[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 47 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3241-H3242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON TAX INCREASES NEEDED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, today on this floor we will debate the 
issue of tax limitation. Many editorial pages across the country have 
criticized this concept. They say it is tampering with the 
Constitution. They suggest that it is dealing improperly with the 
sacred concept of majority rule. Indeed, they say and suggest it is a 
dangerous proposition.
  I suggest to the contrary. Indeed, I think history proves to the 
contrary.
  There are 10 States in this country which now have tax limitation 
amendments. My State, Arizona, is one of those States.
  In Arizona, we added to our Constitution in 1992 a supermajority 
requirement very much like the one we will debate on this floor. It 
allows revenue neutral tax reform, but it says that when the Government 
seeks to raise taxes, to increase the Government tax bite out of the 
pockets of average citizens yet one more time, there ought to be not 
the narrowest of agreement on that idea, but a broad consensus. We 
ought not to foist down the throats of American taxpayers yet one more 
increase in taxes without first having developed a broad base of 
support for the belief that that increase in taxes is necessary.
  Now, why? Where are we today? What has the history been? Well, the 
history is that Government is a growth industry, that throughout my 
lifetime this Government has grown and grown inexorably, taking an ever 
larger bite time and again out of the pockets of the American 
taxpayers.
  Six times since 1980 alone we have raised taxes in this country. In 
that time period, we have enacted some 4,000 tax changes. But those six 
specific tax increases have been passed by this Congress. And on what 
basis?
  Well, the most striking of them was the most recent, the 1993 tax 
increase, the single largest tax increase in this Nation's history. By 
what margin did it pass? By the barest of possible margins. Had simply 
one vote in this body switched, it would not have passed. We would have 
not exacted that largest tax increase in U.S. history from the 
taxpayers of this Nation, by the switch of one vote in the U.S. House 
of Representatives.

  But the contrast is even starker when we look at our body across the 
way, the U.S. Senate. There this measure was in a dead heat, a 50-50 
tie. Not even a simple majority of U.S.Senators agreed on that massive 
tax increase. So the Vice President stepped in and he broke the tie, 
and we enacted that massive tax increase.
  Now, for those who say we ought not to do this, we ought not to go 
from a simple majority to raise taxes, 50 percent plus one, to two-
thirds, because somehow it offends notions of majority rule or of 
constitutional sanctity, let me point out that at 10 different places 
in our current U.S. Constitution, a supermajority is required. But let 
me also point out that 3 of those 10 were not in the original 
requirement. Three times since the birth of this Nation, three times 
since the adoption of our Constitution, we have added provisions 
requiring a supermajority for approval.
  Why? Because there can indeed be a tyranny by the majority of the 
minority. Indeed, if you reflect on the premise, if you think about the 
reason for the Constitution itself, it is to guarantee certain rights, 
but, most importantly, to guarantee to the minority rights that they 
not be run rough-shod over by the majority.
  Let me cite just one example of such an instance in the tax arena. In 
1990 this Congress passed the so-called luxury tax on expensive boats 
and automobiles and airplanes. The idea was we will punish the rich; we 
will make them pay a larger share of the tax burden of this country.
  Indeed, it passed by the barest of majorities without a 
supermajority. But what did it do? Did it punish the rich? It did not. 
It punished the poor. It punished working Americans. Go anywhere in 
this Nation where we were leading the world in the manufacture of 
yachts, and you will discover skilled workers, skilled carpenters, 
skilled fiberglass layers, skilled people in the

[[Page H3242]]

marine industry, who lost their jobs, whose jobs were wiped out because 
of the tyranny of the majority, which said we ought to enact a tax on 
those items.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this amendment. It is not radical, 
but, rather, it goes a significant way towards restoring the balance 
that the Founding Fathers envisioned in our U.S. Constitution.

                          ____________________