[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 17, Chapters 34 - 40]
[Ch. 34. Constitutional Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments



[[Page 1]]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by Wm. Holmes Brown, J.D., Ethan Lauer, 
J.D., Robert W. Cover, J.D., and Andrew S. Neal, J.D.; manuscript 
editing by Deborah Woodard Khalili.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 A. Introduction

   Sec. 1. In General
   Sec. 2. Form of Action

 B. House Consideration

   Sec. 3. Committee Jurisdiction
   Sec. 4. Procedures for Floor Consideration
   Sec. 5. Voting

 C. Senate Consideration; House-Senate Relations

   Sec. 6. Senate Consideration
   Sec. 7. Conference Reports
   Sec. 8. Amendments Between the Houses

 D. Ratification

   Sec. 9. Generally; Certification and Publication
   Sec. 10. Submission to the States; Records of Ratification
   Sec. 11. State Consent; Withdrawal and Rescission of Withdrawal
   Sec. 12. Time Limits on Ratification





[[Page 3]]

                  

[Page 3]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
                            A. Introduction
 
Sec. 1. In General



    Article V of the Constitution provides as follows:
    ``The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it 
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the 
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, 
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either 
Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this 
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the 
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one 
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; . . 
.''
    It is thus that the Constitution provides the methods by which that 
governing document may be amended.
    Although States have from time to time submitted memorials 
requesting a constitutional convention for the purpose of discussing 
amendments on specified subject matters,(1) no convention 
has been held under Article V. This chapter therefore focuses on 
precedents regarding proposed constitutional amendments originating in 
the Congress.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, e.g. , 147 Cong. Rec. 6129, 107th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24, 
        2001. Some States have submitted memorials rescinding prior 
        applications for conventions. See, e.g. , 149 Cong. Rec. 11131, 
        108th Cong. 1st Sess., May 9, 2003 (memorial from Arizona 
        rescinding all of the State's previous calls for a 
        constitutional convention); 135 Cong. Rec. 19782, 101st Cong. 
        1st Sess., Sept. 7, 1989 (memorial from Alabama rescinding a 
        previous call for a constitutional convention to propose an 
        amendment requiring that Federal spending not exceed estimated 
        Federal revenues). See also 145 Cong. Rec. 18782, 106th Cong. 
        1st Sess., July 30, 1999 (memorial from Oregon urging Congress 
        to disregard calls for a constitutional convention on the 
        subject of a balanced Federal budget out of concern that such a 
        convention might intrude into other constitutional revisions).
 2. For discussion in the House on the method of amending the 
        Constitution by convention, see 76 Cong. Rec. 124-134, 72d 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 7, 1932. See also hearing of the 
        Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 
        Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
        to Provide a Procedure by which the States may Propose 
        Constitutional Amendments, Mar. 25, 1998 (regarding H.J. Res. 
        84, 105th Congress).

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

[[Page 4]]



[Page 4]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
                            A. Introduction
 
Sec. 2. Form of Action

    Proposals originating in the Congress for amendments to the 
Constitution are made in the form of joint resolutions, which have 
their several readings and, if passed by both Houses, are enrolled and 
signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses but are not 
presented to the President for approval.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 191 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The form of the resolving clause for such a joint resolution is 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),

    This adheres to the form for the resolving clause for all joint 
resolutions(2) with the addition of the parenthetical phrase 
relating to the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds margin in 
each House for passage of such a joint resolution, which has been 
included in all joint resolutions proposing constitutional amendments 
that have been ratified.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 1 USC Sec. 102.
 3. See, e.g., H.J. Res. 27 of the 80th Congress, which became the 22d 
        Amendment, the resolving clause of which is set out at 93 Cong. 
        Rec. 863, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 6, 1947; S.J. Res 39 of 
        the 86th Congress, which became the 23d Amendment, the 
        resolving clause of which is set out at 106 Cong. Rec. 1257, 
        86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 14, 1960; S.J. Res. 29 of the 87th 
        Congress, which became the 24th Amendment, the resolving clause 
        of which is set out at 108 Cong. Rec. 17655, 87th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 27, 1962; S.J. Res. 1 of the 89th Congress, which 
        became the 25th Amendment, the resolving clause of which is set 
        out at 111 Cong. Rec. 7969, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 
        1965; and S.J. Res. 7 of the 92d Congress, which became the 
        26th Amendment, the resolving clause of which is set out at 111 
        Cong. Rec. 7570, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1971.

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

[[Page 5]]



[Page 5-6]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
                         B. House Consideration
 
Sec. 3. Committee Jurisdiction


    Under Rule X clause 1,(1) jurisdiction in the House of 
Representatives over joint resolutions proposing amendments to the 
Constitution is vested in the Committee on the Judiciary. That 
jurisdiction was established by the amendments to the standing rules of 
the House made by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946.(2) Before the revisions to House committee 
jurisdiction made by that law, other committees had exercised 
jurisdiction over joint resolutions proposing amendments to the 
Constitution,(3) and the House on occasion had changed the 
referral of such a resolution from another committee to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (2007).
 2. 60 Stat. 812, 818, ch. 753, Aug. 2, 1946.
 3. See Sec. 3.1, infra. See also 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4247 (former 
        Committee on Labor reported a resolution in 1884 proposing an 
        amendment to the Constitution limiting the hours of labor).
 4. In 1900, and again in 1932, the House, by unanimous consent, 
        rereferred a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
        Constitution addressing taxation from the Committee on Ways and 
        Means to the Committee on the Judiciary. See 4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 4056; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1780.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent practice, jurisdiction in the House over joint 
resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution has been vested 
solely in the Committee on the Judiciary.(5) That committee 
also has jurisdiction over memorials from States either requesting the 
calling of a constitutional convention or for the rescinding of such a 
request.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 3.2, infra.
 6. See examples in footnote 1 of Sec. 1, supra.  
        -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.1 Proposed amendment regarding elections and terms of office 
    referred to former Committee on Election of the President, Vice 
    President, and Representatives in Congress.

    On Mar. 29, 1933,(1) the Speaker referred to the 
Committee on

[[Page 6]]

Election of the President, Vice President, and Representatives in 
Congress a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
relating to the election of the President and Vice President. That 
committee reported the joint resolution to the House with an amendment 
on June 13, 1933.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Jour. p. 122 (1933). The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 
        abolished the Committee on Election of the President, Vice 
        President, and Representatives in Congress and vested the 
        jurisdiction of that committee in the new Committee on House 
        Administration. 60 Stat. 812, 818, ch. 753, Aug. 2, 1946.
 2. H.J. Res. 136 of the 73d Congress. See H. Jour. p. 421 (1933).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.2 In recent practice, all joint resolutions proposing amendments 
    to the Constitution have been referred to the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.

    The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 reduced the number of 
standing committees of the House from 48 to 19 and consolidated and 
further delineated their jurisdiction. In so doing, the House made 
express the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary over the 
subject matter of constitutional amendments.
    Before 1946, Rule XI [now Rule X] read, in relevant part, as 
follows:

                        powers and duties of committees.

        All proposed legislation shall be referred to the committees 
    named in the preceding rule, as follows, viz, subjects relating . . 
    .
        4. To judicial proceedings, civil and criminal law--to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 675, 680 (1945).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the House Rules and Manual (1945), the annotations to that rule 
included the following: ``The committee [on the Judiciary] also has 
general but not exclusive jurisdiction over joint resolutions proposing 
amendments to the Constitution.''(2) Thus it was that most 
but not all joint resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution 
were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id.  at Sec. 680. See also 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 121(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946(3) amended Rule XI [now Rule X] to read, in relevant 
part, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 60 Stat. 812, 818, ch. 753 (Aug. 2, 1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Powers and Duties of Committees

        (1) All proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, 
    and other matters relating to the subjects listed under the 
    standing committees named below shall be referred to such 
    committees, respectively . . .
        (l) Committee on the Judiciary.
            1. Judicial Proceedings, civil and criminal, generally.
            2. Constitutional amendments.
            3. Federal courts and judges.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The practice since the enactment of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 has been to recognize sole 
jurisdiction in the Committee on the Judiciary over matters relating to 
amendments to the Constitution, regardless of the subject matter of a 
proposed amendment.

