[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 47 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3249-H3256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE TO 
                              RAISE TAXES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Before I start my special order, I want to 
commend the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding time in this special order and once we give our opening 
statements we will be happy to reciprocate in the spirit and to the 
level that you did in your special order.
  Mr. Speaker and members of the House, we are engaged in a serious 
debate. It is serious business to determine you should amend the 
Constitution of the United States. I would point out our Founding 
Fathers allowed for such amendment, and it has been amended, I believe, 
27, perhaps 28 times, since the original Constitution was ratified in 
1787.
  If you go back to that time period when our Founding Fathers were 
debating the same issues that we are debating on the floor of the House 
this afternoon, you find some interesting facts. First of all, there 
was no such thing as an income tax anywhere in the world. There were 
obviously taxes, but those taxes were normally head taxes, property 
taxes, excise taxes, transaction taxes, duties, fees, tariffs, but 
there was no income tax because very few people in the world, certainly 
in the United States, had any income. We were an agrarian economy. Most 
Americans lived on farms or in small communities and there simply was 
not a resource there to be taxed. Even then, over 200 years ago, the 
Founding Fathers were very aware of the sensitivity of the tax burden 
on the American people. So while they did not require a super majority 
vote to raise taxes, they did require that the House of 
Representatives, which was the only body directly elected by the people 
and the body most responsible to the people, be the body where all tax 
bills originated.
  For 125 years that limitation that all tax bills originate in the 
House of Representatives worked very well. We did not have an explosion 
in growth of the Federal Government. In 1913, we had the 16th amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States that said specifically that an 
income tax was constitutional. In 1913, 83 years ago, the first tax 
form, the first 1040, was passed out in 1913. This is a photocopy, a 
blown-up photocopy of the original 1040 form back in 1913.

  Those of you that can read it, you find out some very startling 
information. First of all, the normal tax, the normal tax that most 
Americans who even had to pay an income tax paid, was 1 percent on net 
income up to $20,000. Less than one tenth of 1 percent of the American 
population had to pay that normal tax of 1 percent.
  The richest American, an American who made over $500,000 in 1913, had 
to pay 6 percent. But most Americans paid no income tax, or paid 1 
percent.
  By 1949, the year that I was born, the tax burden had grown to 5 
percent on the American taxpayer, and today the average tax burden is 
40 percent. The marginal tax rate on the average taxpayer in America 
today is 40 percent. If you want to calculate percent increase from 
1913, and 1 percent to 1996 and 39.8 percent or 40 percent, it is 
4,000-percent increase 4,000 percent. That is too much.
  The debate today is about making it more difficult to raise taxes on 
the American people in the future. It is not about whether we had the 
appropriate number of hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary. It is 
not about the exact definition of de minimis in Webster's Dictionary, 
it is all about the basic principle of making it more difficult to 
raise taxes than it is under

[[Page H3250]]

the current simple majority tax increase vote requirement.
  It is a very simple concept. Two-thirds as a fraction is a higher 
number than one-half as a fraction. In fact, it is a higher number by 
16 and two-thirds percent, one-sixth, 16.67. Translated into votes in 
the House, you would go from 218 votes needed to 290 votes. In the 
Senate you would go from 50 votes or 51 votes needed to 67 votes 
needed. So that is what we are debating this evening.
  There are some States that have tax limitations on their books today. 
There are 10 States. These States range from the largest State in the 
Union, the State of California, to the State where President Clinton 
was Governor, the State of Arkansas. And you can see the other 8 
States.
  There are four things that are true in every State in the Union that 
has tax limitation. The first thing that is true is that taxes go up 
more slowly. In States that have some sort of supermajority requirement 
for increasing taxes, taxes do not not go up. They do go up. In fact, 
they have been going up, 102 percent between 1980 and 1992. In the 
States that do not have a supermajority requirement, taxes have gone up 
121 percent. That difference of 19 percent, if you calculated it on the 
Federal tax rate, you would have lower taxes in the Federal Government 
this year of around, I believe $160 billion.

