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




                  A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, as past Members who have addressed the House 
this morning have pointed out, later today we will take up an amendment 
to this Constitution of the United States. I want to address myself for 
the moment to the process by which this proposed amendment has been 
brought to the House.
  Passing for the moment the fact that I believe it is a bad idea and 
bad constitutional law, even worse is how we consider it today under a 
process that insults the intelligence and responsibility of Members of 
the House, that contradicts any suggestion that this House is able to 
operate in a thoughtful and considered manner, and that demands and 
debases the very process of constitutional amendment itself.
  The original proposal brought forward by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Barton], House Joint Resolution 159, received a single hearing 
before the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 6. It was then 
essentially removed from the committee and scheduled for a vote on the 
floor today. It was not marked up or approved by the Committee on the 
Judiciary. That committee, Mr. Speaker, is vested with the 
responsibility and authority under the rules of the House to give the 
kind of thoughtful consideration to a constitutional amendment that I 
believe the people of America think ought to obtain.
  House Joint Resolution 159 was then replaced, or will be if the rule 
before the House later today is enacted, by an entirely new proposal, 
House Joint Resolution 169.

                              {time}  1200

  This version of this constitutional amendment was first introduced in 
the House on the evening of Thursday, March 28. It was considered by 
the Committee on Rules the next day. On the morning of March 29, and 
reported to the House. And then this House went on recess for 2 weeks, 
the entire intervening time between consideration in the Committee on 
Rules and today. So very few Members have had an opportunity even to 
see the text of this amendment, much less to study and understand its 
implications.
  Again, this proposal has had no hearing at all in the Committee of 
jurisdiction, no markup, no regular deliberative process whatsoever. 
Let us stop and think about that for a second. Surely second only 
perhaps to the responsibility that we have in Congress in considering a 
declaration of war, second only to that, an amendment to the 
Constitution, an amendment to the Constitution ought to command the 
most serious and deliberate sort of legislative review, examination and 
analysis that we are capable of. It deserves better treatment than a 
rush job to meet a politically sexy vote deadline that the majority 
admits is a matter of symbolism. Symbolism in amending the fundamental 
document of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution should not be used to make political 
statements.
  There are many, many issues that are raised by this proposal, and I 
will speak about those later on today. One has to do with the 
fundamental contradiction of the principle of majority rule on which 
this country is based. In fact, if this were to become part of the 
Constitution, 34 Senators, representing less than 10 percent of the 
people of the country, could hold power over this important area of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, it would lock us in, for all practical purposes, to 
whatever the current tax structure might be at the time of its 
ratification. It will get in the way of many, many of the necessary 
things we are going to have to do to get the budget balanced, 
especially in areas of entitlement reform. It may unintentionally, or 
intentionally, who knows, actually get in the way of tax cuts because, 
for instance, those who are the strongest advocates of a capital gains 
tax reduction argue that that will actually increase revenues, and 
under this provision, that would require a two-thirds vote. Why? 
Because it is not whether the tax rate goes up, but whether revenues go 
up that controls whether a two-thirds vote is to be required.
  So, there are many, many issues here that have not been examined 
because this proposal has been rushed through in derogation of every 
single rule of procedural regularity that the House is supposed to 
adhere to. Of course, it is exactly to examine and understand issues 
such as those I've mentioned that we refer legislation, especially 
amendments to the Constitution, to committee. However, that was not 
done in this case.
  Mr. Speaker, because of the extraordinary abuse of process involved 
in bringing this matter to the floor, I want to put my colleagues on 
notice that I reserve the right to exercise every procedural right to a 
vote on every procedural matter that may be involved in consideration 
of this issue.

                          ____________________