[[Page 7]]



[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].

                     

[Page 39-41]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
                         B. House Consideration
 
Sec. 5. Voting

    Under Article V of the Constitution, passage of a joint resolution 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds 
majority of each House.(1) Such a joint resolution may be 
passed by each House only with a quorum present. During consideration 
of such a joint resolution by either House, only a simple majority (not 
a two-thirds majority) is required for adoption of an amendment to the 
joint resolution, including an amendment to the text of the proposed 
amendment to the Constitution itself. The Chair puts the question on 
final passage of such a joint resolution first to a voice vote, as the 
yeas and nays are not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The relevant portion of Article V reads as follows: ``The Congress, 
        whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, 
        shall propose Amendments to this Constitution. . . 
        .''                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vote Required on Final Passage

Sec. 5.1 The vote required in the House for adoption of a joint 
    resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution is two-thirds 
    of those Members present and voting, a quorum being present, and 
    not two-thirds of the total membership.

    On Sept. 18, 1969,(1) the House was considering House 
Joint Resolution 681, proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
relating to the election of the President and Vice President. After 
consideration was completed, the Speaker(2) put the question 
on passage. The Speaker then responded to parliamentary inquiries as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 26007, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the joint 
    resolution.

                            parliamentary inquiries

        Mr. [Durward] Hall [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, in view of article V of the 
    Constitution, am I correct in my calculation that it requires 289 
    Members voting for passage?
        The SPEAKER. The answer to the gentleman's parliamentary 
    inquiry is

[[Page 40]]

    that it requires two-thirds of the Members present and voting 
    thereon, a quorum being present.
        Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, is this consistent with article V which 
    says:

            The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem 
        it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.

        Would that be two-thirds of the total membership or two-thirds 
    of those present and voting?
        The SPEAKER. In accordance with the precedents of the 
    House(2) and decisions of the Supreme 
    Court,(3) it requires two-thirds of those present and 
    voting thereon, a quorum being present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See, e.g., 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 7027, 7029, 7030 and 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3503.
 3. See, e.g., National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair's response to the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry 
    is that it requires two thirds of those present and voting thereon, 
    a quorum being present.
        The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.

Sec. 5.2 A two-thirds vote is required to pass a joint resolution 
    proposing an amendment to the Constitution when the joint 
    resolution is considered under the discharge process.

    On Dec. 14, 1937,(1) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, stated that the 
requirement for a two-thirds vote to pass a joint resolution proposing 
a constitutional amendment applied even when the joint resolution was 
the object of a successful discharge petition. The proceedings are 
discussed in Sec. 4.12, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 82 Cong. Rec. 1517, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vote Required to Amend Joint Resolution

Sec. 5.3 An amendment to a joint resolution proposing an amendment to 
    the Constitution is adopted by a majority vote.

    On Feb. 24, 1931,(1) the House was considering House 
Joint Resolution 292, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution addressing the assembly of Congress. The 
Speaker,(2) in response to a parliamentary inquiry, stated 
that only a majority of the House (and not two-thirds) was required to 
adopt an amendment to the joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 74 Cong. Rec. 5906, 71st Cong. 3d Sess. See also 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 7031 (point of order) and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 3504 (parliamentary inquiry).
 2. Nicholas Longworth (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER. The previous question is ordered under the rule.

[[Page 41]]

        The question is on the amendment.
        Mr. [Lamar] Jeffers [of Alabama] and Mr. [Charles] Crisp [of 
    Georgia] demanded the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. [John] KETCHAM [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. KETCHAM. Will the Chair please advise the Members by what 
    majority the amendment would have to carry? Is a two-thirds 
    majority necessary?
        The SPEAKER. No; a majority is only necessary on an amendment.

Yeas and Nays Not Required

Sec. 5.4 The yeas and nays are not required on the question of passing 
    a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.

    On Mar. 9, 1928,(1) the Speaker, Nicholas Longworth, of 
Ohio, responded to an inquiry by Mr. John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, as 
to whether the yeas and nays were required on joint resolutions 
proposing amendments to the Constitution, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 70 Cong. Rec. 4430, 70th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 7038, 7039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER. There is no rule which provides for a yea-and-nay 
    vote, and the Chair will quote from the Manual, section 
    224:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Now House Rules and Manual Sec. 192 (2007) (``The yeas and nays are 
        not required to pass a joint resolution proposing to amend the 
        Constitution. . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Ayes and nays not required to pass a resolution amending 
        the Constitution

        The question is on the passage of the resolution.

[[Page 42]]

                       

[Page 42-45]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
            C. Senate Consideration; House-Senate Relations
 
Sec. 6. Senate Consideration


    In the Senate, as in the House, although only a simple majority 
vote is required to amend a joint resolution proposing a constitutional 
amendment, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage. The 
Senate has converted, by amendment, a legislative joint resolution into 
a proposed constitutional amendment (such a resulting joint resolution 
requiring a two-thirds vote for passage). In addition, the Senate has 
entertained, to a joint resolution proposing a constitutional 
amendment, amendments to achieve a legislative purpose 
instead.                          -------------------

Vote Required for Passage

Sec. 6.1 The vote required in the Senate for passage of a joint 
    resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution is two-thirds 
    of those present and voting, a quorum being present, and not two-
    thirds of the total membership.

    The vote required in the Senate is the same as that required in the 
House,(1) as the proceedings of Feb. 26, 1869,(2) 
illustrate. On that day, the Senate concluded consideration of a 
conference report on a joint resolution proposing a constitutional 
amendment regarding suffrage. The proceedings relating to the 
announcement of the outcome of the vote were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 5.1, supra.
 2. 41 Cong. Globe 1641, 1642, 40th Cong. 3d Sess. This precedent is 
        also carried at 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The PRESIDENT pro tempore.(3) The question is on 
    concurring in the report of the committee; and on this question the 
    yeas and nays must be called.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Benjamin F. Wade (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question being taken by yeas and nays resulted--yeas 39, 
    nays 13; as follows: . . .
        The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this question the yeas are 39, 
    and the nays are 13. Two thirds of the Senators present having 
    voted in the affirmative, the report is agreed to.
        Mr. [George H.] WILLIAMS [of Oregon] obtained the floor.
        Mr. [Garrett] DAVIS [of Kentucky]. I rise to a question of 
    order. I ask the Chair what the number of votes was announced to 
    be.
        The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas were 39, and the nays were 
    13; being two thirds.
        Mr. DAVIS. The question of order that I make is that the 
    decision of this question has not been announced by the Chair 
    according to the Constitution. The Chair has announced that

[[Page 43]]

    the proposition has received the vote of two thirds of the Senate, 
    and therefore that it has passed. I controvert that fact. There are 
    now thirty-seven States in the Union. They are entitled to seventy-
    four members of the Senate.
        Mr. [James W.] NYE [of Nevada]. The honorable Senator will 
    allow me to correct him. The Chair did not make the announcement 
    that the honorable Senator says he did. He said it received two 
    thirds of the votes of all the members present. That was the 
    announcement by the Chair. . . .
        The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair desires the Senator to 
    understand what the Chair said in the announcement of the vote. It 
    was that two thirds of the Senators present had voted in the 
    affirmative. That is the way in which it was announced by the 
    Chair.
        Mr. DAVIS. But then the conclusion was--
        The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That the report was concurred in.
        Mr. DAVIS. That is just as I understood it. Now, the conclusion 
    does not follow the vote which the Chair announced, because the 
    Senate consists of seventy-four members, and to constitute two 
    thirds of the Senate a vote of fifty is necessary. My point of 
    order is, that when a less number than two thirds of the Senate is 
    required by the Constitution for any purpose, for instance to 
    ratify a treaty or to confirm a nomination, the Constitution 
    expressly says that it shall be two thirds of the members present. 
    In voting upon a proposition to amend the Constitution, the 
    Constitution does not limit the number of two thirds by reciting 
    that it is two thirds of the members present. . . .
        Mr. [Lyman] TRUMBULL [of Illinois]. If the Chair will indulge 
    me a moment, this very point was raised in regard to a 
    constitutional amendment some years ago, and the Senate decided by 
    a vote, almost unanimously, that two thirds of the Senators present 
    were sufficient to carry a constitutional amendment. I think that 
    the Presiding Officer upon reflection will recollect it. It was the 
    constitutional amendment that was proposed before the war. I myself 
    made the point for the purpose of having it decided, and it was 
    decided, I think by a nearly unanimous vote, that two thirds of the 
    Senators present, a quorum being present, was sufficient to carry a 
    constitutional amendment. . . .
        Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask for a decision on the question of order.
        The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I believe it has been decided 
    according to all the precedents. . . .