                              {time}  1545

  So the first thing in all 10 States is that taxes go up more slowly 
than they do in States that do not have tax limitations.
  The second thing we find out is that, since taxes are not going up as 
fast in tax limitation States, spending is not going up as fast. Again, 
between 1980 and 1992, in the supermajority tax increase States, their 
spending went up about 132 percent. But in States that do not have a 
supermajority requirement to raise taxes, their spending went up 141 
percent. So that is a 9-percent savings in spending.
  Mr. Speaker, if we calculate 9 percent of $1.6 trillion we are 
spending here at the Federal Government this year, that is about $145 
billion savings in spending.
  Now, since taxes are not going up as rapidly and spending is not 
going up as rapidly in those States, some good things begin to happen. 
The first thing that happens is that employment does grow more rapidly. 
In States that have a supermajority requirement, the average number of 
people working went up about 26 percent. In States that do not have a 
supermajority requirement, employment grew, but only 21 percent. So you 
have a 5-percent differential there.
  Last but not least, since there are more people working in States 
with a supermajority requirement for a tax increase, the economy in 
those States grew more rapidly, 43 percent versus 35 percent in the 
nonsupermajority States.
  So those four things are true in every State. Taxes do not go up as 
rapidly, therefore spending does not go up as rapidly, therefore you 
create more jobs, and you create more wealth in the State. So the way I 
say this is a simplified fashion, taxes go up lower, taxes are lower, 
therefore spending goes up slower in States that have the supermajority 
requirement. And therefore the taxpayers are not left high and dry like 
they are in States without the supermajority requirement.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a lower, slower guy. I am not a higher, dryer guy.
  The last thing I would say on these 10 States, not one State that has 
passed supermajority has repealed it. In some of these States, the 
supermajority requirement for a tax increase has been on the books for 
decades.
  With that, I would be happy to yield to my friend from Arizona for 
such time as he may wish to consume.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas and join 
him in calling for the passage of this amendment.
  Let me talk about why. On the list of States which my colleague put 
up which have enacted a supermajority requirement, you will find the 
first State is my home State, the State of Arizona. We enacted that 
requirement in 1992. It compels the State legislature there to assemble 
a two-thirds majority before yet once again raising taxes.
  Now, why? The reason for that is that we had had a spiralling 
increase in taxes in our State year after year after year, and the 
consequences were devastating.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman did a great job of showing exactly 
how that comes about. I want to focus on just one of those charts.
  This chart alone says it all. For my colleagues in the Congress, I 
urge them to study this one chart. It says a very simple premise: Where 
taxes are high, where they are raised time and again, over and over, 
there is a consequence to be paid for that. In Arizona it was that we 
had gone from a high growth State with low taxes and a booming economy 
to years of tax increases, and we had become a low growth State. We had 
injured our economy. So we put an issue on the ballot, an initiative 
drive which I helped head, which the people had a chance to vote on. By 
a margin of 72 percent of those voting, we enacted a supermajority tax 
limitation.

  Those words are kind of confusing, supermajority tax limitation. What 
it says is simply this: Where today in this Congress we can raise taxes 
with a simple majority, 50 percent plus one, we would change that 
standard and make it not impossible but slightly more difficult to 
raise taxes yet one more time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not cutting taxes, we are just saying that the 
bar over which we should have to climb to raise taxes yet again ought 
to be slightly higher.
  In my lifetime we have raised taxes in this Nation, income taxes in 
this Nation, on the average American family by 1,200 percent. The 
consequence is we are doing to the national economy what the non-
supermajority States have done to themselves. That is, if you look at 
States where it is slightly higher and slightly harder to raise taxes, 
the supermajority States, you will see economic growth is significantly 
higher than in those States where there is no supermajority and where, 
accordingly, it is slightly easier to raise taxes.
  The premise which this amendment raises is a straightforward issue of 
fiscal responsibility. Should Congress be more responsible about 
spending the hard-earned dollars earned by the citizens of this great 
country? If you believe it should, then you must vote for this 
amendment, because by making it slightly harder to raise taxes in 
America, we will force this Congress to have discipline.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the record of this Congress and of past 
Congresses on controlling spending is abysmal. We have failed time and 
again to control spending. Thus, we need a supermajority requirement, a 
discipline on our ability to raise taxes, because that will force us to 
spend the money we have more wisely.
  As the gentleman indicated, there are 10 states that now require 
this. It is not a radical reform. I would like to point out that some 
of those who have considered it view it as indeed a rather prudent 
reform.
  George Will recently writing said, ``The proper reverent reason for 
amending the Constitution is to revive those of the framers' objectives 
that have been attenuated by political developments since the framers 
left Philadelphia.''
  What indeed has happened in America is that we have lost many of the 
first principles established in our U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme 
Court has as of today so expansively read the commerce clause that this 
Congress has vastly more power than it did a decade or two or three 
decades ago. Indeed, it has the power to reach into the pockets of 
Americans time and time again, to spend that money on almost anything 
it will.
  Six times since 1980 we have raised taxes. On one of those occasions, 
we had the two-thirds majority. On all of the others, we did not. Yet 
we raised taxes over and over again.
  The 1993 tax increase, the largest in American history, would not 
have passed this body if one vote had switched. It would not have 
passed the Senate had the vice president not broken a tie.
  Let me conclude by pointing out the words of two scholars who have 
looked at this issue. John McGuinness of the Yeshiva University's 
Cardoza Law School and Michael Rappaport of the University of San Diego 
Law School have said about this amendment that the amendment should be 
seen as an attempt to revive the original values of

[[Page H3251]]

our Constitution, rather than as a radical innovation.

