolution proposing the amendment to the 
    Constitution that became the 24th Amendment (abolishing the poll 
    tax) was considered by the House under suspension of the rules.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(1) after the Journal had been read in 
full and four quorum calls had been completed or dispensed with by roll 
call votes, Emanuel Celler, of New York, chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, moved that the House suspend the rules and pass a Senate 
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. The motion 
and related debate, particularly concerning the propriety of the use of 
a motion for suspension of the rules for consideration of such a joint 
resolution, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-70, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] CELLER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an 
    amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to 
    qualifications of electors.
        Mr. [Thomas Gerstle] ABERNETHY [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The SPEAKER.(2) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (MA).

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

[[Page 8]]

        Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this 
    is District Day, that there are District bills on the calendar, and 
    as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia I 
    respectfully demand recognition so that these bills may be 
    considered.
        Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma].(3) Mr. Speaker, may 
    I be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Representative Albert was the Majority Leader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER. The Chair is prepared to rule, but the gentleman 
    may be heard.
        Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, suspensions were 
    transferred to this day, and under the rules the Speaker has power 
    of recognition at his own discretion.
        Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully call the attention 
    of the chairman to clause 8, rule XXIV, page 432 of the House 
    Manual, which reads as follows; and I respectfully submit it is a 
    mandatory rule:

            The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the 
        disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the 
        disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires 
        reference only, shall, when claimed by the Committee on the 
        District of Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of 
        such business as may be presented by said committee.

        Mr. Speaker, I submit that rule is clear that when the time is 
    claimed and the opportunity is claimed the Chair shall permit those 
    bills to be considered.
        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my point of order 
    is well taken, and that I should be permitted to call up bills 
    which are now pending on the calendar from the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Howard W.] SMITH of Virginia.(4) Mr. Speaker, I 
    should like to be heard on this point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Representative Smith was chairman of the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House on 
    some things are very clear, and the rules of the House either mean 
    something or they do not mean anything.
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy], 
    has just called the Chair's attention to clause 8 of Rule XXIV. 
    Nothing could be more clear; nothing could be more mandatory. I 
    want to repeat it because I hope the Chair will not fall into an 
    error on this proposition:

            The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the 
        disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the 
        disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires 
        reference only--

        And that is all; that is all that you can consider--disposition 
    of motions to discharge committees--
        and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker's table 
        as requires reference only--

        That is all that the Chair is permitted to consider.
        Mr. Speaker, after that is done the day--

[[Page 9]]

        shall, when claimed by the Committee on the District of 
        Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of such business 
        as may be presented by said committee.

        Mr. Speaker, I know the majority leader bases his defense upon 
    the theory that the House having given unanimous consent to hear 
    suspensions on this Monday instead of last Monday when they should 
    have been heard-- and I doubt if very many Members were here when 
    that consent order was made and I am quite sure that a great number 
    of them had no notice that it was going to be made, and certainly I 
    did not--now the majority leader undertakes to say that having 
    gotten unanimous consent to consider this motion on this day to 
    suspend the rules, therefore, it gives the Speaker carte blanche 
    authority to do away with the rule which gives first consideration 
    to District of Columbia matters.
        Mr. Speaker, there was no waiver of the rule on the District of 
    Columbia. That consent did not dispose or dispense with the 
    business on the District of Columbia day. The rule is completely 
    mandatory. The rule says that on the second and fourth Mondays, if 
    the District of Columbia claims the time, that the Speaker shall 
    recognize them for such dispositions as they desire to call.
        The SPEAKER. The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to 
    transfer consideration of business under suspension of the rules on 
    Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the consideration 
    of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the rules today is a 
    privileged motion. The matter is within the discretion of the Chair 
    as to the matter of recognition.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Parliamentarian's Note: When more than one Member seeks to call up 
        privileged business, it is within the discretion of the Speaker 
        as to which of those Members the Chair recognizes. District of 
        Columbia business was privileged under Rule XXIV clause 8 [now 
        Rule XV clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 894 (2007)]. The 
        motion to suspend the rules was equally privileged pursuant to 
        a unanimous-consent agreement making suspensions in order on 
        that day [now in order on certain days under Rule XV clause 1, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 885 (2007)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution (S.J. Res. 29) as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
        each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
        hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the 
        United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes 
        as part of the Constitution only if ratified by the 
        legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 
        seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

                                  ``Article--

            ``Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to 
        vote in a primary or other election for President or Vice 
        President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for 
        Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or 
        abridged by the United States or any

[[Page 10]]

        State by reason of failing to pay any poll tax or other tax.
            ``Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this 
        article by appropriate legislation.'' . . .

        The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] is 
    recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. CELLER. . . .
        I regret that this constitutional amendment is brought up under 
    suspension of the rules with only 40 minutes of debate. I applied 
    for a rule. A rule was not forthcoming. A discharge petition was 
    filed but not processed. Such a petition is rarely used and has its 
    attendant difficulties if not embarrassments. Hence the suspension 
    of the rules. . . .
        Mr. [John V.] LINDSAY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am very much 
    opposed to poll taxes, and therefore I will vote for this bill, but 
    I do so with a heavy heart.
        This is probably the greatest piece of political gamesmanship 
    that has come to the floor of the House in the 87th Congress. . . . 
    First of all, this is a fantastic procedure under which to amend 
    the Constitution--an up or down vote, no amendments permitted, no 
    motion to recommit possible, a total of 40 minutes of debate. . . .
        The leadership on the majority side who are running this show, 
    Mr. Speaker, ought to be proud of themselves for handing us this 
    dish of tea. Under this kind of gag procedure they casually and 
    cynically tinker with the U.S. Constitution, for political reasons, 
    to get off the hook on civil rights. . . .
        Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 4 minutes; 4 minutes. I 
    have been here a long time. I hope the walls of this Hall will 
    never ring with the kind of a farce that has been put on here 
    today, with the Constitution of the United States to be amended, 
    when no one can offer an objection or an amendment to it, when no 
    one can raise his voice in extended debate, but 20 minutes for it 
    and 20 minutes supposedly against it. It is unprecedented in the 
    annals of this Government for an amendment to the Constitution, no 
    matter how insignificant it may be, to be considered under this 
    procedure.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Parliamentarian's Note: A joint resolution proposing an amendment 
        to the Constitution had been considered by the House under a 
        motion to suspend the rules on at least one previous occasion. 
        See 76 Cong. Rec. 7, 12, 13, 72d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 5, 1932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]his resolution could have been brought up here in the 
    regular way. Some of you will remember that just 18 months ago the 
    leadership of this House packed the Committee on Rules so that they 
    would have a majority vote on it. They could have gotten it out of 
    the Committee on Rules with a majority vote if they wanted to do it 
    in the democratic way and permit the House to vote on it. Yet, this 
    House is going to vote for this extraordinary situation, and they 
    are going to do it under political pressure to please a minority 
    group. . . .
        Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into any 
    controversy with any of my colleagues, but I just want it clearly 
    stated for the record and understood that today is the regular day 
    for considering legislation under suspension of the rules under the 
    arrangement made last Monday;

[[Page 11]]

    and so far as suspensions are concerned, it was within the province 
    of the Speaker and the majority leadership to schedule them, and 
    that is what has been done. . . .
        Mr. [Seymour] HALPERN [of New York]. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer that the poll tax be outlawed 
    by statute rather than by amendment to the Constitution, as this 
    House has authorized five times previously. There is a big question 
    as to the effectiveness of going the amendment route--obtaining 
    approval of three-fourths of the State legislatures is a long, 
    difficult, and tedious process, to say the least.
        We are now, however, faced with no other alternative under the 
    rule and the circumstances here today but to support this 
    constitutional amendment. Despite the question of the effectiveness 
    of this method, I definitely shall support this Senate joint 
    resolution. . . .
        Mr. [Byron Giles] ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret 
    that the gentleman from Virginia should say that we were placed 
    under a gag rule, that we could not present the matter to the House 
    so that this constitutional proposal could be amended. I want to 
    direct attention to and read a letter from the gentleman from 
    Virginia, addressed to the chairman of our committee, which reads 
    as follows:

                                   House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                Committee on Rules

                                  Washington, D.C., June 15, 1962.