Vote Required to Amend Joint Resolution

Sec. 6.2 In the Senate, when a joint resolution proposing an amendment 
    to the Constitution is under consideration, an amendment to the 
    joint resolution is adopted by a majority vote.

    On Oct. 2, 1970,(1) the Presiding Officer of the 
Senate,(2) in response to parliamentary inquiries, advised 
the Senate of the vote required to adopt amendments, or

[[Page 44]]

amendments thereto, to joint resolutions proposing constitutional 
amendments. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 34755, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Clifford P. Hansen (WY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard H.] BAKER [Jr., of Tennessee]. A further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
        Mr. BAKER. Do I correctly understand that the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute now proposed by the distinguished Senator 
    from North Carolina could be adopted as a substitute by a simple 
    majority vote, and not require a two-thirds vote?
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is right.
        Mr. BAKER. And by that same token, a new substitute to the 
    resolution itself, striking the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, could also be adopted by a majority vote?
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. Any amendment to the substitute of the 
    pending resolution could be adopted by a simple majority vote.

Vote Required When Joint Resolution Proposing Legislation is Pending

Sec. 6.3 In the Senate, a joint resolution that is legislative in 
    nature may be amended by majority vote to convert the joint 
    resolution into one proposing an amendment to the Constitution. 
    Upon adoption of such an amendment, a two-thirds vote is required 
    for passage of the joint resolution.

    On Mar. 27, 1962,(1) when the Senate was considering 
Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing a national monument, Mr. Spessard 
L. Holland, of Florida, offered an amendment that would propose a 
constitutional amendment instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 5072-106, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         the alexander hamilton national monument -- amendment to the 
                      constitution dealing with poll taxes

        The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. 
    Res. 29) providing for the establishing of the former dwelling 
    house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.
        Mr. [Mike] MANSFIELD [of Montana]. Mr. President, what is the 
    pending question?
        The VICE PRESIDENT.(2) The question is on agreeing 
    to the amendment of the Senator from Florida [Mr. Holland], 
    striking out all after the resolving clause, as amended, of Senate 
    Joint Resolution 29, and inserting in lieu thereof certain other 
    words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Lyndon B. Johnson (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. MANSFIELD. This is a proposed constitutional amendment 
    seeking to abolish the poll tax in the several States, is it?

    Before putting the question to the Senate on a point of order 
against the Holland amendment based on constitutional grounds,

[[Page 45]]

the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning the vote 
required to adopt the Holland amendment.

        Mr. [Carl T.] CURTIS [of Nebraska]. If the resolution were to 
    be amended by the Holland amendment, it has been stated it would 
    require a two-thirds vote for passage. My question is, Will it 
    require a two-thirds vote to adopt the Holland amendment to Senate 
    Joint Resolution 29?
        The VICE PRESIDENT. Only a majority vote is required in acting 
    upon an amendment.

    After the Senate tabled the point of order and the Holland 
amendment was adopted, the Senate voted on passage of the amended joint 
resolution.

        The PRESIDING OFFICER.(3) The joint resolution 
    having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? On 
    this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
    will call the roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Lee Metcalf (MT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chief Clerk called the roll. . . .
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two-thirds of the Senators present and 
    voting having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution is 
    passed.

Yeas and Nays Not Required

Sec. 6.4 The yeas and nays are not required in the Senate on the 
    question of passing a joint resolution proposing an amendment to 
    the Constitution.

    On June 27, 2006,(1) the Senate ordered the yeas and 
nays on Senate Joint Resolution 12, proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution regarding physical desecration of the flag, as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 152 Cong. Rec. 12654, 109th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The PRESIDING OFFICER.(2) The question is on the 
    engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Lamar Alexander (TN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third 
    reading and was read the third time.
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read 
    the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution, as 
    amended, pass?
        Mr. [Orrin G.] HATCH [of Utah]. I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
        There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.


                        

[Page 45-46]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
            C. Senate Consideration; House-Senate Relations
 
Sec. 7. Conference Reports

    Differences between the two Houses on a joint resolution proposing 
a constitutional amendment may be committed to a committee of 
conference,(1) the report thereof requiring a two-thirds 
vote for adoption.(2) As with the vote on initial passage of 
the joint resolution,(3) the yeas and nays are

[[Page 46]]

not required on the vote on adopting the conference report in the 
House.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7037.
 2. Id. at Sec. 7036.
 3. See Sec. 5.4, supra.
 4. See, e.g., 111 Cong. Rec. 15212-16, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 
        1965. The same is true in the Senate, although on one occasion, 
        upon putting the question on agreeing to a conference report 
        proposing an amendment to the Constitution, the Presiding 
        Officer announced that the ``yeas and nays must be called.'' 41 
        Cong. Globe 1638, 1641, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 26, 1869 
        (proceedings carried in Sec. 6.1, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      

[Page 46-48]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
            C. Senate Consideration; House-Senate Relations
 
Sec. 8. Amendments Between the Houses

    When one House has passed a joint resolution proposing a 
constitutional amendment and has transmitted it to the other House, the 
House receiving the joint resolution may adopt amendments by a simple 
majority vote, but a two-thirds vote is required for 
passage.(1) If one House passes with amendments such a joint 
resolution that originated in the other House, a two-thirds vote is 
required in the House in which the joint resolution originated in order 
to concur in the amendments of the other House.(2) In the 
rare case where one House amends and passes a joint resolution of the 
other House by a two-thirds vote and then recedes from that amendment 
by a simple majority vote, the joint resolution is not considered as 
having been passed.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 8.1, infra.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 8.2, 8.3, infra.
 3. See 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 7035.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.1 Vote required to adopt an amendment before passage of other 
    House's joint resolution.

    On Apr. 13, 1965,(1) the House agreed to an amendment to 
a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that had 
originated in the Senate. The amendment was adopted by a simple 
majority vote and the Senate joint resolution, as amended, was then 
passed by the requisite two-thirds vote. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 7969, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the Senate joint resolution, as 
    follows:

                                S.J. Res. 1

        Joint resolution 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[.] . . .

        The SPEAKER.(2) The Clerk will report the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (MA).

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

[[Page 47]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: 
        ``Strike out all after the resolving clause of Senate Joint 
        Resolution 1 and insert the provisions of House Joint 
        Resolution 1, as passed by the House.''

        The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The SPEAKER. The question is on the third reading of the Senate 
    joint resolution.
        The Senate joint resolution was ordered to be read a third 
    time, and was read the third time.
        The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the Senate joint 
    resolution.
        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the Senate joint resolution was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        A similar joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) was laid on the table.

Sec.  8.2 A two-thirds vote is required in the House to adopt a motion 
    that the House concur in Senate amendments to a House joint 
    resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.

    On Mar. 21, 1947,(1) the House concurred in Senate 
amendments to House Joint Resolution 27, proposing a constitutional 
amendment regarding the term of office of the President of the United 
States, by a two-thirds vote. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 2389, 2392, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl] MICHENER [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, I ask the 
    Speaker to lay before the House for immediate consideration House 
    Joint Resolution 27, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to 
    the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of 
    office of the President, with Senate amendments.
        The SPEAKER.(2) The Clerk will report the title of 
    the joint resolution and the Senate amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendments[.] . . .
        Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, this bill with the Senate amendment 
    was returned to the House on March 13. It was taken informally 
    before the full Committee on the Judiciary, and I am instructed by 
    that committee to call the resolution up at this time for the 
    purpose of agreeing to the Senate amendment. I have followed 
    precedent and cleared through the majority leader and the minority 
    leader.
        I therefore move that the House concur in the Senate amendment.
        The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Michener moves that the House concur in the Senate 
        amendment.