  The opponents of this amendment will argue that it offends the notion 
of majority rule; that whenever the majority wants to do something, 
they ought to be able to do that. Regrettably, they ignore that the 
first premise of a constitution is to protect the rights of a minority.
  Indeed, in this instance, it is critically important that in the area 
of taxation, we protect the rights of the minority. That is why a 
constitutional amendment is the proper device. It is indeed not a 
radical innovation, but rather an idea that will restore the Founders' 
intent.
  I would invite the other gentleman to join us here.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to compliment the gentleman from Arizona 
on his leadership. He is one of the named sponsors, and is doing an 
outstanding job.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] 
at this point in time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time and 
compliment Mr. Barton from Texas for his leadership on the balanced 
budget amendment and on this constitutional amendment we will be 
debating and voting on today.
  As Americans hasten to file their Federal income tax returns by 
midnight tonight, many families will again remember how much of their 
family budget is paid to the Federal Government every year. Today they 
will be reminded and we will be reminded that the average American 
family pays $1 out of every $4 it earns to the Federal Government. We 
will be reminded that the average American family spends more on taxes 
than on food, on clothing, and on shelter combined.
  Sadly, we will also be reminded that the average American family can 
expect to work at least until May 6 before being able to dedicate any 
of the earnings to anything other than Federal, State, and local taxes. 
The average worker today spends the first 3 hours when he gets to work 
each morning just paying his debt to the Federal Government, State 
government, and local government before he can ever begin to labor for 
himself or for his family.
  With approximately 38 percent of the average family's budget being 
used to meet their total tax burden, it is high time that the U.S. 
Congress take action to make further tax increases more difficult.
  Our country has run chronic budget deficits for 25 years. We have 
pretended that we were going to do deficit reduction by raising taxes 
in the omnibus budget laws described as deficit reduction acts, and yet 
spending continues more and more.
  A perfect example for the necessity of such an amendment can be found 
in the middle class tax cut that was the centerpiece of President 
Clinton's 1992 campaign for President. Despite his record in Arkansas 
of having raised taxes and fees 128 times during his tenure as Governor 
of my home State of Arkansas, the American people still trusted him to 
make good on his promise. Just 1 month into his Presidency, however, 
the President betrayed that trust and traded his promise of a middle 
class tax cut for the largest tax increase in history. This record tax 
increase was pushed through Congress in 1993 and was approved by a 51-
to-50 vote in the Senate and a 218-to-216 vote in the House. A single 
vote switch in either body would have killed the legislation. A 
supermajority requirement easily would have saved our economy from yet 
another oppressive tax increase.
  It is clear that increasing taxes is not the answer to our deficit 
problems, that increasing taxes is not the way we are going to deal 
with the growth of the national debt. Every time in the last 40 years 
this Congress has raised taxes $2, we have increased spending $3. 
Raising taxes is not the answer. We simply must make it more difficult 
for this Congress and future Congresses to raise taxes.

  If that was not enough, our President vetoed the middle class tax cut 
that this Congress passed and gave to him this past December 6. That is 
why there will be no tax cut this April for hard working families.
  In one stroke of the pen, the President denied tax cut benefits to 28 
million families and 59 million children in our $500 per child tax 
credit. We will not see capital gains tax relief, we will not see the 
job creation that would have accompanied it, the relief from the 
marriage penalty, the estate tax, and on and on. We would have done 
that and much, much more. But, instead, the temptation is going to be 
there in the future for Congress to start raising taxes again. That is 
the temptation, to try to solve deficits by raising taxes, and is 
simply will not work.
  It is time to make Washington start working for families, instead of 
making families work for Washington. That is why I rise in strong 
support of this supermajority rule as a necessary component strategy, 
to shrink the size and power of the Federal Government and limit the 
power of Congress to tax the American people.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Before I recognize another gentleman, I would 
like to ask the gentleman a question: My understanding is you do 
represent the great State of Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is correct.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. It is my understanding that Arkansas has had a 
tax limitation on amendment on the books for several decades. It 
requires a three-fourths vote; not a two-thirds, but even a higher 
standard of three-fourths. Could you comment on how that has worked in 
Arkansas?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. We have a supermajority requirement, a three-fourths 
requirement, to raise the income tax in Arkansas. The evidence is very 
clear that the legislature has been more reluctant to raise the income 
tax levels for hard-working Arkansans.
  Now, we have a lower threshold for raising the sales tax, which many 
believe is a more regressive tax. The fact is they have fallen back 
many times on that regressive sales tax, which hurts poor people more 
than affluent individuals. I believe the supermajority across the 
board, whether it was a two-thirds or three-fourths, would make a lot 
more sense. But Arkansas today has one of the lower tax levels and one 
of the lower tax burdens in the United States. That is why people are 
moving to Arkansas. That is why our economy is good in Arkansas.

                              {time}  1600

  In my particular district, we have got unemployment down around 3 
percent, virtually full employment in my district, companies moving in, 
people doing well, because the tax burden, heavy as it is on the 
Federal level, has not been that onerous on the State level, partly 
because of that super majority provision.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Is there any move in Arkansas to repeal the 
three-fourths requirement?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. None whatsoever. I think the American people would 
rise up in arms, the people of Arkansas would rise up in arms if that 
were to occur. Quite to the contrary, as is happening in the antitax 
movement across this country, there are initiatives efforts, there is 
lots of talk about actually putting on the ballot a requirement to put 
all tax increases to a vote of the people. I do not necessarily support 
that. What I am saying is there is certainly no sentiment at all to 
repeal our supermajority tax issue.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. The tax limitation works, the supermajority vote 
for tax increases works in Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. It worked in Arkansas. It worked when President 
Clinton, then governor of Arkansas. I certainly believe it will work 
for our country.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
two-thirds tax limitation amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, a 
typical family of four pays nearly 40 percent of its income in Federal, 
State and local taxes. When you consider sales and a variety of other 
taxes that a family is often paying nearly half of their hard-earned 
money in taxes. Is there any wonder why so many folks are struggling to 
make ends meet? We have learned over the past four decades that too 
many politicians would rather raise taxes than reduce spending or even 
the growth of spending. Incidentally, that is not just true in 
Washington.