                                                Hon. Emanuel Celler,

                               Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

                             House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

        Dear Mr. Chairman: This will acknowledge your letter of June 14 
    requesting that the Committee on Rules schedule a hearing on Senate 
    Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of 
    the United States relating to qualifications of electors.
        I shall endeavor to schedule a hearing on this measure at the 
    earliest possible time and shall be glad to advise you when a date 
    has been set.

              Sincerely,

                                                  Howard W. Smith,

                                                         Chairman.

        If the gentleman from Virginia and others are interested and do 
    not want the Constitution amended, or us to have an opportunity to 
    say how it should be amended, why did he not, upon the request of 
    the chairman of this committee grant a rule so that we could come 
    in here and discuss it in every particular? . . .
        Mr. ABERNETHY. . . .
        There are resolutions and bills which may be properly and 
    satisfactorily considered under a time limitation of 40 minutes as 
    the rule under which we are now operating provides. There are 
    resolutions and bills of such simple character that amendments 
    thereto would be unworthy. But, Mr. Speaker, indeed a resolution 
    which has the effect of changing, altering, amending, defacing, or 
    whatever you may call it, the Constitution of our great country 
    should never be submitted to and swept through this House in such a 
    ruthless and tornado-like fashion. What a terrible precedent. . . .
        Mr. John Bell WILLIAMS [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, this is a 
    sad day for those who believe in constitutional government. It is a 
    sadder day

[[Page 12]]

    for those who believe in representative government and those who 
    have had faith in the House of Representatives and its historical 
    tradition of justice.
        Under the current suspension procedure which we are operating 
    today, we are considering a far-reaching amendment to the 
    Constitution in only 40 minutes.
        The U.S. Constitution will be 175 years old on September 17. 
    During that time, the Congress and the respective States have 
    amended it only 23 times. Nevertheless, the leadership of this 
    body, in the New Frontier tradition of running roughshod over those 
    who disagree, has taken the unusual step of limiting debate on such 
    a historical step to less than an hour. What will future 
    generations think of such behavior? . . .
        Mr. [Joseph P.] ADDABBO [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
    support of Senate Joint Resolution 29, a constitutional amendment 
    to abolish the poll tax.
        Although I believe a serious question involving an amendment to 
    the Constitution should be brought up under the regular order of 
    the House and sufficient time be given for debate and amendment, to 
    fully protect the rights of all voters. It is our responsibility 
    when such process is stopped by the power of one man and a small 
    minority to take this action to protect the right of all qualified 
    to vote, even though under present laws only a few may be denied 
    this right because of a poll tax. . . .
        The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Colorado has 
    expired; all time has expired.
        The question is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the 
    resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 29?
        Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 294, nays 86, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 54, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 202] . . .

        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended and the joint resolution was passed.

Sec. 4.2 When the House considered a joint resolution proposing a 
    constitutional amendment under a motion to suspend the rules, a 
    Member objected to various unanimous-consent requests associated 
    with such consideration (namely, to revise and extend remarks).

    On Nov. 15, 1983,(1) as the House was considering under 
a motion to suspend the rules a joint resolution proposing an amendment 
to the Constitution, Mr. Robert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, objected to 
a request of the manager of the joint resolution for unanimous consent 
to revise and extend his remarks and announced his intention to object 
to all similar unanimous-consent requests for the duration of the 
debate on that measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. 32668, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

[[Page 13]]

        Mr. [Peter W.] RODINO [of New Jersey]. Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) 
    proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
    relative to equal rights for men and women.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H.J. Res. 1

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
        both Houses concurring therein), That the following article is 
        proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
        States of America, which shall be valid to all intents and 
        purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the 
        legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 
        seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

                                  ``Article--

            ``Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be 
        denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on 
        account of sex.
            ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, 
        by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
            ``Section 3. This article shall take effect two years after 
        the date of ratification.''.

        The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Pursuant to the rule, a 
    second is not required on this motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James C. Wright, Jr. (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) will be recognized 
    for 20 minutes and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
    will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Rodino).
        Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
    extend my remarks.
        The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New Jersey?
        Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
        The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    reserves the right to object.
        Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object, because 
    a process was determined here and the process says that there is 
    going to be 20 minutes for the entire case to be made. There are 
    many of us in this House who feel that that was not an appropriate 
    kind of a decision to be made.
        So therefore, I am reserving the right to object to tell the 
    Members that I am going to object to all unanimous-consent 
    requests, both to revise and extend remarks, as well as for the 
    purpose of getting general leave, so that the entire debate on this 
    matter will take place on the Democratic side within the 20 minutes 
    allotted.
        Mr. Speaker, I do object.
        The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

    Despite Mr. Walker's announced intent to object to all such 
requests, the Speaker himself was granted leave to revise and extend 
his remarks made from the floor during debate,(3) and other 
Members obtained individual permission to insert remarks in the debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 32675, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 14]]

        Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the 
    distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
        (Mr. O'Neill asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'NEILL, [Jr., of Massachusetts]. I rise in 
    support of the resolution. . . .

    Later the same day,(4) after debate had concluded and 
the House had moved on to other business, Mr. Leon E. Panetta, of 
California, obtained, by unanimous consent, general leave for all 
Members to revise and extend their remarks on the joint resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 32719.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
    remarks on House Joint Resolution 1.
        The SPEAKER pro tempore.(5) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Ronald Coleman (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Still later the same day, the order obtained by Rep. Panetta was 
vacated by unanimous consent at the request of Rep. 
Walker:(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 32746, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    motionzgarding House Joint Resolution 1 made by the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Panetta) be vacated.
        The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection.

Special Rule

Sec. 4.3 The House may consider a joint resolution proposing an 
    amendment to the Constitution pursuant to a special order-of-
    business resolution reported by the Committee on Rules, and such an 
    order-of-business resolution may provide for an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute to the joint resolution to be considered in 
    the House.

