[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 13. Powers and Prerogatives of the House]
[C. House Prerogative to Originate Revenue Bills]
[Â§ 16. Tabling Objection to Infringement]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 1850-1852]
 
                               CHAPTER 13
 
                  Powers and Prerogatives of the House
 
            C. HOUSE PREROGATIVE TO ORIGINATE REVENUE BILLS
 
Sec. 16. Tabling Objection to Infringement

Senate Surtax Amendment

Sec. 16.1 The Senate having amended a House bill relating to excise tax 
    rates by adding a general surtax on income, the House during 
    consideration of the conference report refused to hold that the 
    Senate's action constituted a violation of article I, section 7 of 
    the Constitution, and laid on the table a resolution raising the 
    matter as a question of the privileges of the House.

    On June 20, 1968,(1) the House by a vote of yeas 257, 
nays 162, not voting 14, tabled House Resolution 1222 which sought to 
return to the Senate H.R. 15414 (a bill relating to excise tax rates) 
along with Senate amendments which added a surtax on income. The 
resolution was based on a contention that the Senate amendments 
contravened the constitutional prerogative of the House to originate 
revenue bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 17970-78, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 15414) to continue the existing 
    excise tax rates on communication services and on automobiles, and 
    to apply more generally the provisions relating to payments of 
    estimated tax by corporations, and ask unanimous consent that the 
    statement of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu 
    of the report.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 14.2, supra, for a further discussion of this precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Resolution Offered by Mr. Gross--Privilege of the House

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question 
    of privilege of the House and offer a resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1222

            Resolved, That Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 15414, 
        in the

[[Page 1851]]

        opinion of the House, contravene the first clause of the 
        seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the 
        United States, and are an infringement of the privileges of 
        this House, and that the said bill, with amendments, be 
        respectfully returned to the Senate with a message 
        communicating this resolution.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] is 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .

       Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968--Conference Report

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] 
    has the floor.
        Mr. Gross: . . . Mr. Speaker, the legislation now before us, 
    H.R. 15414, represents one of the most direct attempts in the 
    history of the Republic to cut away and destroy one of the most 
    fundamental privileges and rights of this House--the right, the 
    responsibility, and the duty, under the Constitution, to initiate 
    revenue measures.
        Section 7 of article I of the Constitution conferred this 
    privilege on the Members of this body, and there are numerous 
    precedents upholding the right of the House--and the House alone--
    to originate revenue bills.
        For example, in 1807 the House refused to agree to Senate 
    amendments that greatly enlarged the scope of a revenue bill. The 
    record of the debate in the House on that day shows that John 
    Randolph of Virginia, assailed the Senate amendments because they 
    went far beyond merely amending the details of the bill as passed 
    by the House.
        Randolph believed, and rightly so, that under the Constitution 
    the Senate had no power to amend a money bill by varying the 
    objects of that bill.
        I do not claim, of course, that the Senate has no power 
    whatsoever to amend a revenue bill of the House. But I do say it 
    cannot, under the guise of an amendment, propose new revenue 
    legislation. . . .
        Mr. Mills: . . . If the Members of the House will turn to the 
    Constitution to refresh their recollection of article I, section 7, 
    clause 1, they will observe that it reads as follows:

            All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House 
        of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with 
        amendments as on other bills.

        There have been several instances where the question of the 
    constitutionality involving this issue has been argued before the 
    Supreme Court and where the Court has rendered decisions. Let me go 
    back in history for two instances--and in these cases not as far 
    back as the gentleman from Iowa went for his precedents in support 
    of his argument.
        I would like to point out how the Supreme Court has ruled on 
    this matter. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 143, in 
    1911, the court held that the substitution of a corporate tax by 
    the Senate for an inheritance tax passed by the House was 
    constitutional. . . .
        In another case also the Supreme Court upheld an amendment by 
    the Senate of a tax bill. In this case the Senate added a section 
    imposing an excise tax upon the use of foreign-built pleasure 
    yachts. The Supreme Court in this case, Rainey v. United States, 
    232 U.S. 310 (1914), decided that the

[[Page 1852]]

    amendment did not contravene article I, section 7, clause 1 of the 
    Constitution. . . .
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution offered by 
    the gentleman from Iowa on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Arkansas.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, on that question I demand the yeas and 
    nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boggs: Am I correct in understanding that a vote ``yea'' is 
    in favor of the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas, 
    which would mean we would go back to orderly debate on this 
    conference report?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. The motion 
    is to lay the resolution on the table.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 257, nays 162, not 
    voting 14 . . . .
        So the motion to table the resolution was agreed to. . . .
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I renew my request that the statement 
    of the managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the 
    report.
        The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arkansas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.