[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 47 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3256-H3304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 159,
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO TAXES
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 395 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 395
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 159)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States to require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing
taxes. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
of the text of House Joint Resolution 169 shall be considered
as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the joint resolution, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate on the
joint resolution, as amended, which shall be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) one motion to amend, if
offered by the minority leader or his designee, which shall
be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for
one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
McInnis] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of
debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 395 is a very simple resolution. The
proposed rule is a modified closed rule providing for 3 hours of
general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Upon adoption of
this rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of
House Joint Resolution 169 shall be considered as adopted.
Additionally, the rule provides for an amendment by the minority
leader, or his designee, which would be separately debatable for 1
hour. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, we should not view a proposed amendment to the
Constitution of the United States lightly. However, the participants at
the constitutional convention were acutely aware of the need to allow
for the amendments to the Constitution. During the Constitutional
Convention, Colonel Mason urged the necessity of an amendment process
claiming that ``the plan now formed will certainly be defective, as the
Confederation has been found to be. Amendments therefore will be
necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy,
regular and Constitutional way than to trust chance and violence.''
Likewise, Thomas Jefferson stated ``I am not an advocate for frequent
changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go
hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more
developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths
discovered and manners and opinions change. With the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the
times.''
The Framers with their infinite wisdom included Article V within the
Constitution of the United States. Article V has not been overused.
During the course of our history, in addition to the 27 amendments that
have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the States, six
other amendments have been submitted to the States but not ratified by
them. At times the ratification process moves slowly. For example, the
27th amendment to the Constitution was proposed on September 25, 1789,
and it was declared ratified on May 18, 1992, nearly 203 years later.
Ultimately, this House, the Senate, and the various State legislatures
will have thoroughly debated the merits of the supermajority
requirement prior to ratification, or rejection, of this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, requiring a supermajority for tax
increases is a good idea. My State of Colorado requires a three-fourths
supermajority for tax increases by the legislature, and the State of
Colorado is doing fine. One-third of all Americans live in States that
have tax limitations in their constitutions, and they have curbed the
growth of both taxes and debt.
Today, the average American, who works an 8-hour day, will spend the
first 2 hours and 46 minutes paying his tax liability. This year, the
average American family will pay more in taxes than housing,
transportation, recreation, and clothing combined. I do not believe
that we should continue to increase the average person's tax burden
unless there is broad bipartisan consensus as to the increase being
necessary. Any tax measure that could garner the required two-thirds
vote would obliviously enjoy wide support from all political parties,
and among the people generally. I urge my colleagues to support this
rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record documents detailing a
comparison of the amendment process between the 103d Congress and the
104th Congress.
The information referred to is as follows:
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of April 12, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\.............. 46 44 60 59
Modified Closed \3\................. 49 47 26 25
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 16 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 104 100 102 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
[[Page H3257]]
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of April 12, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition of
H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)........... O................ H.R. 5........... Unfunded Mandate A: 350-71 (1/19/
Reform. 95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)........... MC............... H. Con. Res. 17.. Social Security....... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1...... Balanced Budget Amdt.. 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 101......... Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/
Pueblo Indians. 1/95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 400......... Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/
Nat'l. Park and 1/95).
Preserve.
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 440......... Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/
County, Calif. 1/95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............ O................ H.R. 2........... Line Item Veto........ A: voice vote (2/
2/95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 665......... Victim Restitution.... A: voice vote (2/
7/95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 666......... Exclusionary Rule A: voice vote (2/
Reform. 7/95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............ MO............... H.R. 667......... Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/
Incarceration. 9/95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............ O................ H.R. 668......... Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/
Deportation. 10/95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)........... MO............... H.R. 728......... Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/
Grants. 13/95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)........... MO............... H.R. 7........... National Security PQ: 229-100; A:
Revitalization. 227-127 (2/15/
95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)........... MC............... H.R. 831......... Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A:
Deductibility. 229-188 (2/21/
95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)........... O................ H.R. 830......... Paperwork Reduction A: voice vote (2/
Act. 22/95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)........... MC............... H.R. 889......... Defense Supplemental.. A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)........... MO............... H.R. 450......... Regulatory Transition A: 252-175 (2/23/
Act. 95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1022........ Risk Assessment....... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95).......... O................ H.R. 926......... Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/
Relief Act. 28/95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95).......... MO............... H.R. 925......... Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1058........ Securities Litigation .................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 988......... Attorney A: voice vote (3/
Accountability Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)........... MO............... ................. ...................... A: 257-155 (3/7/
95).