[[Page H3252]]

  An article published in Kentucky papers across the State this weekend 
showed my home State of Kentucky, that the taxes there are a burden on 
the lower income people more heavily than any State in the Nation. That 
is according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. We can make 
a statement on this tax day in the House of Representatives.
  We can tell the folks back home that they matter more than big 
Government, that Congress can make the occasional tough spending 
decisions without asking hard working men and women to contribute more.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 months ago, President Clinton ripped out a page from 
the Republican playbook by saying the era of big Government is over. We 
can help him keep his word today by passing House Joint Resolution 159. 
It is a good start toward ensuring the era of big Government will truly 
be over.
  Over the past three decades, there have been 16 major votes to 
increase taxes. Just half of those would have become law if there has 
been a two-thirds requirement. We may not be able to stop President 
Clinton from vetoing our tax cuts for working families, but we can help 
make sure that a one-vote margin in the House or the Senate does not 
allow another massive tax increase like the 1993 Clinton tax hike.
  Mr. Speaker, let us tell the American people that enough taxes are 
enough.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
  I yield to the gentleman, Mr. Hall of Texas, one of the named 
sponsors, the distinguished gentleman from Rockwall, the fourth 
district of Texas.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, of course, is tax day for 
millions of Americans. It is also tax day for Congress. I think what we 
do in the next few hours will send a message to all the hard-working 
Americans all across the country. It will either give Americans some 
hope for the future, some hope for tax relief, or it will give them 
nothing but the status quo.
  In the next few hours, we will have an opportunity to vote in support 
of House Joint Resolution 159, the tax limitation amendment to the 
Constitution. This amendment would require a two-thirds, a 
supermajority vote in the House and Senate for any bill that would 
raise Federal taxes. If a two-thirds requirement had been in place over 
the past 15 years, major tax increases in the years 1982, 1984, 1987, 
1990, and 1993 would have failed. It does not mean we would not have 
had a tax bill, but it would have been a more sensible tax bill. It 
would have been sent back and reworked and we would have had more cuts 
in spending and less taxes on the backs of the American people.
  This is a much higher standard than a simple majority vote and a 
standard that would be far more representative of the wishes of the 
American people.
  Most of us here in Congress, like most Americans, support efforts to 
balance the Federal budget, and last year Members of the House went on 
record to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Now 
today we have another opportunity to show where we stand on an issue 
that will affect everyone in this country.
  Most of us, like most Americans, most of us Members of Congress 
believe that taxes are either too high or they are high enough, and 
today we have an opportunity to vote on a bill that would offer some 
protection to the American taxpayer by making it more difficult to 
raise Federal taxes. Hopefully the balanced budget amendment will pass 
the Senate this year and go all the way to the statehouse and to the 
States for ratification. Following ratification of the amendment, 
Congress would be obligated to produce balanced budgets.
  Now if the vote falls short, which some people predict that it might 
do and we have to know that anything can happen on the floor of this 
house, if we do not have enough contact from the people of America to 
those who stand on this floor and represent them here as their Member 
of Congress, it is possible that we will not pass this day, this time 
this bill. But I think we will accept the lessons of history and 
consider this another step in the right direction. If I know the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Pete Geren, and the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg, as well as I 
know them, they will be back again and again. It took 13 years for the 
balanced budget amendment and the line item veto, but it is here and 
this will follow.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can pass it this day. I think if 
history is any indication and if we listen to the people, that is 
exactly what we ought to do. So on this historic day, Mr. Speaker, I am 
pleased to be an original cosponsor of the tax limitation amendment, 
along with Mr. Barton, Mr. Shadegg, and Mr. Pete Geren. They have 
worked tirelessly. I do not know of anyone who has worked harder than 
those men and their staffs throughout this legislation. The grassroots 
response have been enormous.
  On this historic tax day, I think Americans are watching to see where 
Congress stands on this important issue. I think we need to show the 
American people that we stand with them. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in support of House Joint Resolution 1759, the tax limitation 
amendment.

  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas. 
Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, I yield to 
the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Goodling.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I can sum up the most important reason to 
pass this legislation in one illustration. Thirty-eight percent of what 
the average American family earns they pay in taxes. Anybody have any 
idea how much they spend on food, clothing and shelter combined? 
Twenty-eight percent, which is 10 percent less than they have to spend 
on taxes.
  I was having a meeting this morning and the one gentleman said, I had 
to pay my taxes today. He has two little children. He said, very, very 
difficult. I said, yes, because the President vetoed a package that 
would have given you the kind of relief you would have needed. It would 
have given you $500 for each child. It would have given you a $500 
credit for home care. It would have given you a $1,000 credit toward 
long-term insurance. It would have given you an IRA for the parent that 
stays at home.
  These are the kinds of things we should be doing to try to help 
American families stay together, not take their money and bring it to 
Washington, DC, to waste. So I would call on all of my colleagues, 
support this legislation. We get a balanced budget and we make sure 
that we stop spending more than we take in and we will give hope to the 
future. We will give hope to the children and the grandchildren that 
are out there now wondering whether there will be a tomorrow like we 
were fortunate enough to have.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Goodling, for those 
remarks. Would the chair indicate how much time is remaining in our 
special order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 28 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to another of our original sponsors, Mr. 
Pete Geren of the 12th District of Texas, who unfortunately will be 
leaving us at the end of this Congress to return home to Fort Worth.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Barton, 
and commend him, the leadership on this issue, the leadership that he 
has brought to bear.
  From the first day he stepped on the floor of the Congress, he has 
been pushing this, and his dogged determination has brought us to where 
we are today. I must say it has been with some reluctance that I have 
come to the conclusion that it is necessary that we pass this 
resolution that would amend the Constitution to require a supermajority 
vote of two-thirds in order to increase tax revenues. However, I 
believe that if we ever are to control the growth of Government, limit 
its insatiable ambitions, then this limitation is necessary.
  The growth of Government, and with it the increase in taxes and 
increase in the deficit, have become a constant in this country. 
Regardless of who is in the White House, regardless of what party 
controls Congress, Government has remained and will continue to remain 
a growth industry. In terms of 1983 dollars, from 1969 to much of 1996,

