[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 4 (Monday, January 9, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E67]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 MAKING IN ORDER IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION ADOPTING 
    THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE 104TH CONGRESS

                                 ______


                               speech of

                           HON. PATSY T. MINK

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 4, 1995

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rules 
change which would require a 60-percent majority to pass an income tax 
increase.
  For over 200 years parliamentary rules of the House have conformed to 
the principles established under the Constitution of the United States 
which provide for rule by the majority.
  Majority has always meant one more than 50 percent of the House.
  The Constitution originally recognized only five instances wherein a 
two-thirds vote was required: To impeach, override a veto, pass 
constitutional amendments, ratify treaties, and expel Members of the 
House. In no case was it contemplated that a 60-percent vote be 
required to pass legislation. Ordinary law-making has always required 
only a simple majority vote.
  The Senate rule with regard to getting 60 votes to stop a filibuster 
is purely procedural. It is not a requirement to pass a bill. It is a 
requirement only to take it up. The House allows bills to come up under 
suspension of the rules with a two-thirds vote, but provides that 
failing that it may come up in regular order with a rule.
  The rules that govern the operation of the House cannot supercede the 
U.S. Constitution. The House cannot by a majority vote alter the force 
and effect of the U.S. Constitution and how it has been interpreted for 
the past 200 years. To change that requires a constitutional amendment.
  The new majority of the House that has well pleaded its case of 
fairness, should follow its own advice.
  Of course with the Republicans in charge of the agenda in the House, 
it is not likely that an income tax increase will come to the floor for 
a vote. That being the case there will not likely be a test of this 
supermajority rule under their tenure. And of course since this is only 
a Rule of the House of Representatives, when the Democrats return as 
the majority party this rule can be expunged.
  It is highly irregular to allow a fundamental change in how a bill 
becomes law to be effected by a change in the rules of the House. This 
circumvents history, tradition, and parliamentary precedents, all of 
which form the basis of the provisions in the Constitution of the 
United States which set out when and only when a supermajority would be 
required. That is the only logical interpretation and explanation as to 
why the Constitution bothered to set down the instances when such super 
majorities would be in order. If it was intended that the Congress 
could alter these at will each time the Congress convened a new term 
then it would certainly not have taken the time to make this explicit 
in five cases.
  Quite the contrary, the writers of the Constitution knew the mischief 
that supermajority votes, the so-called minority rights protections, 
could do to the governing of our country. To assuage the small States 
they deliberately created the Senate with the guarantee of two votes no 
matter the size or lack of population. But in the House majority rule 
concepts had to be safeguarded as fundamental to the true definition of 
the ``peoples' House.'' To abrogate the rule of simple majority and 
create a super minority in the House as well would greatly alter the 
balance of power and dilute the voting power of each Member.
  The Constitution is the fountain and spirit of our democracy. Its 
foundation should not be uprooted by procedural rules changes designed 
for political gamesmenship where it is clear that under no 
circumstances with this majority will there be any likelihood that an 
income tax increase bill will be reported to the floor.
  I urge this House to uphold the Constitution and vote down this 
blatantly political maneuver intended to depict all who stood up for 
the Constitution to be those who would vote for an income tax increase.
  It is tyranny when the majority sacrifices the principles of the 
Constitution to make a political point.

                          ____________________