    On June 3, 2003,(1) the House considered, pursuant to a 
special rule, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution addressing physical desecration of the flag. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 149 Cong. Rec. 13492, 13497, 108th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] LINDER [of Georgia]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 255 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 15]]

                                  H. Res. 255

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to 
        consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 4) 
        proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
        authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration 
        of the flag of the United States. The joint resolution shall be 
        considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
        be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 
        amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
        except: (1) two hours of debate on the joint resolution equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) an amendment in 
        the nature of a substitute offered by Representative Conyers of 
        Michigan or his designee, which shall be considered as read and 
        shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and 
        controlled by the proponent and an opponent;(2) and 
        (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Parliamentarian's Note: The rule did not specify the text of the 
        amendment permitted under the rule, nor did it waive any points 
        of order against the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER pro tempore.(3) The gentleman from 
    Georgia (Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Lee Terry (NE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. LINDER. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 255 is a modified closed rule 
    that provides for the consideration of H.J. Resolution 4, 
    legislation proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the 
    United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical 
    desecration of the American flag.
        This rule provides for 2 hours of debate in the House, equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on the Judiciary. House Resolution 255 waives all 
    points of order against consideration of the joint resolution.
        It makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
    if offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) or his 
    designee, which shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally 
    divided between the proponent and an opponent.
        Finally, this rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
    without instructions. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move 
    the previous question on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The House proceeded to consider the joint resolution and, after 
        rejecting the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
        by a designee of Mr. Conyers, passed the joint resolution by a 
        vote of 300-125. 149 Cong. Rec. 13497-524, 108th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., June 3, 2003. The Senate took no action on the House-
        passed joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.4 A special order-of-business resolution may provide for a joint 
    resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to be considered in 
    the Committee of the Whole, may make in order

[[Page 16]]

    more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute to the joint 
    resolution, and may provide that, if more than one such amendment 
    is adopted, only the last such amendment adopted shall be reported 
    to the House.

    On Oct. 1, 1982,(1) the House considered a special 
order-of-business resolution reported by the Committee on Rules 
providing for consideration in the Committee of the Whole of a joint 
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution regarding the 
Federal budget process and making in order two amendments in the nature 
of a substitute to the joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 128 Cong. Rec. 27172, 27178, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. For a similar 
        special order-of-business resolution providing for five 
        amendments in the nature of a substitute, see 138 Cong. Rec. 
        14225-359, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1992. For more 
        information on this type of amendment procedure, sometimes 
        informally referred to as ``king of the hill,'' see Ch. 30 
        Sec. 58.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] BOLLING [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 604 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 604

            Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution the House 
        shall resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
        the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint 
        resolution (H.J. Res. 350) proposing an amendment to the 
        Constitution altering Federal budget procedures, and the first 
        reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed with. After 
        general debate, which shall be confined to the joint resolution 
        and to the amendments made in order by this resolution and 
        shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided 
        and controlled by a Member in favor of the joint resolution and 
        a Member opposed, the joint resolution shall be considered as 
        having been read for amendment under the five-minute rule. No 
        amendment to the joint resolution shall be in order in the 
        House or in the Committee of the Whole except the following 
        amendments which shall be considered only in the following 
        order and which shall not be subject to amendment but shall be 
        debatable as provided herein:
            (1) an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
        the Congressional Record of September 30, 1982, by, and if 
        offered by, Representative Alexander of Arkansas, and said 
        amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed one hour, to be 
        equally divided and controlled by Representative Alexander and 
        a Member opposed thereto; and
            (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
        only of the text of H.J. Res. 350 as introduced if offered by 
        Representative Conable of New York, and said amendment shall be 
        debatable for not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and 
        controlled by Representative Conable and a Member opposed 
        thereto, and said amendment shall be in order even if the 
        amendment designated (1) above has been adopted. At the 
        conclusion of the consideration of the joint resolution for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the

[[Page 17]]

        joint resolution to the House, but only the last amendment 
        adopted shall be considered as having been finally adopted and 
        reported back to the House. The previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on the 
        amendment if adopted to final passage without intervening 
        motion except one motion to recommit.
            Sec. 2. The resolution (H. Res. 450) providing for the 
        consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 350) proposing 
        an amendment to the Constitution altering Federal budget 
        procedures is hereby laid on the table.(2) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Parliamentarian's Note: H. Res. 450 was the object of a discharge 
        petition that on Sept. 29, 1982, had received the requisite 
        number of signatures for floor consideration. That resolution 
        provided for consideration of H.J. Res. 350 and precluded 
        consideration of any amendments to that joint resolution. H. 
        Res. 604 was reported by the Committee on Rules to provide for 
        consideration of that joint resolution under procedures 
        allowing consideration of a specified amendment in the nature 
        of a substitute. And, in order to provide a vote that would be 
        the equivalent of proceeding under the discharge process, H. 
        Res. 604 made in order an amendment consisting of the 
        underlying text of H.J. Res. 350 that would be in order even if 
        the first amendment in the nature of a substitute were adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. BOLLING. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

    Parliamentarian's Note: During consideration of H.J. Res. 350 
pursuant to H. Res. 604, the first amendment in the nature of a 
substitute that was made in order under the rule was not adopted, and 
so the second one, which contained the same text as the underlying 
joint resolution, was not offered. The joint resolution then failed to 
receive the requisite two-thirds majority for passage.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 128 Cong. Rec. 27254, 27255, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 1, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.5 A special order-of-business resolution providing for 
    consideration of a House joint resolution proposing a 
    constitutional amendment may also discharge a House committee from 
    consideration of a similar Senate joint resolution and make in 
    order a motion to amend the Senate measure with the text of the 
    House joint resolution as passed by the House.

    The proceedings of Apr. 13, 1965,(1) are illustrative of 
this proposition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 7931, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. A special order-of-
        business resolution also may prospectively make in order a 
        motion by a Member to consider a comparable joint resolution if 
        passed by the Senate and, if necessary, to move to strike all 
        after the resolving clause of the Senate joint resolution and 
        substitute the text of the House-passed joint resolution 
        therefor. See 138 Cong. Rec. 14225, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        10, 1992 [H. Res. 450].

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

[[Page 18]]

        Mr. [John A.] YOUNG [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 314 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 314

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing an 
        amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to 
        succession to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency and to cases 
        where the President is unable to discharge the powers and 
        duties of his office. After general debate, which shall be 
        confined to the resolution and shall continue not to exceed 
        four hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
        Judiciary, the resolution shall be read for amendment under the 
        five-minute rule. At the conclusion of such consideration the 
        Committee shall rise and report the resolution to the House 
        with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any member 
        may demand a separate vote in the House on any of the 
        amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
        resolution or committee substitute. The previous question shall 
        be considered as ordered on the resolution and amendments to 
        final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit, with or without instructions. After the passage of 
        H.J. Res. 1, the Committee on the Judiciary shall be discharged 
        from further consideration of S.J. Res. 1, and it shall then be 
        in order in the House to move to strike out all after the 
        resolving clause of said Senate joint resolution and to insert 
        the provisions of H.J. Res. 1 as passed by the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Following adoption of H. Res. 314, the 
House proceeded to consider H.J. Res. 1. After agreeing to an amendment 
adopted by the Committee of the Whole and rejecting a motion to 
recommit, the House passed the measure by a vote of 386-29. Immediately 
following that vote, the manager of the resolution called up S.J. Res. 
1 for immediate consideration, as made in order by the rule, and 
offered an amendment to strike the text of the Senate measure and 
insert the text of H.J. Res. 1 as passed by the House. The amendment 
was adopted by a voice vote and then the Senate joint resolution, as 
amended by the House, was passed by the House. The vote on passage, 
although a voice vote, carried with two-thirds of those voting having 
voted in the affirmative.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 7968, 7969, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.6 Where a special order-of-business resolution provided that 
    general debate on a

[[Page 19]]

    joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution be 
    divided between a Member in favor and a Member opposed, and the 
    joint resolution had not been reported from committee, the Chairman 
    of the Committee of the Whole recognized the ranking minority 
    member of the committee of jurisdiction to control the time in 
    favor and the chairman of that committee to control the time in 
    opposition.