[[Page H3253]]

the size of Government measured in terms of its spending, it has nearly 
doubled. These are in constant dollars. The Government has grown from 
$593 billion in 1969 to $1.1 trillion in 1996.

  I commend President Clinton for his statement that the era of big 
Government is over. I wish that were true. In spite of those words, the 
size of Government continues to grow and according to all projections, 
to all projections, it will grow as far as the eye can see and younger 
generations will bear the brunt and cost of our mushrooming growth in 
taxes paid and in freedom lost.
  According to the General Accounting Office, a child born in 1992, to 
fund Government on its current growth path, a child born in 1992 will 
pay 82 percent of his or her future earnings in taxes. Eighty-two 
percent of his or her future earnings in taxes. The Government itself 
has become the most powerful political force in America, not the people 
that pay the bills but the people that live off of those who pay the 
bills.
  When faced with cuts in spending, Government programs are able to 
rally their individual constituencies to bring overwhelming pressure to 
bear on the legislative process. The tax limitation amendment is needed 
to offset this pressure. I do not think our Founders ever imagined that 
we would have a Federal Government that would be telling us where to 
place curb cuts in the step of Cleburne or a Federal Government that is 
spending over 20 percent of the gross national product.
  They could not have imagined that when they drafted our Constitution, 
and I am confident if they had, this limitation amendment would have 
been put in the original Constitution. This is not a new initiative. It 
is a tested initiative. It has been tested in the laboratories of our 
individual States, as our Founders intended.
  Currently 10 States have supermajority requirements to raise taxes. 
They include Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, 
Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, 
geographically spread across the entire Nation. In States with no tax 
limitation, taxes have climbed 120 percent per capita from 1980 to 
1992, while they increased only 102 percent in States with 
supermajority requirements. Even with the supermajority requirement, 
the government has found a way to grow. Supermajority States have 
enjoyed a 43-percent growth rate from 1980 to 1992, while other States 
without this limitation have grown by only 35 percent. Employment 
growth averaged 26 percent in supermajority States but only 21 percent 
in States without the supermajority requirement. Using data from 50 
States, Dr. Richard Vedder, in a study for the Joint Economic 
Committee, has concluded and I quote:

       The economic performance of States is negatively relative 
     to the overall amount of taxation: Higher taxes mean lower 
     growth, lower taxes mean higher growth.

  This amendment is not artful. It is not pretty. It is not the sort of 
provision that will ever thrill constitutional scholars. It is a blunt 
instrument, and it is unfortunate that it is necessary, but it is 
necessary. As legislators, we have either been unwilling or unable to 
put restraints on the growth of government.
  In the so-called antitax era that we have all lived through in the 
last 15 years, we have still seen Government grow. The 1980's were 
famously antigovernment, antitax, yet taxes grew 20 percent during that 
decade, the size of Government growing in excess of that. There is a 
bias in our system toward growing Government. It is a bias that grows 
stronger every day as Government grows more and more and more intrusive 
in our lives. This amendment is necessary to counteract this bias and 
force the Government back into a role that respects that the genius and 
miracle of our experiment in democracy lies not in Washington, DC, but 
with the people.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Barton, for yielding me this 
time, and I commend you for your leadership on this effort.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, if the gentleman would remain at the 
podium, I have got a few questions that I would like to ask.
  My first question is, I believe that you are a member of the 
Democratic Party, is that not correct?
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Certainly am.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I know that some Members of this body have said 
that this is some sort of a Republican policy gimmick. But you are not 
a Republican, obviously. I think you are very proud to be a Democrat.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. No, and I expect that we will have a 
considerable number of Democrats join us in voting for this. I think 
the experience that we have seen in the 10 States that have tried this 
belies the accusation that this is some partisan gimmick by either 
party. Arkansas, a State that has been controlled by Democrats. 
Legislature, the Governor's office, I guess since Reconstruction, they 
have this provision.

