HRES-212-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Jason Smith (R-MO)
What it does
H. Res. 212 would formally express the House's position that Senate Joint Resolution 3 — a Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove an IRS rule on reporting gross proceeds from digital asset (cryptocurrency) sales by brokers — violates the Origination Clause of the Constitution. The resolution would return S.J. Res. 3 to the Senate with a message stating that, in the House's opinion, the Senate improperly originated a revenue-related measure. It does not itself repeal or modify the IRS rule; it is a procedural action asserting the House's constitutional prerogative.
Who benefits
The House of Representatives as an institution, which would have its claimed constitutional privilege over revenue legislation formally asserted. Members who support the House's exclusive authority to originate revenue bills. Indirectly, cryptocurrency brokers and digital asset exchanges subject to the IRS reporting rule may benefit if the procedural dispute delays or derails the disapproval resolution, since the underlying IRS rule's fate remains unresolved. Constitutional scholars and advocates of strict Origination Clause interpretation also benefit from the precedent this sets.
Who is hurt
The Senate, whose legislative action is formally challenged and returned. Senators who sponsored or supported S.J. Res. 3 would see their effort stalled or complicated. Cryptocurrency investors and brokers who supported the disapproval of the IRS rule may face continued uncertainty about the rule's status. Taxpayers and digital asset users who wanted the IRS reporting requirement eliminated would see that outcome delayed.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Origination Clause (Art. I, §7, cl. 1) unambiguously requires all bills raising revenue to originate in the House, and that a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving an IRS tax-reporting rule is revenue-related and therefore subject to that requirement. They contend that allowing the Senate to originate such measures would erode a foundational structural protection — the House's direct accountability to voters on tax matters — and that the House has both the right and the duty to return improperly originated measures rather than acquiesce to a constitutional violation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution is a regulatory rollback measure, not a bill "raising revenue" in the traditional sense, and therefore does not trigger the Origination Clause. They contend that the IRS rule at issue governs broker reporting procedures, not the imposition of a tax, and that stretching the Origination Clause to cover all IRS-related regulatory actions would give the House an unprecedented veto over routine Senate legislative activity — a reading unsupported by historical practice or Supreme Court precedent.
Constitutional context
The Origination Clause (Art. I, §7, cl. 1) requires that all bills for raising revenue originate in the House. The central dispute here is whether a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving an IRS broker-reporting rule qualifies as a "bill for raising revenue." No Supreme Court case directly resolves this question in the context of CRA disapproval resolutions, though the Court has historically interpreted "raising revenue" narrowly to mean bills that levy taxes, not all legislation with incidental fiscal effects.
Checks and balances
The House gains procedural leverage by asserting its Origination Clause privilege and returning the Senate resolution; the Senate retains the ability to reintroduce the measure as a House-originated bill, and courts could theoretically review an Origination Clause challenge if the underlying rule disapproval were enacted through the Senate-originated path.
Historical precedent
The House has returned Senate-originated revenue bills on Origination Clause grounds before — most notably in 1872 and in disputes over the ACA — but no directly analogous precedent exists for a CRA disapproval resolution targeting an IRS reporting rule.