[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 115 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4539, TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE AND 
              GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4539) making appropriations for the 
Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of 
the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with Senate 
amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.


              motion to instruct offered by mr. lightfoot

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lightfoot moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House, at the conference of the disagreeing votes on the 
     bill, H.R. 4539, be instructed to insist on disagreement to 
     provisions contained in any Senate amendment regarding the 
     imposition of new or increased user fees, collections or 
     taxes which may be established by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury and which are authorized by law, to insist on 
     disagreement to the amendment to the last proviso set forth 
     in Senate amendment numbered 16, to insist on disagreement to 
     the Senate amendment numbered 26, and to insist on 
     disagreement to the Senate amendment numbered 29.

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to instruct be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a motion to instruct conferees on items which 
have been considered by the subcommittee, the full Committee on 
Appropriations, and the House. I think the motion is very 
straightforward. It instructs conferees to reject new user fees 
proposed by the Treasury Department. Our subcommittee chose to reject 
the proposed user fees, totaling some $258 million. They include: a $20 
fee for tax filers entering into an installment agreement with IRS to 
pay taxes owed over time; A $12 fee charged to those persons who 
request photocopies of tax returns from the IRS; an $8 fee imposed to 
transmitters of electronic returns; and an increase in the merchandise 
processing fee and the special occupational tax assessed by the Customs 
Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
  Frankly, many of us feel more user fees are not the answer--they are, 
quite simply, a roundabout way to increase taxes.
  The Senate, however, has included language permitting Treasury to 
retain the proposed user fees if they are increased. While the language 
doesn't authorize any new fees, it gives the IRS clear incentive to 
raise and implement fees on taxpayers.
  I would ask Members of the House to insist on the House position, 
rejecting new taxes and user fees. The Senate language encourages the 
IRS to boost fees for the activities I described a moment ago.
  As I stated earlier, in my view user fees are just a back-door tax 
increase. Any time the Federal Government levies fees for services 
which are mandated, we are simply increasing taxes.
  Let me point out a couple of other problems I have with the proposed 
fee increases. First of all, in imposing a fee on taxpayers for 
obtaining copies of their tax returns, I believe it is patently unfair 
to charge individuals for services mandated by the government--that is, 
in my view, an unfunded mandate. We are pretty good at that around 
here. Generally, taxpayers are requesting copies of their back returns 
because they must revise them or defend themselves in an audit--a 
government-induced action.
  Mr. Speaker, I was also dismayed to learn the IRS has just announced 
that, effective October 1, 1994, the charge for furnishing copies of 
tax returns and related documents will increase by 300 percent--from 
$4.25 to $14. I have a hard time believing the $14 reflects the true 
cost to the IRS of providing the copy. Interestingly enough, the 
President had announced in his budget proposal that this fee would be 
increased to only $12. I would like to know why this figure has now 
been increased even further.
  With respect to another of the proposed fees, the fee charged to 
those who file electronically, I am a little baffled by the proposal. 
The IRS is currently working to modernize its information systems, and 
has indicated there will be great savings down the road and fewer IRS 
errors as more taxpayers begin to file electronically. This proposed 
fee flies in the face of the IRS effort to increase electronic filing. 
Most members of the Ways and Means Committee would agree tax policy 
should encourage beneficial types of behavior, rather than have the 
opposite effect. It seems to me this proposed fee would discourage 
electronic filing, thereby reducing savings in the out-years to the 
IRS.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say I have signed a pledge, as have many 
of my colleagues, to oppose any tax increases and I intend to continue 
doing so.
  Mr. Speaker, the House rejected the fees requested by the President. 
The conferees should stick to their original position and reject these 
fees. They are opposed by the authorizing committees, and this 
opposition has been reflected in a letter signed by Mr. Gibbons and Mr. 
Pickle and received by the Treasury, Postal Subcommittee on July 25, 
1994.
  I believe there is no need to increase taxes to support additional 
spending. Reject these new taxes and vote aye on the motion to instruct 
conferees, and stay with the House position.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Although I am generally opposed to instructing conferees and would 
prefer that the conferees be free to make those decisions which can 
best be made and bring about reasonable compromise between the House 
and the Senate, I understand the gentleman's strong opposition to the 
imposition of fees, and as all Members know and as he has stated, the 
Subcommittee on Treasury Postal Service-General Government and the 
House did not include these fees as a part of its proposal to the House 
which the House passed. In point of fact, we believe at the fees should 
not be incorporated in this bill. Therefore, although I oppose 
generally the concept of instructing conferees, I do not intend to 
oppose the gentleman's motion at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the 
chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
conferees offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Hoyer, Visclosky, Darden, Olver, Bevill, 
Sabo, Obey, Lightfoot, Wolf, Istook, and McDade.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________