[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 152 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ORIGINATION CLAUSE

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DAVE CAMP

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, December 11, 2014

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an important institutional 
issue. Under the Constitution, it is the prerogative of the House of 
Representatives to originate revenue measures. Article 1, section 7, 
clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides that ``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.'' This clause is commonly known as the Origination Clause. As 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have a special 
responsibility in guarding this important House prerogative.
  A recent court decision has caused me to come to this floor to re-
affirm the House position on the Origination Clause. The rationale used 
by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their July 29, 2014 decision in 
Sissel v. HHS is at odds with consistent House Origination Clause 
practice. Specifically, the ruling from a three-judge panel of the D.C. 
Circuit held that because the primary aim of PPACA was not to raise 
revenue, but rather to ``induce participation in health insurance 
plans,'' it was not a ``bill for raising Revenue'' within the meaning 
of the Origination Clause. Sissel v. HHS, Op. at 13 (July 29, 2014).
  Although some courts have taken a narrower view of what constitutes a 
``a bill for raising revenue,'' the ``primary purpose'' test 
articulated in Sissel presents heightened challenges in interpretation 
that not only threaten the constitutional balance in Congress but 
invite subjective judicial scrutiny of the legislative process. This 
analysis may lead to confusion between the legislative and judicial 
branch on measures where the primary purpose is not easily 
ascertainable, measures that contain multiple, competing purposes, and 
measures that state a purpose that is in conflict with its content.
  The House's traditional provision-by-provision review of a measure 
and the effect of each on revenue is the more sound approach. This 
interpretation has served the Congress well when resolving differences 
between the House and Senate on the Origination Clause.
  I offer H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013, as a recent example. H.R. 4310, as passed by the House on 
May 18, 2012, was a lengthy measure that addressed nearly every aspect 
of our national defense. The Senate amended it on December 4, 2012 with 
its own version of the bill. Rather than attempting to assess the 
purpose of this diverse, multifaceted measure, the Committee on Ways 
and Means reviewed both the House and Senate measures in their 
entirety. This review of the Senate amendment revealed a subtitle that 
included import restrictions on Iran. Import restrictions invoke the 
revenue jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and have been 
the subject of Origination Clause action in the past. In response to 
this institutional infringement, I offered House Resolution 829, a 
measure returning H.R. 4310 and the offending amendment to the Senate. 
House Resolution 829 was adopted by the House unanimously on December 
12, 2012. In response to the House action, the Senate, also by 
unanimous consent, stripped the Iran sanctions content from its 
amendment, and the measure proceeded to conference. The bill was 
enacted into law on January 2, 2013.
  As chair of the oldest committee in the House, I have strived to 
protect this venerable institutional prerogative and clarify its 
application when needed. I am especially grateful to the majority and 
minority staff of the committee for their vigilance in this area. I 
hope these remarks will clarify the House position on this important 
constitutional issue.

                          ____________________