    After the House had adopted a special order-of-business resolution 
providing for consideration of a joint resolution proposing an 
amendment to the Constitution regarding Federal budget procedures where 
the joint resolution had not been reported by the committee to which it 
had been referred (the Committee on the Judiciary) and where the 
special order-of-business resolution specified that time for general 
debate would be divided between a Member in favor and a Member opposed 
to the unreported joint resolution (as opposed to specifying that time 
for general debate would be divided between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the committee of jurisdiction),(1) the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole accorded the time in favor of 
the joint resolution to the ranking minority member of the committee of 
jurisdiction and the time opposed to the chairman of that 
committee.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For the text of this special order-of-business resolution, see 
        Sec. 4.4, supra.
 2. 128 Cong. Rec. 27178, 27179, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 1, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER.(3) Pursuant to the provisions of House 
    Resolution 604, the House resolves itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House of the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    joint resolution (H.J. Res. 350) proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution altering Federal budget procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         in the committee of the whole

        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 350, with Mr. [Edward 
    Patrick] Boland [of Massachusetts] in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the first reading of the 
    joint resolution is dispensed with.
        Is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. McCLORY) in favor of the 
    joint resolution?
        Mr. [Robert] McCLORY.(4) Mr. Chairman, yes, I favor 
    House Joint Resolution 350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Mr. McClory was the ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
        Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman qualifies.

[[Page 20]]

        Is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) opposed to the 
    joint resolution?
        Mr. [Peter W.] RODINO, [Jr.].(5) I am opposed, Mr. 
    Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Mr. Rodino was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman qualifies.
        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. McCLORY) will be recognized 
    for 1 hour, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) will be 
    recognized for 1 hour.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    McCLORY).(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Although in this case a member of the majority controlled the time 
        for general debate in opposition to the joint resolution and a 
        member of the minority controlled the time in favor, a member 
        of the minority who was opposed to the joint resolution 
        nevertheless had priority of recognition to offer a motion to 
        recommit, in accordance with the general rules applicable to 
        motions to recommit. 128 Cong. Rec. 27254, 27255, 97th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Oct. 1, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.7 Where a special order-of-business resolution providing for 
    consideration of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution divided control of time for general debate among three 
    named Members, the Chair determined that recognition for the 
    purpose of closing debate would be accorded to the Member who was 
    the primary sponsor of the measure.

    On June 10, 1992,(1) the House proceeded to consider a 
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution pursuant to 
the terms of a special order-of-business resolution. The special order-
of-business resolution had been introduced by Mr. Charles W. Stenholm, 
of Texas, and was the object of a successful discharge petition filed 
by him. The resolution provided for general debate on the joint 
resolution in the Committee of the Whole to be divided among three 
named Members, the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and Mr. Stenholm, the primary sponsor of the 
joint resolution under consideration. Although the Chair ordinarily 
recognizes Members to close general debate in the reverse order of 
opening, in this case the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
nevertheless determined that the right to close general debate in this 
circumstance would be accorded to Mr. Stenholm, the primary proponent 
of the measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 138 Cong. Rec. 14225, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
    agreement offered by the gentleman from

[[Page 21]]

    Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and the order of the House of Thursday, 
    June 4, 1992, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 450) providing for 
    the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 290) proposing 
    an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget 
    for the U.S. Government and for greater accountability in the 
    enactment of tax legislation, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.

                                  H. Res. 450

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the House shall resolve itself into the Committee of 
        the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
        of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 290) proposing an amendment 
        to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the 
        United States Government and for greater accountability in the 
        enactment of tax legislation, all points of order against the 
        joint resolution and against its consideration are hereby 
        waived, and the first reading of the joint resolution shall be 
        dispensed with. After general debate, which shall be confined 
        to the joint resolution and which shall not exceed four and 
        one-half hours, to be equally divided and controlled by 
        Representative Brooks of Texas, Representative Fish, of New 
        York, and Representative Stenholm of Texas, or their designees, 
        the joint resolution shall be considered for amendment under 
        the five-minute rule. . . .

    Following adoption of the resolution, the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole to consider the joint resolution.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 138 Cong. Rec. 14235, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [G.V. (Sonny)] Montgomery (of 
    Mississippi). Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the Chair declares 
    the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union for the consideration of the joint resolution, House Joint 
    Resolution 290.

                                {time}  1255

                         in the committee of the whole

        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 290, proposing an 
    amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for 
    the U.S. Government and for greater accountability in the enactment 
    of tax legislation, with Mr. [Raymond Hoyt] Thornton [Jr., of 
    Arkansas] in the chair.
        The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution is 
    considered as having been read the first time.
        Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 4, 1992, 
    the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], or his designee, the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], will be recognized for 3 
    hours;(3) the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] will be 
    recognized for 3 hours; and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] 
    will be

[[Page 22]]

    recognized for 3 hours. The Chair will attempt to rotate 
    recognition in a manner mutually agreeable to the managers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. In the order of the House entered into pursuant to the unanimous-
        consent agreement providing for consideration of H. Res. 450, 
        time for general debate on H.J. Res. 290 was increased from the 
        four and one-half hours specified in the resolution to nine 
        hours. 138 Cong. Rec. 13617, 13618, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Gephardt).(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 14235.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Richard M. Gephardt, of Missouri, the Majority Leader, was the 
designee of Mr. Jack Brooks, of Texas, the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and was recognized first for general debate in the 
Committee of the Whole. Following the expiration of the debate time for 
Mr. Brooks and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Chairman 
recognized Mr. Stenholm to close debate.

        The CHAIRMAN pro tempore.(5) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Kweisi Mfume (MD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to 
    close debate.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 117 Cong. Rec. 14331, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discharge Petition With Respect to Joint Resolution Proposing an 
    Amendment to the Constitution

Sec. 4.8 A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
    may be the object of a discharge petition, as in the case of any 
    other measure, and a discharge petition with respect to such a 
    joint resolution need garner only 218 signatures, a majority of the 
    total membership of the House, as in the case of any other measure.

    Following the introduction of a joint resolution proposing an 
amendment to the Constitution and after the completion of the requisite 
period of time, Mr. Chalmers P. Wylie, of Ohio, filed a discharge 
petition on the measure pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 3.(1) 
The discharge petition received the requisite number of signatures on 
Sept. 21, 1971.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. This rule was later renumbered as Rule XV clause 2, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 892 (2007).
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 32576, 32577, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion was as follows:

                         Motion to Discharge Committee

                                                    April 1, 1971.

                       To the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

        Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVII(3) I, Chalmers P. 
    Wylie, move to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary

[[Page 23]]

    from the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 191) 
    entitled ``A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution of the United States with respect to the offering of 
    prayer in public buildings,'' which was referred to said committee 
    January 22, 1971, in support of which motion the undersigned 
    Members of the House of Representatives affix their signatures, to 
    wit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Parliamentarian's Note: During its deliberations preparatory to the 
        convening of the 98th Congress (1983-85) with respect to 
        changes to the standing rules of the House for that Congress, 
        the Democratic Caucus (the majority membership for that 
        Congress) considered and rejected a change to the House rules 
        to provide that, with respect to any joint resolution proposing 
        an amendment to the Constitution, two-thirds of the House 
        membership (rather than a majority) would be the requisite 
        number for signatures on a discharge petition, as well as for 
        adoption of a special order-of-business resolution providing 
        for consideration of such a joint resolution. On Jan. 3, 1983, 
        the date of the convening of the 98th Congress, the Majority 
        Leader, James C. Wright, Jr. [TX], in explaining to the House 
        the proposed changes in the standing rules recommended by the 
        majority party caucus, made the following statement: ``I should 
        announce at the outset for the benefit of any of those who are 
        unfamiliar with the fact that [an additional] change was 
        considered by the Democratic Caucus. . . . That proposal which 
        was omitted was the one which would have required that two-
        thirds of the Members should have the requisite signatures on a 
        discharge petition in order to discharge a constitutional 
        amendment from the committee of jurisdiction.'' 129 Cong. Rec. 
        35, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        1. Chalmers P. Wylie.
        2. John E. Hunt. . . .

