[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 47 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H3237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FIVE PROBLEMS WITH REQUIRING A TWO-THIRDS VOTE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I have only five problems with the issue that 
was just discussed by the gentleman from Texas to require a two-thirds 
vote to raise taxes. Actually, the language that would be made part of 
the Constitution says to make any change in internal revenue law would 
require two-thirds of this body voting in favor of it. Let me mention 
the five problems I have with it.
  The first is that it is a classic case of political posturing. The 
second is that it is bad public policy. The third is that it is 
fiscally irresponsible. The fourth is that it shows contempt for the 
wisdom of our Founding Fathers. And the fifth is that it is very badly 
written. But other than those five problems, it is a fine piece of 
legislation, I suppose.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say I think that this body would be shamed if 
we were to yield to the kind of political expediency that has brought 
it to the floor. Let me explain why it is such a classic case of 
political grandstanding. At the very beginning of this congressional 
session, when we began the Contract With America, there was a lot of 
hoopla over the fact that we, on the first day, passed a requirement 
that there would be a three-fifths vote requirement to raise income 
taxes. And those who voted for it took a lot of credit, of course, for 
doing so. But then when it was to apply to the legislation considered 
by this body, the majority got the Committee on Rules to waive that 
rule because they knew that those bills could not get three-fifths of 
the vote. So they did not let it apply to the so-called Tax Relief Act, 
to the Medicare Improvement Act, to the balanced budget resolution, or 
even to the health insurance reform legislation that we just recently 
passed.
  All of those bills included some increases in income tax. So for 
convenience sake, we simply waived the rules because the majority could 
not get three-fifths of the vote.
  But you cannot waive the Constitution. The fact is that none of the 
major bills that have gone a long ways toward addressing the Reagan 
debt that occurred during the 1980's because we kept cutting taxes and 
not cutting expenditures, we did the politically popular thing and not 
the politically unpalatable thing and created $3 trillion of debt. 
Well, almost all of those bills never would have come close to two-
thirds vote. That is why I say it is political posturing.

  They assume that on the Senate side there will be a sufficient level 
of responsibility not to pass it. Of course on the Senate side, you 
have got a very interesting situation. Seventeen States, the least 
populous who represent only 10 percent of the population, are 
represented by, of course, 34 Senators. There are two Senators for 
every State. So those 17 States are represented by 34 Senators, which 
is just exactly the number you need to block the majority's will. All 
you need is one-third plus one.
  So those 34 Senators have within their power to stop any revenue 
changes to the tax law if this constitutional amendment were to pass. 
Ten percent can change the will of the majority of 90 percent. What 
kind of a situation is that in the world's greatest democracy? In fact, 
let me get to the issue with regard to recognizing the wisdom of our 
Founding Fathers.
  Article IX of the Articles of Confederation required this kind of 
supermajority to increase revenue. It did not work. And so when they 
convened in 1787, the Constitutional Convention, James Madison and 
others had the courage to stand up and say, this is not what we meant 
by our democracy. When we have tough votes, they need to be majority 
votes. The minority should not be able to control or to void the will 
of the majority. That is what this kind of constitutional amendment 
would do.
  Mr. Speaker, it is also very bad public policy. If you want to make 
the tax system fairer, if you want to deal with the corporate and 
individual tax loopholes, if you want to change it into an income tax 
code that emphasizes savings and investment, you cannot do any of those 
things under this bill. It is bad public policy. It is hypocritical. It 
is inconsistent with the Constitution. I would hope my colleagues will 
vote this legislation down today.

                          ____________________