                              {time}  1615

  California, very strong Democratic legislature, they have had 
Republican and Democratic Governors; they have this limitation under 
Willy Brown, one of the leading Democrats in the entire country. This 
provision came out of the legislature in which he presided as the 
speaker.
  So anybody that tries to dismiss this as a partisan gimmick I think 
is ignoring the fact that 10 States, some of the States in heavily 
Democratic--with heavily Democratic majorities in every area of 
government--have this problem. So for those to try to dismiss it with 
that sort of criticism I think are ignoring the reality of experience 
with this provision.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am sure that you have seen this study, but you 
might not have had a chance to really study it in detail, but March 19 
through March 21 there was a national poll conducted by Americans for 
Tax Reform. They polled 1,205 registered voters throughout the country 
about the tax limitation amendment, and I know that you will find this 
very gratifying to know that of those poll respondents that identified, 
self-identified, themselves as Democrats, 64 percent said they 
supported the two-thirds tax limitation amendment; 80 percent of people 
that identified themselves as Independents and 80 percent that 
identified themselves as Republican. So the support is slightly higher 
for Republicans and Independents, but for Democrats around the country 
64 percent of the respondents in this 1,200-person poll that said they 
were Democrats said they supported the amendment.
  And I know as a Democrat you will also be delighted to know that when 
they asked the poll respondents to identify themselves by socioeconomic 
status, low, middle class, or high income, of those that identified 
themselves as low-income wage earners, 80 percent supported two-thirds 
vote for tax limitation; middle income, self-identified, 77 percent 
supported tax limitation; and high income, 64 percent. And finally, 
certainly last but not least, when asked the one political question in 
this survey, and again these are 1,200 people, March 19 through 21, 
national poll, plus or minus 2.8 percent variance--when asked would you 
be more likely or less likely to vote for your Member of Congress if 
you knew that they voted for the two-thirds tax limitation amendment, 
by party identification 76--no, 68 percent of self-identified 
Democrats, said that they would be more likely to vote for their Member 
of Congress if they knew that he or she had voted for the two-thirds 
tax limitation constitutional amendment.
  Does the gentleman from Texas have any comments on those poll 
numbers?
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Well, I think that this reflects accurately 
where Americans are, regardless of party affiliation, and also explains 
why in many States with a strong, strong Democratic tradition and 
control of their State governments, have enacted a provision of this 
sort.
  This is a bipartisan initiative. We are not going to have as many 
people on my side of the aisle supporting it as I would like to see, 
but I think that poll shows that this is an initiative that enjoys 
bipartisan support or nonpartisan support, including strong support in 
the Independent base, and I would expect that--I mean, you look at the 
States that have it, Florida all the way to California, Louisiana, 
Arkansas; these are States that have very different economies, they 
have different political traditions, but joined in a recognition and 
understanding of the need to check this bias in favor of growing 
government.

[[Page H3254]]

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, I think it is interesting that when you 
really look at the facts and you look at the data that is out there, 
every State that has it, it works. We pointed out, you pointed out, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] pointed out, that taxes are lower, they 
grow slower, and that the economy, therefore, grows faster and more 
jobs are created. We point out that regardless of what your party 
affiliation is, it is supported anywhere from 80 to 64 percent. 
Regardless of your socioeconomic status, low, middle, or high, it is 
supported.
  More States are adding this tax limitation provision to their State 
constitutions every year. Voters of Nevada have already passed it once. 
Their constitution requires two separate votes. they are going to vote 
on it again this fall. We think they will ratify it and they will be 
the eleventh State to put it in the constitution.
  There are some dozen, dozen and a half, States that have got 
initiatives underway, so we are simply doing what is already being done 
and continuing to be done in the States, and I think that with your 
support and the support of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] we have 
an excellent chance to get enough Democrat support to pass it by two-
thirds on the floor this evening.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Let me just highlight one point that you 
made, the economic growth.
  If anyone were seeking to find an explanation why 68 percent of 
Democrats across the country support this, it is one simple word. It is 
jobs, economic growth. You look through the history of Democratic 
platforms, and you will see the word ``jobs'' repeated over and over 
and over for the last 100 years, and the States that have tried this 
have been proven job creators.
  This is an initiative that will create jobs, as it has in California, 
as it has in Arkansas. This is an opportunity to extend that job 
creation across the 50 States of this country.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Hall] and then----
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I think also, Mr. Speaker, that it might be 
pointed out: I think that same poll that was conducted indicated not 
just people that are out of work or that are looking for work, 
Democrats or Republicans, support this. I think that same poll showed 
that among Federal employees who already have a job, that 68 percent of 
those supported the supermajority, and I think it also should be 
pointed out that union members, who historically have voted Democratic, 
have indicated that 71 percent of the union members polled supported 
the supermajority.