        217. Floyd V. Hicks.
        218. Charles J. Carney.

Sec. 4.9 Upon adoption of a motion to discharge a committee from 
    consideration of a public bill or resolution (including a joint 
    resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution) following 
    the securing of the requisite number of signatures on a discharge 
    petition, a motion to proceed to the immediate consideration of the 
    measure is privileged, if made by a Member who signed the discharge 
    petition, and is decided without debate.

    On Nov. 8, 1971,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized a signatory to a successful discharge petition(2) 
to move to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from further 
consideration of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 39885, 39886, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. See Sec. 4.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

                                PRAYER AMENDMENT

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] WYLIE [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    clause 4, rule

[[Page 24]]

    XXVII,(3) I call up motion No. 1 to discharge the 
    Committee on the Judiciary from the further consideration of House 
    Joint Resolution 191, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of 
    the United States relative to the offering of prayer in public 
    buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Now Rule XV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER. Did the gentleman sign the motion?
        Mr. WYLIE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I signed the motion.
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio calls up a motion to 
    discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from the further 
    consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 191) which the 
    Clerk will report by title.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution. . . 
    .                          -------------------

                                PRAYER AMENDMENT

        The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Wylie) will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Celler) will be recognized for 10 minutes.

    The motion to discharge was debated and agreed to. The Speaker then 
recognized the same Member to offer a motion that the House proceed to 
consider the measure.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 39889, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Nov. 8, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of clause 4, 
    rule XXVII, I move that the House now proceed to the immediate 
    consideration of House Joint Resolution 191.
        The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the joint resolution.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 191

        Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of 
          the United States with respect to the offering of prayer in 
                                public buildings

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
        each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
        hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the 
        United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes 
        as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures 
        of three-fourths of the several States:

                                  ``Article--

            ``Section 1. Nothing contained in this Constitution shall 
        abridge the right of persons lawfully assembled, in any public 
        building which is supported in whole or in part through the 
        expenditure of public funds, to participate in 
        nondenominational prayer.
            ``Sec. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall 
        have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the 
        legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 
        seven years from the date of its submission to the States by 
        the Congress.''

        The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie).
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 4.10 A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the

[[Page 25]]

    Constitution is considered in the House, not in the Committee of 
    the Whole, when considered in consequence of a discharge petition.

    On July 24, 1979,(1) the requisite number of signatures 
having been obtained, the House agreed to a motion to discharge the 
Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 74, proposing an amendment to the Constitution regarding 
school busing. The House having adopted that motion, it was then in 
order for a Member who had signed the motion to discharge to move that 
the House proceed to the immediate consideration of the joint 
resolution. Proceedings after the motion to discharge was agreed to 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 20358, 20362, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. In general, joint 
        resolutions proposing constitutional amendments are not 
        required to be considered in the Committee of the Whole. 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald M.] MOTTL [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    provisions of clause 4, rule 2,(2) and the order of the 
    House of June 28, 1979, I move that the House proceed to the 
    immediate consideration of House Joint Resolution 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Congressional Record states 
        that Mr. Mottl's motion referred to ``clause 4, rule 2,'' the 
        reference clearly should have been to ``clause 4, rule 27,'' 
        the ``Discharge Rule,'' now Rule XV clause 2, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 892 (2007). See Mr. Mottl's discharge motion,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER.(3) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mottl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Clerk read the joint resolution. . . .
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mottl) is recognized 
    for 1 hour.

Sec. 4.11 A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
    that is considered pursuant to a successful motion to discharge the 
    committee of jurisdiction is susceptible to the motion to recommit.

    On Aug. 10, 1970,(1) Mrs. Martha W. Griffiths, of 
Michigan, moved to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from the 
further consideration of House Joint Resolution 264, the requisite 
number of signatures having been obtained for such a motion to be in 
order. After an affirmative vote on the motion to discharge, a 
subsequent affirmative vote on a motion for immediate consideration

[[Page 26]]

of the joint resolution, and debate on the joint resolution, Mr. 
William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, moved to recommit the joint resolution 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 27999, 28000, 28004, 28036, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings in the House were as follows:

        Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 4, rule XXVII, 
    I call up motion No. 5, to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary 
    from the further consideration of House Joint Resolution 264, 
    proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States 
    relative to equal rights for men and women.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. The motion to discharge obtained the requisite 218 signatures and 
        was entered on the Discharge Calendar on July 20, 1970, 
        pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4. House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 908 (1969) [now Rule XV clause 2, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 892 (2007)]. 116 Cong. Rec. 24999, 25000, 91st Cong. 1st 
        Sess., July 20, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER.(3) Did the gentlewoman sign the motion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I signed the motion.
        The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman qualifies. The gentlewoman from 
    Michigan calls up a motion to discharge the Committee on the 
    Judiciary from the further consideration of the joint resolution 
    (House Joint Resolution 264) which the Clerk will report by title.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

                             parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Emanuel] CELLER [of New York].(4) Mr. Speaker, 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Mr. Celler was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I understand the rule provides for 20 
    minutes of debate, 10 minutes on either side. Is it correct that 
    the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, being opposed to the 
    discharge petition, will be allocated 10 minutes?
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman's statement is correct that the rule 
    provides for 20 minutes of debate, 10 minutes on each side. If the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler) is opposed to the motion, the 
    Chair will recognize him for 10 minutes.
        Is the gentleman opposed to the motion?
        Mr. CELLER. I am opposed to the motion, Mr. Speaker.
        The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Michigan 
    (Mrs. Griffiths) will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler) will be recognized for 10 
    minutes. . . .
        The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Griffiths) is recognized 
    for 10 minutes.
        Mrs. GRIFFITHS. . . .
        I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to support the discharge motion; to 
    vote for the motion for immediate consideration; to support the 
    previous question; to vote against any motion to recommit with or 
    without instructions and to vote for the amendment. . . .

[[Page 27]]

        The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Griffiths) to discharge the 
    Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of House 
    Joint Resolution 264. . . .
        So the motion to discharge was agreed to. . . .
        Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of 
    clause 4, rule XXVII, I move that the House proceed to the 
    immediate consideration of House Joint Resolution 264.
        The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Griffiths).
        The motion was agreed to.
        The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the joint resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 264

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
        each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
        proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
        States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
        part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
        three-fourths of the several States:

                                  ``Article --

            ``Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be 
        denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on 
        account of sex. Congress and the several States shall have 
        power, within their respective jurisdictions, to enforce this 
        article by appropriate legislation.
            ``Sec. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall 
        have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the 
        legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.
            ``Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect one year after 
        the date of ratification.''

        The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 1 
    hour. . . .
        Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on 
    the joint resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the joint resolution.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time and was read a third time.
        The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the joint 
    resolution.

