[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 47 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3235-H3236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        A PROPOSED SUPERMAJORITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, today on the floor of this House, we will 
debate and I sincerely hope pass a constitutional amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution, a provision which will provide a necessary level of 
discipline to this body.
  Ten States in the United States currently have a supermajority 
requirement for future tax increases. Why? They have this provision 
because it has turned out to be necessary in order to restrain the 
ever-growing demands of Government for additional spending.
  What has been the effect and what has been the experience of those 
States? It is quite simple and it is quite straightforward. In the 10 
States which have a supermajority requirement to raise taxes yet one 
more time, things, which we would expect would have indeed happened, 
spending has gone up less rapidly in those States with such a 
provision; taxing has gone up less rapidly than in States without such 
a provision; but, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, in those States which 
have done what this Congress has a chance today to do, and that is to 
require a supermajority for future tax increases, economic growth has 
increased at a faster pace than in those States without this restraint.
  Mr. Speaker, what is the issue? The issue is a simple one. If we make 
it harder, somewhat harder as this constitutional amendment would do, 
to exact additional tax dollars from the people of this Nation, then 
this Congress and the Federal Government will spend the money which it 
has more judiciously.
  Now, is that necessary? Indeed, it is. The record of this U.S. 
Congress in controlling spending and the record of preceding U.S. 
Congresses is abysmal. In 1950, the year after I was born, the average 
American family with children paid $1 out of $50 to the Federal 
Government in income taxes. They earned $1,500, they sent $2 to the 
Federal Government in income tax.
  By 1993, that had become $1 out of $4, and today it is dangerously 
close to $1 out of $3. Earn $100, do not send $2 to the Federal 
Government in taxes, but rather send $33 to the Federal Government in 
taxes.
  We will hear from the other side grave reservations, that we are 
tampering with the U.S. Constitution, that this violates the premise of 
majority rule. For those people who make those arguments, let me point 
out that the U.S. Constitution today requires a supermajority in 10 
days.
  In places where the Founding Fathers thought that restraint was 
necessary, and they should also be reminded when they harken to this 
premise of majority rule, that the fundamental purpose of a 
Constitution is to restrain the access of legislative majority.
  Indeed, a legislative majority enabled this Congress in 1993 to enact 
the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Even in the U.S. Senate with 
a majority of the Members of the Senate, that tax increase was dead 
tied, 50-50, for and against, until Vice President Al Gore broke the 
tie and increased taxes.
  For those who believe we ought to be concerned about minority rights, 
I would point out the experience in which, in the 1990 Omnibus Tax 
Reconciliation Act, we destroyed a major

[[Page H3236]]

U.S. industry by imposing through a majority vote a mere, simple 
majority vote, an excessive burden on just one industry.
  For those who say that tax limitation is a radical idea, let me point 
out that one-third of all Americans today reside in a State in which 
there is a constitutional supermajority requirement in their own 
constitution. The other argument we will hear is that this provision is 
unworkable. In point of fact, as rewritten by the House, it would allow 
revenue-neutral tax reform to go forward. What it would not do, 
however, is allow this Congress to reach into the pockets of Federal 
taxpayers already overburdened, and take yet one more time from those 
taxpayers.
  The fundamental purpose of a constitutional amendment ought to be to 
seek to restore to the Constitution the founders' original intent. I 
would suggest that that is precisely what this amendment does. If we 
look at the history of this Nation over the past four decades, we will 
see that the Supreme Court has read the commerce clause so expansively 
that the Government is vastly more powerful than it was in the past. 
This measure, this simple idea of saying to raise taxes yet once again 
we ought to have a supermajority, will provide needed restraint. I urge 
its adoption.

                          ____________________