[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 91 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RETURNING TO THE SENATE, SENATE AMENDMENTS TO 
 THE BILL, H.R. 4539, TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of 
the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H.R. 479) and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 479

       Resolved, That Senate amendment No. 104 to the bill H.R. 
     4539 making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the 
     United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the 
     President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, in 
     the opinion of this House, contravenes the first clause of 
     the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution 
     of the United States and is an infringement of the privileges 
     of this House and that such bill with the Senate amendments 
     thereto be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message 
     communicating this resolution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frost). In the opinion of the Chair, the 
resolution constitutes a question of privileges of the House. The 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Without objection, the Chair will not divide the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 479 is a simple resolution returning to 
the Senate the bill H.R. 4539, because it contravenes the 
constitutional requirement that revenue measures originate in the House 
of Representatives. H.R. 4539 contains a provision, added on the Senate 
floor, that would prohibit the Treasury from using appropriations to 
enforce the Internal Revenue Code requirement for the use of undyed 
diesel fuel in recreational motorboats.
  This provision clearly constitutes a revenue measure in the 
constitutional sense, because it would have an immediate effect on 
revenues. Prohibiting the Treasury from enforcing the Internal Revenue 
Code's diesel fuel requirements would directly affect the amount of tax 
collected. In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that 
the provision would result in a loss of $41 million in Federal receipts 
over the fiscal year period of 1994 through 1999.
  Therefore, I am asking that the House insist on its constitutional 
prerogatives. While the House, by adopting this resolution, will 
preserve its prerogative to originate revenue matters, I want to make 
it clear to all Members that our action does not constitute a rejection 
of the Senate bill on its merits. Our action today is merely procedural 
in nature. It makes it clear to the Senate that the appropriate 
procedure for dealing with revenue measures is for the House to act 
first on a revenue bill and the Senate to add its amendments and seek a 
conference.
  There are numerous precedents for taking the action I am requesting. 
For example, on October 21, 1988, the House passed House Resolution 
604, returning to the Senate H.R. 1315, which would have imposed 
mandatory fees to finance a Federal uranium reclamation fund. On that 
same date, the House passed House Resolution 603, returning to the 
Senate S. 2097, which contained similar mandatory fees for a uranium 
reclamation fund. On June 15, 1989, the House passed House Resolution 
177 returning to the Senate S. 774, which would have conferred tax-
exempt status to two newly created corporations that otherwise would 
have been taxable entities. On October 22, 1991, the House passed House 
Resolution 251, returning to the Senate S. 1241, which would have made 
various changes to tax laws and would have had an immediate impact on 
revenues anticipated by the Internal Revenue Service.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hancock].
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the privileged 
resolution offered by my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. 
Rangel.
  As the ranking Republican member on the Select Revenue Subcommittee 
which he chairs, I want to underscore the gentleman's comment that the 
procedure we are following does not constitute a rejection of the 
amendment on its merits.
  The resolution does not address the substance of the Senate amendment 
at all. It simply tells the other body that we must insist on 
respecting the constitutional requirement that this and all other 
revenue measures originate in the House of Representatives.
  The resolution is truly procedural in nature--but it is an important 
procedure that protects the rights and responsibilities of the House of 
Representatives.
  There are several House-generated revenue measures currently pending 
in the Senate which may provide more appropriate vehicles for 
consideration of the substance of this amendment.
  Adoption of this privileged resolution to return the amendment to the 
Senate should in no way prejudice its consideration in a 
constitutionally acceptable manner.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Treasury-Postal Service-General Government that provided us with 
this fine piece of legislation that has been worked on by both 
Republicans and Democrats and that makes it abundantly clear that the 
objection to the provisions added by the Senate in no way depreciates 
the value and the merits of the good legislation that the subcommittee 
and the full committee reported.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding this time to me, and I want to thank him for his comments as 
it relates to the substance of the legislation to which this procedure 
refers. I want to also say that we agree in our subcommittee on the 
issue raised by the representatives of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
We concur with their opinion that the provision added in the other body 
was inappropriately added and should not have been added. In fact, of 
course, as the gentleman knows, the chairman of the subcommittee in the 
other body objected to the addition of this legislation. I made it 
clear to the members of the committee that the Subcommittee on 
Treasury-Postal Service-General Government would not have accepted this 
in conference, but I certainly understand that the privileges of the 
House have been raised under the Constitution of the United States and 
certainly have no objection to the actions being taken at this time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and I would want to point out that the gentlemen 
has been very cooperative, as have all the members of the committee on 
this issue, and the only thing that we want to do is to protect the 
constitution of the House by sending a message to the Senate that they 
accept the constitutional methods of having their will, as it relates 
to legislation, and not to continue to attempt to legislate in 
violation of the House prerogatives.
  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.

                          ____________________