                               motion to recommit

        Mr. [William M.] MCCULLOCH [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution?
        Mr. MCCULLOCH. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
        The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. McCulloch moves that House Joint Resolution 264 be 
        recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions 
        that said committee shall promptly hold appropriate hearings 
        thereon. . . .

        The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it. . . .
        So the motion to recommit was rejected.

[[Page 28]]

Discharge of Special Rule

Sec. 4.12 When there has been pending before the Committee on the 
    Judiciary for the requisite period a joint resolution proposing an 
    amendment to the Constitution, a special order-of-business 
    resolution providing for consideration of that joint resolution 
    that has been pending before the Committee on Rules for the 
    requisite time may be the object of a discharge petition.

    On Dec. 14, 1937,(1) proceedings in the House relative 
to the referral of a discharge motion to the Discharge Calendar were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 82 Cong. Rec. 1517, 1518, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Motion to Discharge Committee
                                                    April 6, 1937.

                       To the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

        Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVII, I, Hon. Louis Ludlow, move 
    to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the 
    resolution (H. Res. 165) entitled ``A resolution to make House 
    Joint Resolution 199, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to 
    the Constitution of the United States to provide for a referendum 
    on war, a special order of business,'' which was referred to said 
    committee March 24, 1937, in support of which motion the 
    undersigned Members of the House of Representatives affix their 
    signatures, to wit:
        1. Louis Ludlow. . . .

        218. Dudley White.

        This motion was entered upon the Journal, entered in the 
    Congressional Record with signatures thereto, and referred to the 
    Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees, December 14, 1937.

    After Mr. Hamilton Fish, of New York, announced to the House that 
the petition had received the requisite 218 signatures, the following 
exchange took place:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at pp. 1516, 1517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. LUDLOW [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I have just arrived in 
    the Chamber. I understand the gentleman from New York has announced 
    the completion of the signing of names to the discharge petition to 
    bring before the House the resolution (H. J. Res. 199) which 
    proposes to give the people of America the right to vote on 
    participation in foreign wars. . . .
        Mr. [Hatton W.] SUMNERS [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. LUDLOW. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Can the gentleman tell me how much time 
    is allowed for discussion under the rule?
        Mr. LUDLOW. I may say to the gentleman the petition has been 
    filed so long I have almost forgotten the terms of the resolution, 
    but I believe the rule provides for 6 hours of debate. . . .

[[Page 29]]

        Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The SPEAKER.(3) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William B. Bankhead (AL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. How much time is allowed for debate on a 
    motion to discharge a committee from further consideration of a 
    measure?
        The SPEAKER. The Chair may state, in answer to the inquiry of 
    the gentleman from Texas, that under the discharge rule only 20 
    minutes are allowed on the motion to discharge the Committee on 
    Rules from the consideration of the resolution, one-half controlled 
    by those in favor of and one-half those opposed to the motion to 
    discharge the committee.
        The Chair has before him the resolution pending before the 
    Committee on Rules and observes that the resolution itself provides 
    not to exceed 6 hours of general debate in the event the matter 
    should be considered.
        Mr. [William I.] SIROVICH [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. SIROVICH. If the Ludlow resolution comes before the House 
    and a vote is finally taken, is a two-thirds vote of the House 
    required to pass the resolution?
        The SPEAKER. Under the Constitution of the United States any 
    proposal to amend the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of 
    the House of Representatives.
        Mr. SIROVICH. Therefore, in order to pass the Ludlow resolution 
    the House will have to pass it by a two-thirds vote?
        The SPEAKER. Undoubtedly.
        Mr. [Wright] PATMAN [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. PATMAN. It is my understanding this resolution may come up 
    on the second or fourth Monday of the month, providing 7 
    legislative days have elapsed before such second or fourth Monday. 
    This being so, the resolution could not come up for consideration 
    until the second Monday in January, in view of the fact that the 
    fourth Monday in December will be the 27th.
        The SPEAKER. The Chair may state to the gentleman the Chair has 
    no calendar before him, but it is a matter of calculation. The 
    Chair may say further the 7 days begin to run as of this date.
        Mr. PATMAN. It is improbable we shall be in session on the 
    27th.
        The SPEAKER. The Chair can make no statement as to that.
        Mr. [John J.] O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, am I correct 
    in understanding this discharge petition is aimed at the Committee 
    on Rules?
        The SPEAKER. The resolution seems to be aimed in that 
    direction.
        Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    to proceed for 1 minute.
        The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from New York?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is another example 
    of the anomalous situation caused by the method of legislating by 
    petition. There is a great deal of confusion about that in the 
    minds of representatives of the press as well as Members of the

[[Page 30]]

    House. The Committee on Rules was never intended to be included in 
    any such discharge rule, because no bills are ever before the 
    Committee on Rules. It is not a legislative committee. For 
    instance, the committee has never heard of this matter. The bill 
    has not been reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. How the 
    Rules Committee can be discharged in any reasonable or 
    parliamentary sense I cannot imagine.
        Take the case of the wage and hour bill. That bill was pending 
    on the calendar and would have been reached in the ordinary course 
    of the business of the House. I do not know yet from what the Rules 
    Committee was discharged; but as to this monstrosity, the present 
    petition, this bill is still pending in the Committee on the 
    Judiciary; it has never come before the Rules Committee, which has 
    never heard or had any knowledge of it. How the Committee on Rules 
    can be discharged from the consideration of such a bill I cannot 
    divine. Nor can I conceive of any reason for the existence of such 
    an anomalous parliamentary procedure.
        Mr. Snell and Mr. Ludlow rose.
        Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New 
    York.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] SNELL [of New York]. The gentleman has stated 
    the parliamentary inquiry I was about to submit to the Speaker with 
    respect to how they can discharge the Rules Committee from the 
    consideration of this bill.
        Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Well, we are living in strange days 
    of parliamentary procedure, I will admit.
        Mr. LUDLOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I yield.
        Mr. LUDLOW. I may say to the gentleman from New York that the 
    rules of the House are elaborately set forth in the book of rules. 
    This is one of the rules of the House and we are following a 
    perfectly proper parliamentary procedure.
        Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Why did not the gentleman direct his 
    petition against the recalcitrant committee which has his bill? 
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. SNELL. I do not understand how we can discharge the Rules 
    Committee when the bill is before the Judiciary Committee and there 
    is nothing pending before the Committee on Rules.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Parliamentarian's Note: Although the joint resolution proposing a 
        constitutional amendment was not directly before the Committee 
        on Rules, the motion to discharge was directed at a simple 
        resolution proposing to provide for consideration of the joint 
        resolution that had been referred to that committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to discharge was not called from the calendar until 
after the third session of the 75th Congress had convened.
    On Jan. 10, 1938,(5) proceedings relative to this matter 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 276-283, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               referendum on war

        The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana 
    [Mr. Ludlow].
        Mr. LUDLOW. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXVII, I call up the 
    motion

[[Page 31]]

    to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of 
    House Resolution 165.
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana calls up a resolution, 
    which the Clerk will report by title.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolution to make House Joint Resolution 199, a joint 
        resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the 
        United States to provide for a referendum on war, a special 
        order of business.

