[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 112 (Friday, August 12, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RETURNING TO THE SENATE THE SENATE AMENDMENTS 
                              TO H.R. 4554

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of 
the House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 518) and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 518

       Resolved, That Senate amendment No. 83 to the bill H.R. 
     4554 making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs 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. The resolution constitutes a question of 
privileges of the House.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 518 is a simple resolution returning to 
the Senate the bill, H.R. 4554, because it contravenes the 
constitutional requirements that revenue measures originate only in the 
House of Representatives.
  Specifically, the Senate amendments to H.R. 4554 provide that amounts 
are to be credited to the appropriations for the Food and Drug 
Administration ``from fees established and collected to cover the costs 
of regulation of products under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug 
Administration.'' These fees are not limited to cover only the costs of 
providing specified regulatory activities. Further, the FDA would not 
be required to change the fees, in appropriate amounts, only to those 
persons who benefit from such regulatory activities. Instead, the 
Senate amendments would allow the FDA to charge a broad cross-section 
of the public in order to fund the costs of its activities in general. 
Thus, these fees are not true regulatory fees, but constitute revenues 
which would fund the Government generally.
  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.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the privileged resolution offered 
by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Some folks may think that this appears to be a rather arcane battle 
and arcane discussion. It is, in fact, fundamental to an ordered 
process. The rules of the game in our society is the Constitution of 
the United States, and in Article I, Section 7, it says all bills for 
raising revenues shall originate in the House of Representatives. But 
the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills.
  The chairman has outlined a fee structure in the bill that we are 
asking to send back to the Senate. The fee structure in fact raises 
more money than the fees cover. If you are going to collect more in 
revenue than you are going to use for a particular purpose, you can 
call it whatever you want, but it is raising revenue under the 
Constitution, and the Constitution says that is the right and the 
privilege of the House of Representatives to originate. All the 
resolution does is simply tells the other body that we must insist on 
this constitutional requirement.

  Now when the House adopts this privileged resolution to return the 
bill to the Senate, it does not prejudice the amendment's consideration 
in any constitutionally accepted manner. Certainly the Senate sponsors 
are free to seek an appropriate House-generated revenue bill to 
accomplish that purpose. Whether or not the substance of the measure 
should be approved and whatever context is to be considered is 
certainly a discussion for another day. For now the issue is simply: 
Will the House of Representatives enforce its prerogatives under the 
Constitution?
  Mr. Speaker, I think that should be fairly simple for all of the 
Members of the House to understand and agree with the chairman, and I 
support the privileged resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say that what is at issue here is whether or 
not the House will take an action which is called blue-slipping the 
appropriation bill for agriculture for the coming fiscal year. The 
reason the Committee on Ways and Means wants to do that is because the 
Senate inappropriately adopted an amendment which is clearly an effort 
simply to legislate more spending in the agriculture appropriation bill 
above the amount that would be allowed for the budget caps, and the way 
they do that is to inappropriately use a revenue device. I grant that. 
As chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I fully appreciate the 
need for the Senate to cease and desist on items like this. But there 
are a number of ways that it can be done it seems to me. The committee 
can, if it chooses, pursue its right today. I fully recognize that 
right. If the committee pursues it in this manner, however, and if the 
Senate bill manager cannot obtain unanimous consent to vacate the ill-
advised Senate action, then it means that we are forced to repass the 
agriculture appropriation bill in this House, repass it again in the 
Senate, consuming additional time at a time when this institution is 
already under great duress and great stress because of the large nature 
of the bills such as the health care bill and the crime bill which we 
are still trying to wrestle with.

