[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 47 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3234-H3235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   A HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON A TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL 
                               AMENDMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this evening at approximately 9 
p.m., this House is going to have a historic opportunity to vote on the 
tax limitation constitutional amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States. The wording of the pertinent paragraph of that article 
is to my left. It states ``Any bill, resolution, or other legislative 
measure changing the internal laws shall require for final adoption in 
either House the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present * * 
*.''
  Back in 1787, when our Founding Fathers wrote the original 
Constitution and sent it to the States for ratification, there were 7 
requirements in it to require some sort of supermajority. A two-thirds 
vote was required to ratify treaties, a two-thirds vote was required to 
expel Members from Congress, a two-thirds vote was required to impeach 
Federal judges and so on. The Founding Fathers did not require a 
supermajority vote to raise taxes, but they were aware that the ability 
to raise taxes should be restrained in some way. So they gave the 
authority to introduce tax bills to one body, the House of 
Representatives, because in 1787 the only Federal institution that had 
to be directly elected by the people was the House of Representatives.
  That limitation worked fine for 125 years, and then in 1913, the 16th 
amendment to the Constitution said an income tax was constitutional. I 
have a copy of the first 1040 form back in 1913 with me this morning. 
It shows that the tax was 1 percent on income up to $20,000, net 
income. Only one-tenth of 1 percent of all American citizens had to 
file a 1040 back in 1913. Since that time, though, there has been an 
explosion in Federal taxes.
  I have with me a photocopy of my 1040 that I sent to Austin, TX, last 
week, and the instruction booklet that goes along with it.
  The marginal tax rate on American citizens today is not 1 percent, it 
is 40 percent. That is an increase in marginal taxation on the American 
people of 4,000 percent, 4,000 percent in less than 90 years.
  Enough is enough. It is now time to add an amendment to the 
Constitution that says there should be a supermajority vote required to 
raise taxes. Why a supermajority tax limitation amendment? Quite 
simply, as I have already said, it is necessary. More importantly, it 
works. There are 10 States that currently have some sort of 
supermajority requirement in their State constitutions. They are 
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.

                              {time}  1245

  In those 10 States, there are four things that are true in every 
State: Taxes are lower than in States that do not have supermajority; 
taxes go up slower than in States that do not have supermajority; 
consequently, jobs increase faster; and the economic growth in that 
State goes up faster. So we know that in the 10 States, including the 
largest State, the State of California, including the State where our 
President is from, Arkansas, tax limitation works.
  Interestingly, no State that has adopted tax limitation has repealed 
the constitutional amendment or the law that put it in place.
  Tax limitation would require in this House and in the Senate, if 
adopted, that there be a consensus to raise taxes. It would not make 
raising taxes impossible. We could still raise taxes, but it would take 
a two-thirds vote, which would mean you would not have the kind of tax 
bill that we had 2 years ago or 3 years ago that passed the House by 
two votes, all Republicans voting against it, and some Democrats voting 
against it, and passed the Senate on a tie breaker vote by Vice 
President Gore. It would require consensus, which is what 
supermajorities are all about.
  The bottom line on why we need to pass this amendment is not about 
Washington, DC and it is not about macroeconomics analysis. It is about 
real people. For example, my district representative, Linda Gillespie, 
is a divorced mother of two. Her oldest son is married now. He and his 
wife both work. Linda's daughter is going to college and works part 
time. Linda works

[[Page H3235]]

for me, but on the weekends she did have a part-time job at a blue 
jeans store in Ennis, TX, until it went out of business, trying to make 
enough money to make ends meet for her family.
  Tax limitation is important to Linda Gillespie and Billy Gillespie 
and Julie Gillespie, because they want to make their own way, and they 
are finding it more and more difficult to do so because of the tax 
burden today and the probability, if we do not pass the supermajority 
requirement for tax increases, of an increase in their tax burden in 
the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that later this evening, when we have this 
vote, that all Members of the House will vote for the tax limitation 
supermajority amendment to the Constitution.

                          ____________________