        The resolution is as follows:

            Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this 
        resolution a special order be, and is hereby, created by the 
        House of Representatives for the consideration of House Joint 
        Resolution 199, a public resolution which has remained in the 
        Committee on the Judiciary for 30 or more days without action. 
        That such special order be, and is hereby, created, 
        notwithstanding any further action on said joint resolution by 
        the Committee on the Judiciary or any rule of the House. That 
        on said day the Speaker shall recognize the Representative from 
        Indiana, Louis Ludlow, to call up House Joint Resolution 199, a 
        joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of 
        the United States to provide for a referendum on war, as a 
        special order of business, and to move that the House resolve 
        itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
        the Union for the consideration of said House Joint Resolution 
        199. After general debate, which shall be confined to the joint 
        resolution and shall continue not to exceed 6 hours, to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the Member of the House 
        requesting the rule for the consideration of said House Joint 
        Resolution 199 and the Member of the House who is opposed to 
        the said House Joint Resolution 199, to be designated by the 
        Speaker, the joint resolution shall be read for amendment under 
        the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the 
        joint resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise and 
        report the joint resolution to the House with such amendments 
        as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the joint resolution and the 
        amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, 
        except one motion to recommit. The special order shall be a 
        continuing order until the joint resolution is finally disposed 
        of. . . .

        The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Indiana [Mr. Ludlow] to discharge the Committee on Rules from 
    further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 165).
        The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    seemed to have it.
        Mr. LUDLOW. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 188, nays 209, 
    answered ``present'' 4, not voting, 30[.] . . .
        So the motion was rejected.

Sec. 4.13 After the requisite 218 Members have signed a petition to 
    discharge the Committee on Rules from consideration of a special 
    order-of-business resolution providing for consideration of a joint 
    resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution but before 
    the call of the Discharge Calendar, the House may consider the 
    resolution by unanimous consent.

[[Page 32]]

    On May 20, 1992,(1) a motion to discharge the Committee 
on Rules from further consideration of a resolution providing for 
consideration of a joint resolution proposing a constitutional 
amendment received the requisite number of signatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 138 Cong. Rec. 12222, 12223, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion was as follows:

                        Motion to Discharge a Committee

                                                      May 20, 1992

                       To the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

        Pursuant to clause 4, rule XXVII, I, Charles W. Stenholm, move 
    to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the 
    resolution (H. Res. 450) providing for the consideration of the 
    joint resolution (H.J. Res. 290) proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the United States 
    Government and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax 
    legislation, which was referred to said committee May 6, 1992, in 
    support of which motion the undersigned Members of the House of 
    Representatives affix their signatures, to wit:
        1. Charles W. Stenholm.
        2. Robert F. (Bob) Smith. . . .

        217. Jim Chapman.
        218. Timothy J. Penny.

    Before the motion to discharge became eligible to be called up on a 
day when such business was in order,(2) the House, by 
unanimous consent, dispensed with such business and provided for 
consideration of the resolution under terms similar to those specified 
in the discharge petition.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Under former Rule XXVII clause 3 (current Rule XV clause 2), 
        discharge petitions that have received 218 signatures and have 
        laid over on the calendar of motions to discharge for seven 
        legislative days may be called up on the second or fourth 
        Mondays of each month. House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2007).
 3. 138 Cong. Rec. 13617, 13618, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The unanimous-consent request for such consideration was as 
follows:

        Mr. [Richard] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the business in order pursuant to clause 3 
    of rule XXVII on Monday, June 8, 1992, be dispensed with, and that 
    it be in order on Wednesday, June 10, 1992, for Representative 
    Stenholm or his designee, to call up House Resolution 450 for 
    consideration under the same terms as if discharged from the 
    Committee on Rules pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXVII.
        Further, I ask unanimous consent that the period of general 
    debate provided for in House Resolution 450, if adopted, be 
    expanded to 9 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by 
    Representative Brooks of Texas, Representative Fish of New York, 
    and Representative Stenholm of Texas, or their designees.
        The SPEAKER pro tempore.(4) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Allen B. Swift (WA).

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

[[Page 33]]

         Mr. [Charles] STENHOLM [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, it is not my intent to object. I would like to ask 
    the majority leader if I am correct in my understanding that this 
    unanimous-consent agreement will allow for the consideration of the 
    leading balanced budget constitutional amendment under the rule, 
    House Resolution 450, exactly as outlined in House Resolution 450, 
    the rule discharged on May 20, with two exceptions:
        No. 1, the general debate will be increased to 9 hours, with 
    the division of time maintained proportionally as it is in House 
    Resolution 450; and No. 2, consideration of this matter will begin 
    on Wednesday, June 10, rather than the discharge day of Monday, 
    June 8.
        Would the gentleman please confirm this understanding?
        Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
        Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Missouri?
        There was no objection.

    On June 10, 1992, the House proceeded to consider both the special 
order-of-business resolution and the joint resolution proposing the 
constitutional amendment.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Proceedings carried at Sec. 4.7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.14 After the requisite 218 Members sign a petition to discharge 
    the Committee on Rules from further consideration of a special 
    order-of-business resolution providing for consideration of a joint 
    resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution but before 
    the call of the Discharge Calendar, that committee may report 
    another special order-of-business resolution providing for 
    consideration of the subject joint resolution and laying on the 
    table the special order-of-business resolution that is the object 
    of the motion to discharge.

     On Sept. 29, 1982,(1) Discharge Petition 18, 
petitioning for discharge of the Committee on Rules from further 
consideration of House Resolution 450, received the requisite number of 
signatures for placement on the Discharge Calendar. The petition was as 
follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 128 Cong. Rec. 26127, 26128, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               September 29, 1982.

                       To the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

        Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVII, I, Barber B. Conable, Jr., 
    [of New York] move to discharge the Committee on Rules from the 
    consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 450) entitled,

[[Page 34]]

    ``A resolution providing for the consideration of the resolution 
    (H.J. Res. 350) proposing an amendment to the Constitution altering 
    Federal budget procedures'' which was referred to said committee 
    May 4, 1982, in support of which motion the undersigned Members of 
    the House of Representatives affix their signatures, to wit:
          1. Barber B. Conable, Jr. . . .

        218. Charles Pashayan.

    House Resolution 450, a resolution providing for the consideration 
of the resolution (H.J. Res. 350) proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution altering Federal budget processes, had been introduced by 
Mr. Conable on May 4, 1982, and referred to the Committee on 
Rules.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 128 Cong. Rec. 8659, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having received the requisite number of signatures, the motion to 
discharge was placed on the Discharge Calendar on Sept. 29, 
1982.(3) However, under Rule XXVII clause 4(4) 
the motion could not be called up until the second or fourth Monday of 
the month after having been on that calendar for at least seven days. 
Because of a planned adjournment for the November 1982 congressional 
election, the motion would not have been eligible to be called up until 
after the election. Because the subject of the proposed constitutional 
amendment, the so-called ``Balanced Budget Amendment,'' was a matter of 
significant public interest and there was concern that the President 
might call Congress back into session to force a vote on the matter 
before the election, the Committee on Rules reported a special order-
of-business resolution allowing for consideration of the proposed 
constitutional amendment before the planned adjournment but on terms 
different from those provided in House Resolution 450, the object of 
the discharge petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Id. at pp. 26127, 26128.
 4. Now Rule XV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 1, 1982,(5) the House considered House 
Resolution 604, which (1) provided for consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 350, and (2) laid on the table House Resolution 450, the 
object of the discharge petition.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 27172, 27178, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. The text of H. Res. 604 is set forth in Sec. 4.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Amendment Process

Sec. 4.15 A motion to recommit a bill reported by one committee with 
    instructions to report the bill back to the House in the form of a 
    joint resolution proposing to

[[Page 35]]

    amend the Constitution to accomplish the purpose of the bill was 
    held not in order on the ground that the instructions were not 
    germane, inasmuch as a constitutional amendment would lie within 
    the jurisdiction of another committee.