  So while we up here on the floor of Congress try to shoot an arrow 
that hits the taxpayer and misses the voter, let me tell you we are 
hitting both of them and this is a chance for the voters and the 
taxpayers to have a shield, and I think the gentleman from Fort Worth 
probably agrees with that.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Absolutely.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank both my two good friends for supporting 
this.
  I would like to continue some of the comments that I made earlier. 
This is about making it more difficult to raise taxes, but not making 
it impossible. When my good friend from Arizona gets back, we are going 
to go through a colloquy on some of the tax increases that have passed 
the House in the last 10 to 15 years.
  One very good thing about our amendment: It would take bipartisan 
support to pass any additional tax increases because it is very 
unlikely that either political party is going to have 67 percent of the 
House and the Senate at the same time in the modern era, and as has 
been pointed out numerous times during the debate this afternoon, the 
last major tax increase that we had 2\1/2\ years ago passed by two 
votes in the House, with no Republican voting for it, and by a tie 
breaker vote the Vice President, Mr. Gore, voting for it in the Senate. 
That is not bipartisanship, that is one political party with a very 
slim majority forcing a massive tax increase, in this case the largest 
tax increase in American history, down the throats of the American 
people.
  I would now like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Arizona about some of the more recent major tax increases that have 
been before the House and the Senate.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I would just like to commend the gentleman from Texas, 
actually all three gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, Mr. Pete Geren, 
and Mr. Hall, who have shown great leadership here. I think I heard Mr. 
Hall recite that whether we passed it today or not, if in the unlikely 
chance we do not pass this measure today, he had great confidence that 
we would be here carrying this fight forward in the future, and, for 
the reasons that Mr. Pete Geren pointed out, I indeed, so long as I am 
a Member of this body, until we are successful in this effort, will be 
here to fight for it precisely for the reason he pointed out, and it is 
the reason shown on the chart just to your side, and that is job 
creation.
  This measure will aid the American economy. It is wonderful that we 
have 10 States to look to which have had experience with a 
supermajority for tax increases; that is, with making it slightly 
harder to raise our taxes again. And that experience teaches us; it 
teaches us that the economy and those States where they have made it a 
little harder to raise taxes, as we propose to do here today for the 
Nation, have grown at a significantly faster pace, over 40 percent 
versus under 30 percent.
  Now, in the discussion beforehand, and the gentleman might recall 
that our colleague from Virginia, Mr. Moran exercised some great 
concern about whether or not it would be possible to ever muster the 
two-thirds majority that this measure would require for a tax increase. 
Well, the history shows that while it may indeed be and should be 
somewhat more difficult, our goal is not here today to make it 
impossible to raise taxes, and I would just like to point out that on 
at least four recent occasions more than a two-thirds majority has been 
mustered for a tax increase, both here in the House and also in the 
Senate.
  The Tax Adjustment Act of 1966 got 74 percent of the Members of the 
House in its support and 94 percent of the Members of the Senate. The 
Interest Equalization Tax Extension Act of 1967 got 73 percent of the 
Members of the House to support it and a similar number in the Senate. 
In 1989 the Senate passed by a vote of 93 percent of the Members and 
the House passed by a vote of 58 percent of the members the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989. But the most compelling example of 
where a supermajority was accorded is what is now the infamous or 
famous Tax Reform Act of 1986. That probably is one of the best known 
tax revisions in this Nation's history, and that measure in its final 
version passed this Congress in 1986 by a vote of 292 to 136 in the 
House and by a vote of 74 to 23 in the Senate.
  So for those who say that a two-thirds barrier is too high, is too 
extreme, I would call these examples to their attention, and I would 
simply like to reiterate. The gentleman was asked before, the average 
American family today spends more on taxes, according to the figures we 
have been provided, than on food, clothing and shelter combined. When 
we have reached the point in this Nation where we spend more on taxes 
as an individual family than on food, clothing and shelter combined, 
indeed I believe it is time for reform, and the reform we bring here is 
not a radical one. It is a logical one, not a rightful cut in taxes, 
but simply a provision that says the next time we try to raise taxes 
again we ought to have to do it with a two-thirds rather than a 50 
percent majority.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. My understanding is the gentleman speaking is 
from the great State of Arizona and that you have a two-thirds or 
three-fourths requirement for all tax increases in your State and that 
has been in effect since 1992.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. SHADEGG. We do indeed have a two-thirds majority for all tax 
increases.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. And how has this worked in Arizona the 3 years 
it has been on the books?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Well, as having been the chairman of the initiative 
drive who put it on the ballot and then pushed it over with the vote of 
72 percent of the legislature supporting it, it has worked extremely 
well. Where we had seen a spate of 9 successive tax increases in a row, 
we have not seen a general tax increase since that measure was enacted.

[[Page H3255]]