        The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 1 
    hour. . . .
        Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

[[Page 48]]

        The previous question was ordered.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    [Robert] Thomason [of Texas]) there were--ayes 81, noes 29.
        Mr. [Aime J.] FORAND [of Rhode Island]. Mr. Speaker, I object 
    to the vote on the ground a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The SPEAKER. The Chair will count.
        Mr. FORAND. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of order.
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the Senate 
    amendments were concurred in.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 8.3 A two-thirds vote is required in the Senate to adopt a motion 
    that the Senate concur in House amendments to a Senate joint 
    resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.

    On Dec. 18, 1917,(1) the Senate had under consideration 
Senate Joint Resolution 17, proposing a constitutional amendment 
prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating 
liquors, with House amendments thereto. After a motion was made that 
the Senate concur in the House amendments, Mr. William E. Borah, of 
Idaho, asked as a parliamentary inquiry whether a two-thirds vote was 
required to agree to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 56 Cong. Rec. 477, 65th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 
        12850-58, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The VICE PRESIDENT.(2) That is the opinion of the 
    Chair. It is the view of the Chair that an amendment to a 
    resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
    States needs only a majority in order to be adopted; but the 
    resolution having once been adopted by the Senate and gone to the 
    House and returned here for the final action of the Senate, it is 
    necessary to have a two-thirds vote on the amendments of the House, 
    for this constitutes the final passage of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas R. Marshall (IN).

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

[[Page 49]]

                        

[Page 49-50]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
                            D. Ratification
 
Sec. 9. Generally; Certification and Publication


    Unlike a joint resolution of a legislative nature, a joint 
resolution proposing a constitutional amendment is not presented to the 
President under Article I, Sec. 7, clause 2 of the Constitution. 
Rather, such a joint resolution is submitted to the States for 
ratification.                          -------------------

Sec. 9.1 Constitutional amendments that have passed both Houses are not 
    presented to the President.

    On Feb. 25, 1869,(1) Speaker Schuyler Colfax, of 
Indiana, overruled a point of order that a proposed constitutional 
amendment would have to be presented to the President for approval. The 
ruling of the Chair was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 41 Cong. Globe 1563, 40th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The SPEAKER. The gentleman having stated the point of order the 
    Chair will decide it. It has been raised once before and decided by 
    the Chair. He will repeat the substantial points of that decision, 
    which he thinks will satisfy the gentleman that his point is not 
    well taken, although based by him upon the Constitution of the 
    United States. The question was raised distinctly in 1803 in the 
    Senate of the United States, on a motion that the then proposed 
    amendment to the Constitution should be submitted to the 
    President[.] . . .
        On a distinct vote of 23 to 7 the Senate voted that the 
    Committee on Enrolled Bills should not present the proposed 
    amendment. This is a decision made by one of the early Congresses. 
    But the Chair is not satisfied with having it rest on that; he is 
    disposed to present higher authority in overruling the point of 
    order.
        In 1798, a case(2) arose in the Supreme Court of the 
    United States depending upon the amendment to the Constitution 
    proposed in 1794, and the counsel, in argument before the court, 
    insisted that the amendment was not valid, not having been approved 
    by the President of the United States. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Court, speaking through [Justice Chase] . . . observed:

            ``The negative of the President applies only to the 
        ordinary cases of legislation. He has nothing to do with the 
        proposition or adoption of amendments to the Constitution.''

        As the Supreme Court of the United States has settled this 
    question by a decision, the Chair does not need to read further 
    authorities. . . .
        The Chair, therefore, thinks that the question is settled, not 
    only by the practice of Congress but by a decision of the Supreme 
    Court of the United States, and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

[[Page 50]]

Sec. 9.2 Enrolled joint resolutions proposing constitutional amendments 
    are submitted to the appropriate Federal official, designated by 
    law, for submission to the States.

    Responsibility for receiving from Congress enrolled joint 
resolutions by which Congress proposes to the States amendments to the 
Constitution and for transmitting the same to the States has been 
vested in different officials of the executive branch over time. 
Currently, that responsibility is vested in the Archivist of the United 
States.(1) The delivery of such measures to the appropriate 
official is reported to the House originating the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec.  10, infra, and 1 USC Sec. 106b (relating to amendments to 
        the Constitution), and related annotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An example from 1947 is as follows:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 93 Cong. Rec. 2482, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        enrolled joint resolution signed

        Mr. [Joseph] LeCOMPTE [of Kentucky], from the Committee on 
    House Administration, reported that that committee had examined and 
    found truly enrolled a joint resolution of the House of the 
    following title, which was thereupon signed by the Speaker:

            H.J. Res. 27. Joint resolution proposing an amendment to 
        the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of 
        office of the President.

               joint resolution filed with the secretary of state

        Mr. LeCompte, from the Committee on House Administration, 
    reported that that committee did on this day present to and file 
    with the Secretary of State of the United States a joint resolution 
    of the following title:

         H.J. Res. 27. Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
          Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of 
                            office of the President.

    Another instance occurred on June 17, 1960:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 106 Cong. Rec. 13101, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      enrolled joint resolution presented

        The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, June 17, 
    1960, he presented to the Administrator, General Services 
    Administration, the enrolled joint resolution (S.J. Res. 39) 
    proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
    granting representation in the electoral college to the District of 
    Columbia.


                       

[Page 50-55]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
                            D. Ratification
 
Sec. 10. Submission to the States; Records of Ratification

    The process by which a proposed amendment to the Constitution 
leaves Congress as officially proposed and eventually becomes effective 
as part of the Constitution has changed over the years

[[Page 51]]

and occasionally has included actions by the President not necessary to 
the effectiveness of the amendment. For example, the two Houses by 
concurrent resolution asked the President to transmit copies of the 
proposed 15th Amendment to the executives of the States,(1) 
and the President informed Congress of the promulgation of the 
ratification of the 15th Amendment.(2) The President was 
officially involved only in the first 11 amendments(3) and 
the 15th.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7043. Such a concurrent resolution is not 
        privileged in the House. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3508.
 2. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7044.
 3. See Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.2, infra.
 4. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ministerial functions of transmitting proposed amendments to 
the States, receiving the notices of ratification by States, and, in 
some instances, declaring an amendment effective have been carried out 
successively by the Secretary of State,(5) the Administrator 
of General Services,(6) and the Archivist of the United 
States.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 10.2, infra.
 6. See Sec. 10.3, infra.
 7. See Sec. 10.4, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Early Practice

Sec. 10.1 President communicated ratification of Bill of Rights to 
    Congress.

    The President notified the Congress of the ratification of the 
first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) by message as 
follows:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 1 Annals of Cong. 54, 2d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 30, 1791.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The following Message from the President of the United States 
    was received:

                                        Gentlemen of the Senate, and
                                    of the House of Representatives:

        I lay before you a copy of the ratification, by the 
    Commonwealth of Virginia, of the articles of amendment proposed by 
    Congress to the Constitution of the United States; and a copy of a 
    letter which accompanied said ratification, from the Governor of 
    Virginia.

                                                     G. WASHINGTON

                                 United States, December 30, 1791.

        The papers referred to in the Message are as follows:

                                                  Council Chamber,

                                          Richmond, Dec. 22, 1791.

        Sir: The General Assembly, during their late session, have 
    adopted, on the part of this Commonwealth, all the amendments 
    proposed by Congress to the Constitution of the United States; 
    their ratification whereof I do myself the honor herewith to 
    transmit.
                I have the honor to be, &c.

                                                        HENRY LEE.

                               The President of the United States.



                                                           Virginia:

    General Assembly, begun and held at the Capitol, in the city of 
    Richmond, on Monday, the 17th day of October, in the year of our 
    Lord 1791.

                                         Monday, December 5, 1791.


[[Page 52]]



        Resolved, That the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, 
    seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth articles of 
    the amendments proposed by Congress to the Constitution of the 
    United States, be ratified by this Commonwealth.

                     December 15th, 1791: Agreed to by the Senate.

                                                       JOHN PRIDE,

                                   S[ecretary]. [of the] S[enate].

                                                   THOS. MATTHEWS,

                     S[ecretary]. [of the] H[ouse of] D[elegates].

        Examined.