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)........... Debate........... H.R. 956......... Product Liability A: voice vote (3/
Reform. 8/95).
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)........... MC............... ................. ...................... PQ: 234-191 A:
247-181 (3/9/
95).
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1159........ Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
Approps. 95).
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 73..... Term Limits Const. A: voice vote (3/
Amdt. 28/95).
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95).......... Debate........... H.R. 4........... Personal A: voice vote (3/
Responsibility Act of 21/95).
1995.
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95).......... MC............... ................. ...................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95).
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1271........ Family Privacy A: 423-1 (4/4/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 660......... Older Persons Housing A: voice vote (4/
Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1215........ Contract With America A: 228-204 (4/5/
Tax Relief Act of 95).
1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)........... MC............... H.R. 483......... Medicare Select A: 253-172 (4/6/
Expansion. 95).
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 655......... Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/
1995. 2/95).
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1361........ Coast Guard Auth. FY A: voice vote (5/
1996. 9/95).
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)........... O................ H.R. 961......... Clean Water Amendments A: 414-4 (5/10/
95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 535......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Arkansas. 15/95).
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 584......... Fish Hatchery--Iowa... A: voice vote (5/
15/95).
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 614......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Minnesota. 15/95).
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 67.. Budget Resolution FY PQ: 252-170 A:
1996. 255-168 (5/17/
95).
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1561........ American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
Interests Act. 95).
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1530........ Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A:
1996. 233-183 (6/13/
95).
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95).......... O................ H.R. 1817........ MilCon Appropriations PQ: 223-180 A:
FY 1996. 245-155 (6/16/
95).
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1854........ Leg. Branch Approps. PQ: 232-196 A:
FY 1996. 236-191 (6/20/
95).
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95).......... O................ H.R. 1868........ For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A:
1996. 217-175 (6/22/
95).
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95).......... O................ H.R. 1905........ Energy & Water A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 79..... Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A:
Amendment. 271-152 (6/28/
95).
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1944........ Emer. Supp. Approps... PQ: 236-194 A:
234-192 (6/29/
95).
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 235-193 D:
1996. 192-238 (7/12/
95).
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 230-194 A:
1996 #2. 229-195 (7/13/
95).
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1976........ Agriculture Approps. PQ: 242-185 A:
FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95).......... O................ H.R. 2020........ Treasury/Postal PQ: 232-192 A:
Approps. FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 96..... Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/
China. 20/95).
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2002........ Transportation PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
Approps. FY 1996. 95).
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 70.......... Exports of Alaskan A: voice vote (7/
Crude Oil. 24/95).
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 2076........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 25/95).
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95).......... O................ H.R. 2099........ VA/HUD Approps. FY A: 230-189 (7/25/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95).......... MC............... S. 21............ Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/
Embargo on Bosnia. 1/95).
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95).......... O................ H.R. 2126........ Defense Approps. FY A: 409-1 (7/31/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1555........ Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/
1995. 95).
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 2127........ Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)........... O................ H.R. 1594........ Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/
Investments. 12/95).
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1655........ Intelligence A: voice vote (9/
Authorization FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1162........ Deficit Reduction A: voice vote (9/
Lockbox. 13/95).
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1670........ Federal Acquisition A: 414-0 (9/13/
Reform Act. 95).
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95).......... O................ H.R. 1617........ CAREERS Act........... A: 388-2 (9/19/
95).
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2274........ Natl. Highway System.. PQ: 241-173 A:
375-39-1 (9/20/
95).
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 927......... Cuban Liberty & Dem. A: 304-118 (9/20/
Solidarity. 95).
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 743......... Team Act.............. A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
95).
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1170........ 3-Judge Court......... A: voice vote (9/
28/95).
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1601........ Internatl. Space A: voice vote (9/
Station. 27/95).
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 108.... Continuing Resolution A: voice vote (9/
FY 1996. 28/95).
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95).......... O................ H.R. 2405........ Omnibus Science Auth.. A: voice vote (10/
11/95).
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2259........ Disapprove Sentencing A: voice vote (10/
Guidelines. 18/95).
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2425........ Medicare Preservation PQ: 231-194 A:
Act. 227-192 (10/19/
95).
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95)......... C................ H.R. 2492........ Leg. Branch Approps... PQ: 235-184 A:
voice vote (10/
31/95).
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95)......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 109. Social Security PQ: 228-191 A:
H.R. 2491........ Earnings Reform. 235-185 (10/26/
Seven-Year Balanced 95).
Budget.
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95)......... C................ H.R. 1833........ Partial Birth Abortion A: 237-190 (11/1/
Ban. 95).
