[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H12164-H12165]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--RETURNING TO THE SENATE H.R. 400, THE 
 ANAKTUVUK PASS LAND EXCHANGE AND WILDERNESS REDESIGNATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the 
House, and I offer a privileged resolution (H.Res. 554) returning to 
the Senate the bill H.R. 400 and the Senate amendment thereto, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk reads follows:

                              H. Res. 554

       Resolved, That the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 400) 
     entitled the ``Anaktuvuk Pass Land Exchange and Wilderness 
     Redesignation Act of 1995'', 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 amendment thereto be respectfully 
     returned to the Senate with a message communicating this 
     resolution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution raises a question of the 
privileges of the House.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] will be recognized for 30 
minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is necessary to return to the 
Senate the bill H.R. 400 and the Senate amendment thereto because the 
amendment contravenes the constitutional requirement that revenue 
measures shall originate in the House of

[[Page H12165]]

Representatives. The Senate amendment to H.R. 400 would override 
current tax law by providing special tax treatment to Alaska Native 
Corporations receiving cash or property in certain circumstances and, 
therefore, contravenes this constitutional requirement.
  Section 204(a) of the Senate amendment achieves this result by 
providing that, for the purposes of section 21(c) of the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1620(c)), the receipt of consideration 
by a Native Corporation for the relinquishment to the United States of 
land selection rights granted to any Native Corporation shall be deemed 
to be an interest in land.
  Section 21 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act addresses the 
taxation of various actions pursuant to that Act. Subsection (c) of 
section 21 provides that in certain instances the receipt of land or 
any interest in land shall not be subject to Federal, State, or local 
taxation. Section 204 of the Senate amendment deems the receipt of any 
consideration (whether land, cash, or other property) to be ``an 
interest in land'' for purposes of section 21(c) of the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act.
  The Senate amendment expands section 21 to make the receipt of cash 
and other property to be tax-free. Absent this provision, the receipt 
of cash and other property would be governed by the rules of the 
Internal Revenue Code which would generally treat their receipt as a 
taxable event. This would clearly supersede the Federal income tax 
rules relating to the taxation of the disposition of property.
  The provision would have a direct effect on tax revenues. The 
proposed change in our tax laws is a ``revenue affecting'' infringement 
on the House's prerogatives, which constitutes a revenue measure in the 
constitutional sense. Therefore, I am asked that the House insist on 
its constitutional prerogatives.
  There are numerous precedents for the action I am requesting. In 
particular, on June 21, 1988, the House returned to the Senate S. 727, 
which dealt with the tax treatment of income derived from the exercise 
of Indian treaty fishing rights.
  I want to emphasize that this action does not constitute a rejection 
of the Senate amendment on its merits. Adoption of this privileged 
resolution to return the bill to the Senate should in no way prejudice 
its consideration in a constitutionally acceptable manner.
  The proposed action today is procedural in nature, and is necessary 
to preserve the prerogatives of the House to originate revenue matters. 
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 for the Senate to accept it or amend it as it sees 
fit.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate know better. This is a perpetual 
problem that we face in the House. They know that tax legislation must 
originate in the House and is not with any deleterious remarks that I 
want to make about this bill, but they know better, and I think it 
ought to be sent back and I concur with the gentleman's motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I 
would like to take advantage of this opportunity on our final day of 
this session of this term to pay tribute, great tribute to a gentleman 
that I have looked up to for many years on the Committee on Ways and 
Means, our ranking minority member now who is going into retirement, 
but will not retire from his involvement I am sure, in these key issues 
of concern to all of us citizens here in the United States.
  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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________