    The House received the same message:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Jour., Vol. 1, p. 483, 2d Cong. 1st Sess, Dec. 30, 1791.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A message, in writing, was received from the President of 
        the United States, by Mr. Lear, his Secretary, as followeth:

                                                    United States,

                                               December 30th 1791.

                                     Gentleman of the Senate and the
                                           House of Representatives:

        I lay before you a copy of the ratification, by the 
    Commonwealth of Virginia, of the articles of amendment proposed by 
    Congress to the Constitution of the United States, and a copy of a 
    letter which accompanied said ratification from the Governor of 
    Virginia.

                                                    G. WASHINGTON.

    The papers referred to in the said message were read, and ordered 
to lie on the table.

Sec. 10.2 President declares 11th Amendment; Secretary of State assumes 
    record-keeping responsibility.

    The Senate adopted a resolution setting out the history of 
ratification of the first 13 proposed amendments and requesting the 
President to ascertain whether any States other than those recorded had 
ratified the 11th Amendment: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. S. Jour. Vol. 2, pp. 315, 316, 4th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1797.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry] Tazewell [of Virginia] reported, from the committee 
    on the subject of amendments to the constitution of the United 
    States, which was read, as follows:
        ``That, of the twelve amendments proposed by Congress, at their 
    session begun and held in New York on the 4th of March, 1789, the 
    following States ratified the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 
    10th, 11th, 12th, prior to the first day of March, 1791, viz. New 
    Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire, 
    Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island; which States 
    making three-fourths of the then thirteen United States, the said 
    amendments have become a part of the constitution.
        ``That the first amendment was ratified prior to the first day 
    of March, 1791, by the following States, viz. New Jersey, Maryland, 
    North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode 
    Island, and, subsequent to that period, by Pennsylvania, Virginia, 
    and Vermont; which number

[[Page 53]]

    not making three-fourths of the States at the period of 
    ratification, the said amendment has not as yet become a part of 
    the constitution.
        ``That the second amendment was ratified prior to the 1st day 
    of March, 1791, by the following States: Maryland, North Carolina, 
    South Carolina, Delaware, and, subsequent to that period, by 
    Virginia and Vermont; which number not making three-fourths of the 
    States, the said amendment has not become a part of the 
    constitution.''
        ``That the amendment respecting the suability of States, which 
    has been proposed by Congress since March, 1791, has been ratified 
    by the following States: New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, New 
    Hampshire, Georgia, Delaware, Rhode Island, and North Carolina, as 
    appears by authentic documents returned to Congress. The committee 
    have strong reasons to believe that other States have ratified this 
    latter amendment, and that the evidences of the fact have not been 
    as yet returned to the proper departments of the government; 
    wherefore, as the number returned do not amount to three-fourths of 
    the States, the said amendment cannot, under present circumstances, 
    be reported as forming a part of the constitution.
        Whereupon,
        Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States, That the President be requested to adopt some speedy 
    and effectual means of obtaining information from the States of 
    Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, 
    Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina, whether they have ratified 
    the amendment proposed by Congress to the constitution concerning 
    the suability of States; if they have, to obtain the proper 
    evidences thereof.
        Ordered, That the Secretary desire the concurrence of the House 
    of Representatives in this resolution.

    The House agreed to the resolution on Feb. 24, 1797.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Jour. Vol. 2, p. 718, 4th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The President transmitted to the Congress a message not only 
indicating that a particular State had ratified an amendment, but also 
declaring that the amendment had become part of the Constitution. The 
Journal recorded receipt of the message as follows:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Jour. Vol. 3, p. 126, 5th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 8, 1798.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A message, in writing, was received from the President of the 
    United States, by Mr. Taylor, Chief Clerk in the Department of 
    State, as followeth:

        Gentleman of the Senate and Gentleman of the House of 
    Representatives:

        I have now an opportunity to transmit to Congress a report of 
    the Secretary of State, with a copy of an act of the Legislature of 
    the State of Kentucky, consenting to the ratification of the 
    amendment of the Constitution of the United States, proposed by 
    Congress in their resolution of the second day of December, one 
    thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, relative to the suability 
    of States. This amendment having been adopted by three-fourths of 
    the several States, may now be declared to be a part of the 
    Constitution of the United States.

                                                       JOHN ADAMS.

                                 United States, January 8th, 1798.

[[Page 54]]

        The said message, and papers referred to therein, were read, 
    and ordered to lie on the table.

    The message also indicates that the President directed the 
Secretary of State to keep records on the ratification of amendments by 
the States, beginning an historical pattern that continued until the 
Reorganization Plan No. 20 of 1950 transferred the responsibility from 
the Secretary of State.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 10.3, infra. For an example of a State's certificate of 
        ratification sent to the Secretary of State with a copy laid 
        before the House, see 76 Cong. Rec. 35, 72d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Dec. 5, 1932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certification, Publication, and Preservation Functions Vested in the 
    Administrator of General Services

Sec. 10.3 A Presidential reorganization plan transferred responsibility 
    for certification, publication, and preservation of constitutional 
    amendments from the Secretary of State to the Administrator of 
    General Services.

    Under the authority of the Reorganization Act of 
1949,(1) President Harry S Truman transmitted Reorganization 
Plan No. 20 of 1950(2) to the Congress on Mar. 13, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 63 Stat. 203
 2. 5 USC App. Reorganization Plan No. 20 of 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The plan, in pertinent part, read as follows:

                      STATUTES AT LARGE AND OTHER MATTERS

        Section 1. Functions Transferred from Department of State to 
    Administrator of General Services
        There are hereby transferred to the Administrator of General 
    Services the functions of the Secretary of State and the Department 
    of State with respect to: . . .
        (c) The certification and publication of amendments to the 
    Constitution of the United States (. . . [1 U.S.C. 106b]) and the 
    preservation of such amendments;

    The message of the President transmitting the reorganization plan 
included the following:

        Since its establishment in 1789 the Department of State has 
    performed certain routine secretarial and recordkeeping functions 
    for the Federal Government which are entirely extraneous . . . to 
    the conduct of foreign relations. While these activities do not 
    properly belong in the Department, they were assigned to it and 
    continued under its jurisdiction for want of an appropriate agency 
    for their performance. . . .
        Through the National Archives and Records Service the General 
    Services Administration is especially staffed and equipped for the 
    conduct of activities of these types.

Functions Vested in the Archivist of the United States

Sec. 10.4 Archivist charged with printing and certifying adoption of 
    amendments.

[[Page 55]]

    Effective Apr. 1, 1985, section 106b of title 1, United States 
Code, (1) was amended(2) to transfer from the 
Administrator of General Services to the newly established Archivist of 
the United States the responsibility for publishing and certifying the 
adoption of amendments to the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Section 106b of title 1, United States Code, reads as follows:
   Sec. 106b. LAmendments to Constitution
            Whenever official notice is received at the National 
        Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed 
        to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, 
        according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist 
        of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be 
        published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which 
        the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become 
        valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the 
        Constitution of the United States.
 2. Section 107(d) of the National Archives and Records Administration 
        Act of 1984 (Pub. L. No. 98-497; Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2291).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Archivist of the United States first executed this 
responsibility under Sec.  106b of title 1, United States Code, in 1992 
when the 27th Amendment was published and certified as having been 
adopted.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 258, footnote 18 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                       

[Page 55]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
                            D. Ratification
 
Sec. 11. State Consent; Withdrawal and Rescission of Withdrawal

    Under Article V of the Constitution, the approval of three-fourths 
of the States is required to ratify an amendment to the Constitution. 
Whether a State may rescind its ratification of a constitutional 
amendment has been the subject of discussion(1) and 
litigation.(2) A State, having previously rescinded its 
ratification before the effectiveness of an amendment, has later 
ratified the amendment (after it had become effective). For example, on 
Mar. 12, 2003,(3) the Ohio General Assembly passed a joint 
resolution ratifying the 14th Amendment. The joint resolution recited 
the history of Ohio's action with respect to the 14th Amendment, as 
follows: Ohio ratified the amendment on Jan. 11, 1867, but rescinded 
such ratification on Jan. 15, 1868 (the amendment becoming effective 
six months later).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7042.
 2. For relevant case law, see House Rules and Manual Sec. 192 (2007).
 3. The memorial was noted at 150 Cong. Rec. 100, 108th Congress 2d 
        Sess., Jan. 20, 2004. See also Id. for a memorial from New 
        Jersey revoking an earlier attempt to withdraw its ratification 
        of an amendment.