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95)......... MO............... H.R. 2546........ D.C. Approps.......... A: 241-181 (11/1/
95).
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Res. FY 1996.... A: 216-210 (11/8/
95).
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95).......... MC............... H.R. 2586........ Debt Limit............ A: 220-200 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95).......... O................ H.R. 2539........ ICC Termination Act... A: voice vote (11/
14/95).
H. Res. 261 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Resolution...... A: 223-182 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.R. 2586........ Increase Debt Limit... A: 220-185 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95)......... O................ H.R. 2564........ Lobbying Reform....... A: voice vote (11/
16/95).
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95)......... C................ H.J. Res. 122.... Further Cont. A: 229-176 (11/15/
Resolution. 95).
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2606........ Prohibition on Funds A: 239-181 (11/17/
for Bosnia. 95).
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95)......... O................ H.R. 1788........ Amtrak Reform......... A: voice vote (11/
30/95).
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95)......... O................ H.R. 1350........ Maritime Security Act. A: voice vote (12/
6/95).
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95).......... C................ H.R. 2621........ Protect Federal Trust PQ: 223-183 A:
Funds. 228-184 (12/14/
95).
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95)......... O................ H.R. 1745........ Utah Public Lands..... .................
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95)......... C................ H.Con. Res. 122.. Budget Res. W/ PQ: 230-188 A:
President. 229-189 (12/19/
95).
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95)......... O................ H.R. 558......... Texas Low-Level A: voice vote (12/
Radioactive. 20/95).
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95)......... C................ H.R. 2677........ Natl. Parks & Wildlife Tabled (2/28/96).
Refuge.
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2854........ Farm Bill............. PQ: 228-182 A:
244-168 (2/28/
96).
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96).......... O................ H.R. 994......... Small Business Growth. .................
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)........... C................ H.R. 3021........ Debt Limit Increase... A: voice vote (3/
7/96).
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3019........ Cont. Approps. FY 1996 PQ: voice vote A:
235-175 (3/7/
96).
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2703........ Effective Death A: 251-157 (3/13/
Penalty. 96).
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2202........ Immigration........... PQ: 233-152 A:
voice vote (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 165.... Further Cont. Approps. PQ: 234-187 A:
237-183 (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 388 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.R. 125......... Gun Crime Enforcement. A: 244-166 (3/22/
96).
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96).......... C................ H.R. 3136........ Contract w/America PQ: 232-180 A:
Advancement. 232-177, (3/28/
96).
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3103........ Health Coverage PQ: 229-186 A:
Affordability. Voice Vote (3/29/
96)
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 159.... Tax Limitation Const. .................
Amdmt..
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96).......... 0................ H.R. 842......... Truth in Budgeting Act .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated;
PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
[[Page H3258]]
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues ought to be ashamed of this
rule and this constitutional amendment.
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most carefully
crafted and well-respected documents ever created. It's the foundation
for the greatest Government on Earth. It is the protection of our
freedoms. And it's no place for political theater. But that's what's
happening today, Mr. Speaker.
Today my Republican colleagues are staging a legislative fiasco, or,
as the New York Times put it, ``Staging a vote on an irresponsible
measure''--and just in time for tax day. And they know it will go
nowhere. Because this ridiculous amendment needs 290 votes to pass the
House and luckily that won't happen. So, today's bill is showboating
pure and simple and the American people deserve more from their
Congress.
They deserve a constitutional amendment that at least has been
reported out of a congressional committee, and this bill, House Joint
Resolution 169, has never been the subject of a full committee hearing
nor has it been reported out.
Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution is serious business and we
should at least know what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, this issue, the issue of getting a supermajority to
raise taxes, has come up three times this Congress. In the beginning of
the Congress my Republican colleagues changed the rules to require a
three-fifth vote for tax increases. But, every single time that rule
came up, my Republican colleagues voted against it.
They ignored it on the so-called Medicare Preservation Act, they
ignored it on the Budget Reconciliation Act, and they ignored it on
health insurance reform.
If my Republican colleagues think this supermajority idea is so
wonderful, why didn't they do it the first three times they had the
chance?
Mr. Speaker, they had three times to show they were serious and three
times they showed they weren't. They didn't impose on themselves this
supermajority that they now want to impose on the Constitution of the
United States.
And I would say to my colleagues that it is a lot easier and a lot
less dangerous to change the House rules than to change the
Constitution of the United States of America.
This amendment, Mr. Speaker, like a lot of other legislation we've
seen this Congress, will help the very rich at the expense of lower
income working American families.
This amendment to our Constitution will lock in corporate welfare and
tax breaks for the very rich at the expense of middle and lower income
families.