    On July 26, 1949,(1) the House was considering H.R. 
3199, making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll tax. 
The bill had been reported by the Committee on House Administration. A 
motion was offered to recommit the bill to that committee with 
instructions that would have converted the bill into a joint resolution 
proposing to amend the Constitution. A point of order was made against 
the motion. The Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the motion 
was not in order as the instructions were not germane as such 
instructions addressed matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 10247, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. See also Ch. 28, 
        Sec. 23.8, supra. In addition, when a proposed constitutional 
        amendment concerning one subject is under consideration, an 
        amendment to address another subject is not in order under 
        House Rule XVI clause 7 House Rules and Manual Sec. 928 (2007) 
        (the ``germaneness rule''). See, e.g., 151 Cong. Rec. 13538-42, 
        109th Cong. 1st Sess., June 22, 2005 (amendments regarding the 
        budget of the United States Government and a Social Security 
        trust fund offered to a proposed constitutional amendment 
        regarding physical desecration of the flag); 117 Cong. Rec. 
        35813, 35814, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 12, 1971 (amendment 
        proposing to add ``race, creed or color'' to a proposed 
        constitutional amendment regarding equality of rights on 
        account of sex).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings in the House were as follows:

        Mr. [Robert] HALE [of Maine]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. HALE. I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hale moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3199 to the 
        Committee on House Administration with directions that they 
        report the legislation back to the House in the form of a joint 
        resolution amending the Constitution to make illegal payment of 
        poll taxes as a qualification for voting.

        Mr. [Vito] MARCANTONIO [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. MARCANTONIO. I make the point of order that the language 
    which is carried in the motion to recommit is not germane to the 
    bill. The motion calls for a constitutional amendment.
        The SPEAKER. The Chair is inclined to agree with the gentleman 
    for the simple reason that a constitutional

[[Page 36]]

    amendment involving this question would lie within the jurisdiction 
    of the Committee on the Judiciary and not within the Committee on 
    House Administration.(2) The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For discussion of committee jurisdiction, see Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.16 Where a joint resolution is under consideration in the House 
    and the Member controlling the time yields to another Member for 
    the purpose of amendment, a third Member seeking to move the 
    previous question on the joint resolution is entitled to 
    recognition for that purpose in preference to the Member seeking to 
    offer the amendment.

    On Nov. 8, 1971,(1) the House, pursuant to a motion to 
discharge, was considering in the House the joint resolution, House 
Joint Resolution 191, proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
relative to nondenominational prayer in public buildings. The manager, 
Chalmers P. Wylie, of Ohio, yielded to another Member for the purpose 
of offering an amendment, whereupon Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
moved the previous question on the joint resolution. Because the motion 
for the previous question is preferential to the motion to amend, the 
Speaker(2) first recognized Mr. Celler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 117 Cong. Rec. 39945, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

         Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama 
    (Mr. Buchanan) for the purpose of offering an amendment.
        Mr. [John] BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the 
    desk.
        The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman realize he will lose control of 
    the time?
        Mr. WYLIE. The gentleman realizes he loses control of the time. 
    I do yield to the gentleman from Alabama for the purpose of 
    offering an amendment.
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman has yielded the floor.

                          motion offered by mr. celler

        Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on House 
    Joint Resolution 191.
        The SPEAKER. The motion is completely and highly privileged and 
    is in order.

                             parliamentary inquiry

        Mr. [Gerald R.] FORD [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is 
    voted down, does that permit the offering of an amendment by the 
    gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Buchanan)?
        The SPEAKER. If it is voted down, any proper motion can be 
    made.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Celler).

[[Page 37]]

        The motion was rejected.

                       amendment offered by mr. buchanan

        Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Buchanan: Page 2, lines 1 and 2, 
        strike out the word ``nondenominational'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof the word ``voluntary''; and on page 2, line 2, strike 
        out the period and add the words ``or 
        meditation.''(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. The House adopted the amendment offered by Mr. Buchanan and then 
        rejected the joint resolution. 117 Cong. Rec. 39945, 39957, 
        39958, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 8, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.17 When the resolving clause of a joint resolution proposing an 
    amendment to the Constitution is not in the requisite form, an 
    amendment offered from the floor included a correction to the 
    resolving clause.

    On June 11, 1992,(1) the House proceeded to consider a 
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to 
providing for a balanced budget. The resolving clause of the resolution 
was not in the requisite form.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 138 Cong. Rec. 14392, 14393, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. The form for the resolving clause of joint resolutions is set forth 
        in section 102 of title 1, United States Code. By usage, the 
        resolving clause for a joint resolution proposing an amendment 
        to the Constitution includes a parenthetical statement as 
        follows: ``(two-thirds of each House concurring therein).'' See 
        Sec. 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

          proposing an amendment to the constitution to provide for a 
                                balanced budget

        The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty).(3) Pursuant 
    to House Resolution 450, the Chair declares the House in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 290).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Michael R. McNulty (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         in the committee of the whole

        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the joint resolution, (H.J. Res. 290) proposing an 
    amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for 
    the United States Government and for greater accountability in the 
    enactment of tax legislation, with Mr. [Raymond] Thornton [Jr., of 
    Arkansas] in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
    Wednesday, June 10, 1992, all time for general debate had expired.
        Without objection, the joint resolution is considered as having 
    been read under the 5-minute rule.
        There was no objection.
        The text of House Joint Resolution 290 is as follows:

[[Page 38]]

                                 H.J. Res. 290

        Resolved [sic],

                                   Article--.

            Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress and the 
        President shall agree on an estimate of total receipts for the 
        fiscal year by enactment of a law devoted solely to that 
        subject. Total outlays for that year shall not exceed the level 
        of estimated receipts set forth in such law, unless three-
        fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
        provide, by a rollcall vote, for a specific excess of outlays 
        over estimated receipts. . . .

        The CHAIRMAN. No amendments to the joint resolution are in 
    order except the following amendments, which shall be considered 
    only in the following order, which shall not be subject to 
    amendment, and which shall be debatable for 60 minutes, equally 
    divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the 
    amendment:
        First, an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] or his designee; . . .
        Fifth, an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] or his designee[.]

    The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Charles 
W. Stenholm, of Texas, included a correction to the form of the 
resolving clause and added, before the text of the proposed amendment 
itself, the customary text proposing the matter to the 
States.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The form of the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
        Mr. Stenholm differed from that typically used in the case of 
        an amendment in the nature of a substitute in that it did not 
        propose to ``strike all after the resolving clause'' and insert 
        new text. Rather, in this case, the amendment proposed to 
        ``strike all after the word `Resolved' '' and insert new text. 
        That formulation allowed for the addition of new text as part 
        of (and at the end of) the resolving clause. 138 Cong. Rec. 
        14435, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. stenholm

        Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Stenholm: Strike all after the word ``Resolved'' and insert the 
        following:
        by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
        of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
        concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as 
        an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which 
        shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the 
        Constitution if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths 
        of the several States within seven years after its submission 
        to the States for ratification:

                                  ``Article--

            ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
        exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths 
        of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by 
        law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a 
        rollcall vote. . . .

        The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr.

[[Page 39]]

    Stenholm] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed, 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Panetta], the chairman of the 
    Committee on the Budget, will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].