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

[[Page 56]]

                      

[Page 56-60]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
                            D. Ratification
 
Sec. 12. Time Limits on Ratification

    Beginning with what became the 18th Amendment, Congress has 
generally imposed a time limit on the period for State ratification of 
a proposed amendment. The customary time limit is seven years from the 
date of the submission of the proposed amendment to the States by 
Congress. Initially, these time limitations were made part of the text 
of the proposed amendment.(1) In recent practice, the 
limitation has been made part of the text of the joint resolution 
preceding the text of the proposed amendment, rather than part of the 
text of the amendment. In one case, a simple majority in both Houses 
extended the limitation when it was contained in the joint resolution 
rather than the amendment itself.(2) In the case of the 27th 
Amendment, the ratification of which spanned an unusually long 
interval, each House of Congress separately declared the amendment duly 
ratified.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, e.g., U. S. Const. amend. 18 Sec. 3.
 2. See Sec. 12.3, infra.
 3. See Sec. 12.4, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.1 A proposed amendment to the Constitution may contain a limit 
    on the period for State ratification.

    The 18th Amendment was submitted to the States with the following 
limitation on ratification:

        Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall 
    have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the 
    legislatures of the several States, as provided in the 
    Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission 
    hereof to the States by the Congress.

Sec. 12.2 Congress may include a limitation on the time for State 
    ratification of a proposed amendment to the Constitution in the 
    joint resolution proposing the amendment rather than in the body of 
    the amendment itself.

    Rather than including a period for State ratification in the text 
of a proposed constitutional amendment itself, Congress may set forth 
such a limitation in the text of the joint resolution proposing such 
amendment. An example of this form of limitation on a ratification 
period was included in Senate Joint Resolution 7 of the 92d Congress, 
which was considered by the House on Mar. 23, 1971,(1) and 
which became the 26th

[[Page 57]]

Amendment. That resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 117 Cong. Rec. 7570, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  S.J. Res. 7

        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 within seven years from the date of its 
    submission by the Congress:

                                 ``Article ----

            ``Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, 
        who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be 
        denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on 
        account of age.
            ``Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this 
        article by appropriate legislation.

Sec. 12.3 The House by majority vote passed a joint resolution 
    extending the ratification period for a constitutional amendment 
    previously submitted to the States.

    A proposed constitutional amendment regarding equal rights on 
account of sex was submitted to the States on Mar. 22, 
1972,(1) upon the passage by the Senate of House Joint 
Resolution 208 of the 92d Congress by the requisite two-thirds 
majority. That joint resolution included in its text a seven-year 
ratification limitation preceding the text of the proposed amendment. 
The text of the joint resolution was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 9598, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. The House had passed the 
        joint resolution by the requisite two-thirds majority and 
        transmitted it to the Senate on Oct. 12, 1971. 117 Cong. Rec. 
        35815, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.J. Res. 208

        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 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.
            ``Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by 
        appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
            ``Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after 
        the date of ratification.''

    During 1978, with the ratification deadline for the proposed 
amendment approaching and with

[[Page 58]]

fewer than the requisite number of States having ratified the proposed 
amendment, Congress considered various proposals to extend the 
ratification period. On Aug. 15, 1978,(2) the House 
considered a joint resolution to extend(3) the ratification 
period. Before the joint resolution was considered, the House 
considered, and laid on the table, a resolution considered as a 
question of the privileges of the House declaring that a two-thirds 
vote was necessary to pass the joint resolution extending the 
ratification period. The House then passed the joint resolution by 
majority vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 124 Cong. Rec. 26203, 26204, 26239, 26265, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XIII clause 3 (the Ramseyer Rule), 
        does not apply to a joint resolution extending the period for 
        State ratification when the joint resolution does not 
        specifically, by amendment, change the text of the ratification 
        deadline in the joint resolution by which Congress submitted 
        the amendment to the States but rather extends the period by a 
        superseding provision. Id. at p. 26204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [James] QUILLEN [of Tennessee]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privileges of the House and offer a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 1315) involving a question of the privileges of 
    the House, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

    After holding that the resolution did present a question of the 
privileges of the House under Rule IX,(4) the Speaker, 
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, directed the Clerk to report 
the resolution. The resolution was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 1315

            Whereas H.J. Res. 638 of this Congress amends H.J. Res. 208 
        of the 92nd Congress, proposing an amendment to the 
        Constitution;
            Whereas H.J. Res. 208 of the 92nd Congress was passed by an 
        affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members present and 
        voting, as required by Article V of the Constitution, and 
        submitted for ratification on March 22, 1972;
            Whereas the integrity of the process by which the House 
        considers changes to H.J. Res. 208 of the 92nd Congress would 
        be violated if H.J. Res. 638 were passed by a simple majority 
        of the Members present and voting;
            Whereas the constitutional prerogatives of the House to 
        propose amendments to the Constitution and to impose necessary 
        conditions thereto in accordance with Article V of the 
        Constitution would be abrogated if H.J. Res. 638 were passed by 
        a simple majority of the Members present and voting;
            Resolved, That an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 
        Members present and voting, a quorum being present, shall be 
        required on final passage of H.J. Res. 638.

    The privileged resolution was laid on the table. The House then 
resolved itself into the Committee

[[Page 59]]

of the Whole to consider House Joint Resolution 638. The joint 
resolution read as follows:(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 26239, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 15, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
    notwithstanding any provision of House Joint Resolution 208 of the 
    Ninety-second Congress, second session, to the contrary, the 
    article of amendment proposed to the States in such joint 
    resolution 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 fourteen years from the date of the 
    submission by the Congress to the States of such proposed article 
    of amendment.

    After debate and adoption of an amendment striking the matter 
beginning ``within fourteen years'' and all that follows and inserting 
``not later than June 30, 1982.'', the House passed the joint 
resolution by a simple majority vote.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. After passage by the Senate, the joint resolution was signed by the 
        President but not assigned a public law number. Upon receipt of 
        the joint resolution, the Archivist notified the States of its 
        passage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.4 The House adopted a concurrent resolution declaring the 
    ratification of a constitutional amendment.

    On Sept. 25, 1789,(1) the First Congress submitted to 
the States for ratification 12 proposed amendments. Of those 12, 10 
were ratified by Dec. 15, 1791,(2) and became the Bill of 
Rights. These amendments were proposed without a deadline for 
ratification, and the remaining two remained pending before the States. 
In May of 1992, one of those proposed amendments, to limit the power of 
Congress to increase the salaries of its Members, was ratified by the 
38th State (the number of States needed to constitute ratification by 
the requisite three-fourths of the States) and on May 18, 1992, was 
declared by the Archivist of the United States to have been ratified. 
In light of the unprecedented period of time between submission of the 
amendment to the States and the ratification by the final State 
necessary for adoption of the amendment, and in order to quell 
speculation over the efficacy of a ratification process spanning two 
centuries, the House adopted(3) a concurrent 
resolution(4) declaring the ratification of the amendment. 
The concurrent resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. S. Jour. Vol. 1, p. 88, 1st Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. See Sec. 10.1, supra.
 3. 138 Cong. Rec. 12051, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., May 20, 1992. The 
        concurrent resolution was debated on the preceding day, May 19, 
        1992, Id. at pp. 11779-85.
 4. The concurrent resolution was considered under suspension of the 
        rules. The House had previously considered by unanimous consent 
        a similar measure declaring the 14th Amendment ratified. See H. 
        Jour. 1126, 1127, 40th Cong. 2d Sess., July 21, 1868.

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

[[Page 60]]

                                H. Con. Res. 320

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That Congress declares that the proposed article of 
    amendment providing as follows:

            ``No law, varying the compensation for the services of the 
        Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an 
        election of Representatives shall have intervened.''
    has been ratified by a sufficient number of the States and has 
    become a part of the Constitution.