This amendment will not prevent tax increases on working families. In
fact, my Republican colleagues have given themselves a big loophole.
They can still increase taxes on working families as long as they also
decrease taxes on the very rich.
That means the Republican budget is a-OK. That means that this
amendment allows the budget that will give the richest 1 percent of
Americans a $15,000 tax break while it raises the taxes on families
earning $27,000 a year.
And finally, this rule, Mr. Speaker, is one more restrictive rule in
a year of 100 percent restrictive rules.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
{time} 1645
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I should just very briefly point out to the gentleman
from Massachusetts that according to the study put out by the National
Taxpayers Union, more than 25 percent of the revenue the IRS got in
1992 came from 1 percent of the taxpayers. One percent of the
taxpayers, the very wealthiest in the country, pay 25 percent of the
burden. So this certainly clarifies the confusion on that side of the
aisle about what this rule does.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on
Rules, a gentleman who is well versed. Certainly it is appropriate for
him to address some of the issues that have been brought up by the
ranking minority member.
Mr. SOLOMON. I certainly thank my colleague from the Rules Committee,
a very valuable member of that committee from Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Massachusetts says we ought to know
what we are doing before we vote on this bill. Let me tell my good
friend from Massachusetts and everybody else within listening ear here,
we know exactly what we are doing. We are making it difficult for this
Congress to raise taxes on the American people. That is exactly what we
are doing.
Let me call attention right at the outset of this debate, and the 3
hours that we will go after this, I want you to watch the people who
stand up and oppose this constitutional amendment. I have here a list,
a brand new list from the National Taxpayers Union, and I guarantee you
that everybody on that side of the aisle that stands up to oppose this
will appear as the biggest spenders in the entire Congress.
So keep that in mind: The people that oppose this constitutional
amendment are the big spenders that want to continue to stick it to the
American people. And those of us that want to make it difficult to
raise taxes are those that have the lowest record for voting for big
spending programs in this Congress. Now that we have set the parameter,
I want all of you to pay attention and keep track as they stand one by
one on each side of the aisle.
Now, having said all that, I am rising to support this legislation,
Mr. Speaker.
Attempting to amend the Constitution of the United States is a
serious and a very historic undertaking. We would not suggest that this
approach is any way easy at all, but as future Congresses are forced to
deal with budget realities, the bottom line is that there are limited
options to reach a balanced budget.
One is to cut spending, and that is the way we ought to be doing it.
The other is to raise revenue, either by raising taxes, which we should
never do, or improving economic growth. That is the only way that you
get new revenues coming into the Federal budget.
A proposed constitutional amendment before the House today is
designed to discourage future Congresses from imposing large tax
increases unless there is a two-thirds consensus that this is
necessary. That is very simple.
Mr. Speaker, the opponents of this constitutional amendment may try
to portray it as some sort of unworkable scheme, but we should keep in
mind that 10 States that I know of, and maybe there are more, with one-
third of the Nation's population already have some sort of
supermajority voting requirement regarding taxation, and those States
seem to be managing nicely. They do not have any problem. It just takes
an overwhelming need to raise taxes before they will vote for it.
Other opponents may argue that in a democracy all votes should be by
a simple majority. That sounds nice, but our own U.S. Constitution
already provides for two-thirds votes on a number of issues. For
example, this proposed amendment to the Constitution, like all
constitutional amendments originating in the Congress, will require a
two-thirds vote in each House. So that is already a part of the
Constitution, and that is what we are proposing to extend here today.
The Constitution also requires a two-thirds vote by each House of
Congress to pass any bill over the President's veto. There is another
two-thirds requirement. And the Constitution also requires that there
be a two-thirds vote to expel a Member. So everywhere in our rules and
in the Constitution we have the two-thirds proviso.
Mr. Speaker, the opponents also may argue that the two-thirds vote
requirement is only provided in cases of special significance, and that
is true. We all admit that. But as Chief Justice John Marshall stated
in the case of McCulloch versus Maryland in 1819, listen to this now,
``The power to tax involves the power to destroy.''
Let me tell you something: We have all but destroyed the American
family in this country. When people with incomes of $30,000 and $40,000
and $50,000
[[Page H3259]]
or less or more have to work 3 out of every 8 hours of their day just
to pay the taxes for the Federal, State, and local governments, let me
tell you, that is the power to destroy. That is what we are trying to
prevent from happening in the future.
Mr. Speaker, the increasing of the overall tax burden on the American
population is a situation of special significance. It is at least as
significant as the ratification of a treaty, for example, and the
Constitution already requires a two-third vote in the Senate to approve
any treaty at all.