  I would point out that the measure enacted in Arizona is much like 
the one we are proposing here; that is, it allows revenue neutral tax 
reform, so that if we want to change the code in some respect we can, 
so long as it is not a tax increase. And whenever in Arizona a tax 
increase is required, that is when the supermajority, two-thirds, is 
triggered, just as the language we are proposing here today would do.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I think that is a very basic point that we need 
to emphasize as often as possible. Under the language that is going to 
be voted on this evening, we could change from a national income tax, 
graduated system that we have today, to the flat tax or the national 
sales tax, as some people propose, with a majority vote so long as the 
revenue impact was de minimis, was neutral or less.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, our goal is to allow and to continue to go 
forward with revenue-neutral tax reform. Should we shift from the 
income tax to a sales tax to a VAT tax, whatever we deem is necessary, 
provided it is revenue-neutral, it can be accomplished with a simple 
majority. That provides the flexibility that our colleagues on the 
opposite side of the aisle are so deeply concerned about.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the other concerns 
under the current tax code, most Republicans and far-thinking Democrats 
support a rate reduction in the capital gains tax. What is the 
gentleman's understanding of what we could do with capital gains, if 
our amendment were to become part of the Constitution?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, as the scoring by CBO is currently 
performed, we could easily enact a capital gains tax cut, and would not 
require a supermajority to do that. Some of us, though, would argue 
that CBO ought to embrace the concept of dynamic scoring, which might 
change that analysis.
  But as the measure would currently be scored, a change in our capital 
gains tax rates to lower those tax rates could be accomplished by a 
simple majority vote, which means that a lot of arguments we have heard 
already today and a lot of arguments we will hear tonight about how the 
rule adopted here on the House has had to be waived simply does not 
have any application to this debate, because the language of the 
amendment differs from the language of the rule which we adopted on the 
first day of this Congress.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I see the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from the great State of New York 
[Mr. Solomon], on the floor. Would he like to engage in the debate?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of the gentlemen. I 
happen to come from the State--that State is New York--which always is 
either the first or second highest-taxed State in the Nation. Let me 
tell you, we have seen hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs 
leave our State almost for that reason alone; that, plus the fact that 
we are the most overregulated State.
  Let me just tell you, we go back to 1993 when this Congress enacted 
the largest tax increase in the history of this entire Government body, 
the largest tax increase. Yet, we did not cut the deficit by the amount 
of the tax increase. That meant by increasing taxes, you actually are 
giving an incentive to this Congress to increase spending. That is why 
we should never, never increase taxes in order to bring down the 
deficit, because it just does not work.
  This in itself is going to do more to straighten out the fiscal mess 
of this Congress and this Government than anything else we could do, 
because it is going to be a disincentive to this body to spend money. 
That is what we need to get at this sea of red ink that is literally 
killing my children, my grandchildren, and yours, and the others around 
this country.
  I commend both of you. Let us get this thing on the floor and let us 
pass it, and the American people are going to thank us from the bottom 
of their hearts.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the gentleman raised the question of whether or not tax increases have 
solved the deficit problem.
  I am sure the gentleman is aware that the history is, as he points 
out, the opposite. Each time we have increased taxes by a dollar, 
studies show we have further increased spending by not $1, not an equal 
amount, but by $1.59. So we have driven ourselves with each new tax 
increase to solve our deficit problem, not taken ourselves out of debt, 
but put ourselves further into debt.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is so right. Again, I want to thank both 
of you for the job that you have done to get this on the floor. 
Sometime around 9 o'clock tonight is going to come the critical vote. I 
would urge all of you, to the people back in your districts, to get 
those phones ringing and let us get these Members of Congress to come 
over here and vote for this vital piece of legislation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, that phone number is 202-225-3121, 
for those who wish to call the House switchboard.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton], the leader and the original sponsor of this 
amendment, that we need to reduce this down to its easiest terms to 
understand. It is not tough. It is really simple. It is just, simply, 
do you want half the Members on this floor to be able to raise your 
taxes, or do you want it to require two-thirds. We have de minimis and 
all these other one-way roads and explanations and diversions and 
questionings, and we will have speeches about it later in the day, but 
it narrows right down to whether or not we want half the people to be 
able to put taxes on us to where they can have more spending, or we 
want it to require two-thirds.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and I were here when they 
passed the so-called Tax Reform Act of 1986. It was an act that he 
simply wanted, the President, President Reagan wanted an act. He wanted 
a Tax Reform Act. The Committee on Ways and Means chairman wanted a Tax 
Reform Act. They got together on a Tax Reform Act. We passed it. I 
think of the two, only one of them really understood it. I am sorry to 
say that was not President Reagan.
  We got the sorriest act that has ever been passed on the floor of 
this Congress, that set this country back so far. That would not have 
happened if your amendment, I would say if the gentleman from Arizona 
[Mr. Shadegg] had been here, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], 
if his amendment had been passed, that would not have taken place. It 
took place right at the break of day when people were trying to go 
home. This protects people against those of us who are trying to go 
home; stay here and work, and require a two-thirds majority. I thank 
the gentleman for his tenacity and the tenacity he will set forth in 
the future if we fail today.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I 
simply want to conclude my remarks as a part of this special order by 
saying we in the Congress have a tremendous opportunity today to 
deliver to the American people on a promise we made a year ago. On this 
day when we exact their tax return from them, when we reach into their 
pockets one more time, we have a chance to tell them that we are going 
to impose the discipline of a supermajority requirement in the U.S. 
Constitution. I urge my colleagues not to miss this opportunity to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude very quickly by 
stating that this is about helping us to get to a balanced budget. The 
last balanced budget of the U.S. Government was in 1969. My son was 
born in 1970. He is now about to enter graduate school. He has never 
lived in a year that we have balanced the Federal budget.
  There are two ways to balance the budget. You can cut spending or 
raise taxes. We think, those of us who support this amendment, we 
should do it by emphasizing spending cuts, not tax increases. Federal 
revenues have grown every year since 1964. The 10 years that

[[Page H3256]]

I have been in the Congress, they have grown an average of $59 billion 
a year, $59 billion a year. The problem is that spending has grown more 
rapidly than revenues.
  The tax limitation amendment is simply a mechanism to make it more 
difficult to raise taxes and, therefore, easier to focus on spending 
reduction or spending limitation, which is what we should do in order 
to balance the budget. This House and this Senate sent to the President 
of the United States a 7-year comprehensive budget that would have 
balanced in 7 years with no tax increases. The President vetoed the 
Balanced Budget bill we sent him. If we get a supermajority requirement 
into our Constitution, future Congresses will be able to work with 
future Presidents and focus on spending limitation, not on tax 
increases, as a way to balance the budget.

                          ____________________