    On the same day, the Senate adopted both a simple and a concurrent 
resolution to the same effect.(3) Neither body acted on the 
measure of the other.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. Res. 298 and S. Con. Res. 120 at 138 Cong. Rec. 11869, 11870, 
        102d Cong. 2d Sess., May 20, 1992. The Senate adopted the two 
        resolutions by a single, en bloc vote of 99-0. Earlier, the 
        Senate had adopted a resolution requesting the Archivist to 
        transmit to the Senate a list of States having ratified the 
        amendment. S. Res. 295, at 138 Cong. Rec. 11010, 102d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., May 12, 1992.
 4. For Supreme Court decisions relevant to the ratification process 
        generally, see Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) 
        (ratification must be within a reasonable time after proposal); 
        Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) (efficacy of State 
        ratification of proposed amendments is a political question 
        upon which Congress must make the final determination).
                   DESCHLER-BROWN-JOHNSON PRECEDENTS
Ch. 34 

[[Page 61]]

                       

[Page 61-66]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
                            D. Ratification
 
Sec.                      INDEX TO PRECEDENTS

Amendments to joint resolution passed by other House
    concur in amendments, motion to, requires two-thirds vote in House 
        in which joint resolution originated
        House joint resolution, Sec. 8.2
        Senate joint resolution, Sec. 8.3
    vote, majority, to adopt, Sec. Sec. 8, 8.1
    vote, two-thirds, required for passage of joint resolution after 
        amendments adopted, Sec. 8
Amendments to joint resolution, see Joint resolution proposing 
    amendment to Constitution; Voting
Archivist of the United States, role see Passage of joint resolution, 
    procedures after; Ratification, procedures relating to
Article V of Constitution as prescribing procedures, Sec. 1
Assembly of Congress, amendment relating to, Sec. 5.3
Bill of Rights, ratification of (see also Ratification, procedures 
    relating to), Sec. Sec. 10.1, 12.4
Budget, balanced, amendment relating to, Sec. Sec. 4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.13, 
    4.14, 4.17
Certification and publication of amendment after adoption, see 
    Ratification, procedures relating to
Committee jurisdiction over joint resolutions proposing amendments
    history, Sec. Sec. 3-3.2
    Judiciary, Committee on the, jurisdiction of, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.2
    subject matter of amendment as not affecting jurisdiction of 
        Committee on the Judiciary, Sec. 3.2
Committee of the Whole, consideration in, of joint resolution proposing 
    amendment to Constitution (see also Special rules providing for 
    consideration of joint resolutions proposing amendments to 
    Constitution)
    generally, Sec. Sec. 4.6, 4.7
    amendment in nature of substitute to joint resolution, rule 
        provided for consideration of, Sec. Sec. 4.4, 4.17
    special rule, pursuant to, Sec. Sec. 4.6, 4.7
Compensation of Members of Congress, amendment relating to power to 
    increase, Sec. 12.4
Conference report on joint resolution
    vote, two-thirds, required for adoption, Sec. 7
    yeas and nays not required for adoption in House, Sec. 7
Consideration of joint resolutions proposing amendments to Constitution 
    (see also Subject matter of proposed constitutional amendment)
    generally, Sec. 4
    amendments to joint resolution
        other House, adopted by, see Amendments to joint resolution 
            passed by other House
        voting on, see Voting
    debate, see Debate
    discharge of joint resolution, consideration in House following 
        (see also generally, Discharge), Sec. 4.10
    President, not presented to, for approval, Sec. 2
    quorum required for final passage (see also Voting), Sec. Sec. 5, 
        5.1
    resolving clause
        amendment from floor corrected form of, Sec. 4.17
        form, Sec. Sec. 2, 4.17

[[Page 62]]

        statute prescribing form, Sec. Sec. 2, 4.17
    Senate, in, see Senate, proceedings in
    special rules, under, see Special rules providing for consideration 
        of joint resolutions proposing amendments to Constitution
    suspension of the rules, under, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
    voting generally, see Voting
Debate
    amendment to joint resolution
        previous question, priority in recognition to Member seeking to 
            move, over Member yielded to for purpose of offering 
            amendment, Sec. 4.16
        substitute, amendment in nature of, form of, Sec. 4.17
        voting on, see Voting
    discharge, motion to, debate on (see also Discharge), 
        Sec. Sec. 4.11, 4.12
    previous question, priority in recognition to Member seeking to 
        move, over Member yielded to for purpose of offering amendment, 
        Sec. 4.16
    recognition
        previous question, priority in recognition to Member seeking to 
            move, over Member yielded to for purpose of offering 
            amendment, Sec. 4.16
    special rule, pursuant to
        close debate, recognition to, where rule divided control of 
            debate among three Members, Sec. 4.7
        reported, where joint resolution was not, Sec. 4.6
        unanimous consent, modification by, of terms governing debate, 
            Sec. 4.13
    unanimous consent, modification of terms of special rule governing 
        debate, Sec. 4.13
Discharge
    debate on motion to discharge, Sec. Sec. 4.11, 4.12
    joint resolution, of
        consideration in House after discharge, Sec. 4.10
        House, consideration in, after discharge, Sec. 4.10
        motion to proceed to immediate consideration is privileged 
            after adoption of motion to discharge, Sec. 4.9
        signatures required, Sec. 4.8
    recommit joint resolution, motion to, following discharge, see 
        Recommit joint resolution, motion to
    special rule providing for consideration of joint resolution, 
        discharge of
        Calendar, Discharge, substitute rule reported prior to call of, 
            Sec. 4.14
        debate on motion, Sec. 4.12
        subsequent rule reported prior to call of Discharge Calendar 
            where first rule was object of motion to discharge, 
            Sec. 4.14
        unanimous consent, consideration of rule by, before motion 
            called up, Sec. 4.13
    vote on joint resolution considered under discharge process, see 
        Voting
District of Columbia, amendment granting representation in Electoral 
    College to, Sec. 9.2
Eighteen-year-olds, amendment granting right to vote to, Sec. 12.2
Election of President and Vice President, amendment regarding (see 
    Subject matter of proposed constitutional amendment)
    Committee, referred to, under former practice, Sec. 3.1

[[Page 63]]

    reported with amendment, joint resolution was, Sec. 3.1
Equal rights for men and women, amendment concerning, Sec. Sec. 4.11, 
    12.3
Flag, desecration of, amendment relating to, Sec. 6.4
Joint resolution proposing amendment to Constitution (see Subject 
    matter of proposed constitutional amendment)
    amendment in nature of substitute to
        form, Sec. 4.17
    amendments to
        voting on, see Voting
    conference report on, see Conference report on joint resolution
    consideration
        generally, Sec. 4
        special rule, under, see Special rules providing for 
            consideration of joint resolutions proposing amendments to 
            Constitution
        suspension of rules, under, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
    form of resolving clause, Sec. 2
    germane, instructions in motion to recommit bill held not to be, 
        where requiring that content of bill be reported as joint 
        resolution, Sec. 4.15
    President, not presented to, for approval, Sec. 2
    quorum required for final passage (see Voting) Sec. Sec. 5, 5.1
    recommit bill, instructions in motion to, were not germane where 
        requiring that content of bill be reported as joint resolution, 
        Sec. 4.15
    resolving clause
        amendment to correct form of, Sec. 4.17
        form, Sec. Sec. 2, 4.17
        statute prescribing form, Sec. Sec. 2, 4.17
    Senate, consideration in, see Senate, proceedings in
    voting generally, see Voting
Judiciary, Committee on the, has jurisdiction over joint resolutions 
    proposing amendments, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.2
Jurisdiction, committee, see Committee jurisdiction over joint 
    resolutions proposing amendments
Legislative proposal, effect to convert, to proposal to amend 
    Constitution, Sec. Sec. 4.15, 6, 6.3
Passage of joint resolution, procedures after (see Ratification, 
    procedures relating to)
    enrolled joint resolution submitted to designated official for 
        transmission to States, Sec. 9.2
    President, joint resolution not presented to, for approval, 
        Sec. Sec. 2, 9, 9.1
    states, submission to, Sec. 9.2
    submission of enrolled joint resolution to designated official for 
        transmission to states, Sec. 9.2
Poll tax, amendment to abolish, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.15, 6.3
Prayer in public buildings, amendment concerning, Sec. Sec. 4.8, 4.9, 
    4.16
Present and voting, two-thirds of Members, as required, see Voting
Presidential and Vice Presidential succession, see Subject matter of 
    proposed amendment
President, joint resolution proposing amendment not presented to, for 
    approval, Sec. Sec. 2, 9, 9.1
Procedures for amendment to Constitution
    Article V as prescribing, Sec. 1