                              {time}  1440

  An alternative manner in which to proceed would still preserve the 
rights of the Committee on Ways and Means to blue-slip this bill when 
it comes back from conference if the offending provision has not been 
removed. I have made it quite clear, both orally and in a letter to the 
chairman of the committee, that our committee will not come back from 
conference with that offending provision. We reject it outright and 
would insist that it not be included.
  I cannot prevent the committee from exercising its right to offer 
this resolution today. They are correct. The committee does have the 
right and privilege to offer the resolution. But in a constructive 
atmosphere, one does not always need to exercise every right and 
privilege that one has. At least when that right is exercised, it would 
be good for this institution if that right were exercised in a way 
which took into account the greater needs of the institution at the 
moment.
  I take a back seat to no one in my insisting that the Senate follow 
constitutional dictates, and I fully acknowledge the right of the 
Committee on Ways and Means to take this action. But I would suggest 
that a more constructive way in which to take it would be to withhold 
this action for the moment and allow us to remove the offending 
provision in conference.
  Our committee did not, after all, place that offending matter in the 
bill. It was done in the Senate. They added the amount of spending that 
is in question. And we made quite clear it will be taken out and we 
will not bring an agriculture appropriation bill back to the floor if 
the Senate does not back off on its provision.
  It seems to me that that would be a far more constructive way to deal 
with the situation at hand, rather than to add to the gridlock which we 
have around here by requiring this House, if the Senate does not do 
what it ought to do, to repass again an appropriation bill, and have 
the Senate repass it again, at a time when our focus ought to be on 
health care and ought to be on crime.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations for his remarks. I have no argument with him about the 
substance of his remarks. I think he has been very straightforward and 
very professional and very gentlemanly in his approach. But we think it 
is appropriate that we send this back to the Senate at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Brown of Florida). Does the gentleman 
from California wish to use further time?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. I do, Madam Speaker. I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations talked 
about the greater needs of this institution. I think what is at issue 
is the Constitution of the United States. The issue is not 
inconvenience. The issue is not politics. The issue is not time. In 
part, the issue is you folks have controlled this body for so long that 
inconvenience, politics, and time may be more important than the 
primary and fundamental issue of the Constitution. The greater needs of 
the institution in the long run are met by making sure that we do not, 
for convenience, politics, or time, decide that something as 
fundamental as the origination of a bill, should take second place.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] such time as he may consume.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, we are faced here with a real problem and one that is 
developing, and I congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for the work 
he has done in the past to protect the House and the Constitution, and 
I congratulate him for what he is doing here today.
  This is not the first instance of this. It is about the fourth 
instance of this within just the last 4 or 5 weeks.
  Back on July 14, the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, we had a 
similar kind of concern. And to his credit, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Gibbons], represented on the floor by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Rangel], came to the floor and did what he is doing today: Assured 
the privileges of the House with regard to tax measures were protected.
  Then on July 21, another bill came over, not an appropriations bill 
this time, but the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 1994 
came over with a revenue measure attached. Once again the Committee on 
Ways and Means did what it was that should be done. The gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons] came to the floor and protected the privileges of 
the House at that point, as should be done on those kinds of measures.
  But the Senate was not finished. On July 21, they also added another 
tax measure to a bill that day, the Toxic Substance Control Act, which 
was also brought over with a revenue measure attached. Once again, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], to his credit, came to the House 
floor and protected the privileges of the House on this particular tax 
measure.
  What I am saying is there is a pattern here in the Senate now showing 
itself up in the appropriation bills. Prior to this, there was the 
appropriation bill on Commerce and Justice. On that particular one, an 
accommodation was worked out much in the way that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has described to the House here. It was not blue-
slipped on the way to conference, but was eligible for a blue slip on 
the way out of conference.
  The Senate, seeing that action, has not decided they are also going 
to do it in yet another bill, the Agriculture, Rural Development, and 
Food Development Administration.
  This simply cannot be allowed to happen. The fact is that we cannot 
put aside the Constitution in order to accommodate our legislative 
agenda in the House of Representatives. The Constitution is very firm 
on this point, and the Senate knows exactly what it is doing because it 
is doing it over, and over, and over, and over again, just within the 
last few weeks.
  They are doing so because it allows them to escape a budget control 
mechanism that has been put in their way, and that is that they cannot 
spend more than they have revenues to accomplish. So what they are now 
trying to do is spend more and add the revenues on in the Senate.
  We in the House should not accommodate that. We should make 
absolutely certain that our prerogatives with regard to taxing and 
spending are absolutely protected.
  That is what is happening here right now. The prerogatives of the 
House are being protected by the resolution of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons]. I congratulate him for it. It is something we 
need to do each time this challenge is brought before us. We cannot 
allow the matters to be resolved somewhere in conference committees in 
the hope it will come back the right way.
  We need to understand that this is not just a matter of an 
appropriations bill. It has now been in several committees where they 
have pulled the same kind of trick. I do not think the Senate is going 
to understand until we get to the point that every bill that they send 
over of this type is immediately sent back to them.
  So, again, I thank the gentleman for what he has done.
  Mr. DORNAN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DORNAN. Madam Speaker, if I am following this correctly, by 
putting new taxes, user fees or any other type of taxes, into an 
appropriations bill in the other body, they are opening up a window for 
more spending. Ergo, this is the much heard about tax and spending that 
goes on up here on Jenkins Hill.
  Mr. WALKER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, 
precisely. Thank goodness the Constitution protects us from that. We 
have an opportunity here now to uphold what our forefathers in their 
wisdom knew about the Constitution, and that is that any revenue 
measures ought to start in the people's body. This one did not, and we 
are now going to send it back to the Senate, because they did not do it 
the right way, and we thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] 
for allowing the House to do this in the right way.
  I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for yielding.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I would simply like to reiterate one point, 
and I am not going to push this to a rollcall vote. I understand what 
is going to happen. But I simply want to say that in my view, this is 
not a question of the Constitution. This is not a question of 
constitutional prerogatives. It is a question of at what time, at what 
point, and under what manner, the constitutional prerogative is going 
to be exercised.

                              {time}  1450

  I believe that constitutional prerogatives are like opinions. Just 
because we have them, we do not always have to express them, at least 
not at the immediate time.
  It just simply seems to me that the same purpose could be 
accomplished, the constitutional prerogative could be protected, if we 
were allowed to simply proceed to take out the offending Senate action 
in the conference.
  I fully agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I think this is 
simply an end run on spending caps. I resent it very much, and I am not 
going to allow it to happen. But the problem is that the process which 
the gentleman is pursuing today leaves us at the mercy of the ability 
of the other body to be responsible.
  I think that under some circumstances that might be a very weak reed 
to lean upon and so it seems to me that the better course would be for 
us to responsibly take the offending matter out without requiring each 
house to go through another set of hoops. That is what I was trying to 
accomplish here today. I am sorry I could not do it.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gentleman's comments, but I think the history, as was 
outlined by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, clearly indicates that 
were this the first offense, obviously the option that the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations now seeks as an alternative might be 
appropriate. But when the Senate has done this not once a year, not 
twice a year, but when it does it three and four times a month, I think 
what we are about here is in part behavior modification and that 
perhaps this inconvenience by the way in which we are upholding our 
constitutional right might, in fact, get the Senate to understand that 
if they are responsible at the outset, they will not have to be 
responsible at the backend, as the gentleman from Wisconsin is 
concerned about, in terms of their ability to do it the right way.
  It seems to me that an immediate response by the House of 
Representatives, in perhaps the most inconvenient way possible. will 
mean that we will not have to address this in the future.
  Therefore, I support the resolution by the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Florida.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam 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.

                          ____________________