[[Page 64]]

    Committee jurisdiction over joint resolution, Sec. Sec. 3-3.2
    Congress may propose amendment, Sec. 1
    convention requested by states, Sec. 1
    Joint resolution introduced in Congress
        consideration generally, see Joint resolution proposing 
            amendment to Constitution
        President, not presented to, for approval, Sec. 2
        resolving clause, form of, Sec. 2
Procedures for consideration of joint resolution, see Consideration of 
    joint resolutions proposing amendments to Constitution
Prohibition of liquors, amendment concerning, Sec. Sec. 8.3, 12.1
Quorum for consideration, see Voting
Ratification, procedures relating to
    Archivist of the United States, role of
        certification and publication, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.4, 12.4
        notification of ratification by states given by Archivist, 
            Sec. Sec. 10, 10.4, 12.4
        time limit for ratification, extension of, notification to 
            states of, Sec. 12.3
    Bill of Rights, President notified Congress of ratification of, 
        Sec. 10.1
    certification and publication
        Administrator of General Services, duties formerly vested in, 
            Sec. Sec. 10.3, 10.4
        Archivist of the United States, role of, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.4, 
            12.4
        Reorganization Plan transferred functions to designated 
            official, Sec. 10.3
        Secretary of State, former role of, Sec. Sec. 10.2, 10.3
        statute transferred functions to Archivist of the United 
            States, Sec. 10.4
    effectiveness of ratification
        declarations, separate, by two Houses in simple and concurrent 
            resolutions concerning, Sec. 12.4
        political question for Congress to determine, Sec. 12.4
    notification of ratification by states
        Archivist of the United States, role of, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.4, 
            12.4
        historical development of procedures, Sec. Sec. 10-10.4
    rescission of ratification by state, Sec. 11
    Secretary of State, former role of, Sec. Sec. 10.2, 10.3
    States, submission of proposed amendment to, see States, submission 
        of proposed amendment to
    Supreme Court, decisions by
        effectiveness of ratification as political question for 
            Congress, Sec. 12.4
        reasonable time, ratification within, Sec. 12.4
    time limits on ratification
        extension of time limit, majority vote on joint resolution to 
            grant, where time limit was not part of amendment, 
            Sec. 12.3
        no time limits applied to earlier amendments, Sec. 12.4
        reasonable time, ratification must be within, Sec. 12.4
        salaries of Members of Congress, amendment to limit power of 
            Members to raise, ratified after two centuries, Sec. 12.4
        seven years as customary limit, Sec. Sec. 12-12.3
        text of amendment, stated in, under earlier practice, 
            Sec. Sec. 12, 12.1
        text of joint resolution, stated in, rather than in amendment 
            itself in current practice, Sec. Sec. 12.2, 12.3

[[Page 65]]

    withdrawal of ratification by State, Sec. 11
Recognition, see Debate
Recommit joint resolution, motion to
    discharge, where joint resolution being considered pursuant to 
        motion to, Sec. 4.11
Recommit, motion to, with instructions to report contents of bill in 
    form of joint resolution proposing to amend Constitution, Sec. 4.15
Rescission or withdrawal of ratification, see Ratification, procedures 
    relating to
Salaries of Members of Congress, limitation on power to increase, 
    Sec. 12.4
School busing, amendment concerning, Sec. 4.10
Senate, proceedings in
    amendment to joint resolution proposing constitutional amendment
        vote, adopted by majority, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.2, 6.3
    conference report on joint resolution, see Conference report on 
        joint resolution
    legislative proposal was converted by amendment to proposal to 
        amend constitution, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.3
    voting
        amendment to joint resolution to amend Constitution, majority 
            vote required for, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.2, 6.3
        legislative proposal converted by amendment to proposal to 
            amend Constitution, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.3
        present and voting, two-thirds of Senators, required for 
            passage of joint resolution to amend Constitution, 
            Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.3
    yeas and nays not required on vote on passage, Sec. 6.4
Special rules providing for consideration of joint resolutions 
    proposing amendments to Constitution
    adoption, vote required for, Sec. 4.8
    amendment in nature of substitute to joint resolution, rule 
        providing for, to be considered in Committee of the Whole, 
        Sec. 4.4
    amendment in nature of substitute to joint resolution, rule 
        providing for, to be considered in House, Sec. 4.3
    amendments in nature of substitute to joint resolution, multiple, 
        rule providing for, Sec. 4.4
    debate, modification of terms governing, by unanimous consent, 
        Sec. 4.13
    debate, provisions concerning
        division between Member in favor and Member opposed, Sec. 4.6
        three Members, control of time divided among, Sec. 4.7
    discharge of House committee from consideration of similar Senate 
        joint resolution, rule provided for, Sec. 4.5
    discharge of special rule, see Discharge
    vote required for adoption, Sec. 4.8
States, memorials or applications submitted by
    committee jurisdiction of, Sec. 3
    conventions, requesting, Sec. 1
    rescinding request for convention, Sec. 1
States, submission of proposed amendment to (see Ratification, 
    procedures relating to)
    generally, Sec. 9.2
    Archivist of the United States, role of, Sec. 9.2
Subject matter of proposed constitutional amendment
    assembly of Congress, Sec. 5.3
    Bill of Rights, see Bill of Rights, ratification of

[[Page 66]]

    budget, balanced, provision as to, Sec. Sec. 4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.13, 
        4.14, 4.17
    Committee on the Judiciary, jurisdiction of, as not affected by, 
        Sec. 3.2
    compensation of Members of Congress, proposals to change, Sec. 12.4
    Congress, salaries of Members of, limitation on power to increase, 
        Sec. 12.4
    District of Columbia, granting representation in electoral college 
        to, Sec. 9.2
    eighteen-year-olds, right to vote granted to, Sec. 12.2
    election of President and Vice President, Sec. Sec. 3.1, 5.1
    equal rights for men and women, Sec. Sec. 4.11, 12.3
    flag, desecration of, Sec. 6.4
    jurisdiction of Committee on the Judiciary as not affected by, 
        Sec. 3.2
    poll tax, amendment to abolish, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.15, 6.3
    prayer in public buildings, Sec. Sec. 4.8, 4.9, 4.16
    President and Vice President, election of, Sec. Sec. 3.1, 5.1
    Presidential and Vice Presidential succession, Sec. Sec. 4.5, 8.1
    President, term of office of, Sec. Sec. 8.2, 9.2
    prohibition of liquors, Sec. Sec. 8.3, 12.1
    referenda on war, Sec. Sec. 4.12, 5.2
    salaries of Members of Congress, limitation on power to increase, 
        Sec. 12.4
    school busing, Sec. 4.10
    states, suits against, Sec. 10.2
    term of office of President, Sec. Sec. 8.2, 9.2
    voting rights, Sec. Sec. 6.1, 12.2
    war, referenda on, Sec. Sec. 4.12, 5.2
    women, equal rights for, Sec. Sec. 4.11, 12.3
Suspension of rules, consideration of joint resolution proposing 
    constitutional amendment under
    poll tax, amendment to abolish, Sec. 4.1
Time limits on ratification, see Ratification, procedures relating to
Voting
    amendments to joint resolution, motion to concur in, requires two-
        thirds vote in House in which joint resolution originated, 
        Sec. Sec. 8.2, 8.3
    amendment to joint resolution, majority vote required for adoption 
        of, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.3, 8, 8.1
    conference report, see Conference report on joint resolution
    joint resolution, two-thirds vote required for passage of, 
        Sec. Sec. 2, 4.12, 5, 5.1
    present and voting, two-thirds of Members, required for passage, 
        Sec. 5.1
    voice vote, question on final passage of joint resolution first put 
        to, Sec. 5
    yeas and nays not required for passage of joint resolution to amend 
        Constitution, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4
Voting rights, amendments to grant, see, Subject matter of proposed 
    constitutional amendment
War, referenda on, amendment concerning, Sec. Sec. 4.12, 5.2
Withdrawal or rescission of ratification, see Ratification, procedures 
    relating to
Yeas and nays not required on passage of joint resolution (see Voting), 
    Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4