Writing in support of this specific constitutional amendment is
someone that I admire and respect very much. Columnist George Will
wrote last week that ``the properly reverent reason for amending the
Constitution,'' and listen to this, ``is to revive those of the
Framers' objectives that have been attenuated by political developments
since the Framers left Philadelphia'' way back when. George Will
concluded that this proposed constitutional amendment meets that test.
He cites two supporters of the supermajority requirement, John
McGinnis of the prestigious Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law School and
Michael Rappaport of the University of San Diego Law School, as saying
the amendment should be seen as an attempt to revive the original
values of the Constitution rather than as a radical innovation.
Mr. Speaker, that is true. The Framers of our Constitution designed a
system to ``temper simple majoritarianism'' with Federalism and the
separation of powers, and to protect ``that which taxation can
threaten--the right to enjoyment of property that results from
enterprise.''
We do not want to take money away from people, and that is exactly
what we have been doing. And yet those values have been undermined by
the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the commerce clause and
by the rules and regulations of the administrative state that have
substantially compromised property rights, which is what we all cherish
so much, property rights, our own property.
George Will quotes the two legal scholars to the effect that if the
supermajority requirement for raising taxes ``forces Congress to
finance spending with larger deficits that are even more unpopular than
higher taxes,'' what does that mean? ``This will induce Congress to
spend less than it otherwise would.''
Let me repeat that, because that is really what this debate is all
about. ``This will induce Congress to spend less than it otherwise
would.'' That is what it is all about. George Will echoes these
sentiments by saying that ``by making tax increases most difficult, a
supermajority requirement would force the political class to look to
economic growth to raise revenues,'' and that is where we should be
looking.
George Will concludes, and I quote, ``Some such amendment could
represent reverent restoration of the values embodied in what the
Framers did at Philadelphia.''
Mr. Speaker, I have to go back to my hero, Ronald Reagan, because in
1981 we rammed through the Reagan revolution. We made such a great
beginning.
But in 1982 there were some deficits that were appearing, and the
liberals that controlled this Congress back in 1982 went to Ronald
Reagan and to me and others and they said, ``Mr. Reagan, if you will
give us $1 in tax increase, we will guarantee you $2 in spending
cuts.'' Ronald Reagan, being a new kid on the block, bought that. He
bought that deal.
And do you know what? He actually signed a tax increase over my
objection, but what do you think happened? We did not get a nickel's
worth of spending cuts at all. As a matter of fact, we spent $1.29 more
than we got in tax revenues coming in. That is what this debate is all
about.
If we are ever going to stop this sea of red ink, we are going to
make it as difficult as we possibly can in raising taxes on the
American people, and that is why I hope everyone comes over here and
votes for this rule and then votes for this very important
constitutional amendment. Because if we do, and we give the two-thirds
vote, that means that the people themselves through their
representatives in the State legislatures across this country are going
to have a chance to then speak and be heard about ratifying this
proposal. Let us give the American people that choice by passing this
today.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. But if he is so
intent in passing the supermajority, why did his party three times this
year waive the supermajority that they put in themselves in changing
the rules? Could the gentleman please answer that question?
Mr. SOLOMON. As the gentleman knows, he has some people on his side
of the aisle that would liked to have raised a point of order and the
point of order would not have stood but it would have taken up several
hours of this body's time. That is the only reason. It did not raise
taxes and the gentleman knows it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I hope I have better luck getting a
straight answer.
When the gentleman said that it was the liberals who controlled
Congress in 1982 that forced Ronald Reagan to have a tax increase, does
he include in that the man who was then chairman of the Republican-
controlled Senate Finance Committee, Robert Dole?
The tax bill he is talking about in 1982 was passed by a Democratic
House and a Republican Senate with Robert Dole as chairman of the
Finance Committee.
Was Robert Dole who passed that tax bill one of those liberals the
gentleman is complaining about?
Mr. SOLOMON. No. Robert Dole was asked by Ronald Reagan to go along
with that bill because Ronald Reagan thought he could trust the
liberals. He found out he could not, and Bob Dole regrets it to this
day.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson].
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BEILENSON. I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the
proposed constitutional amendment it makes in order, which would
require two-thirds majorities for passage of bills increasing revenues.
{time} 1700
Mr. Speaker, many of us believe that the tax limitation
constitutional amendment is a foolish idea, but even Members who
support it ought to be very troubled by the manner in which the House
of Representatives is being asked to consider it today.
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are the most serious and
important measures Congress ever considers, because they propose to
change the document that is the very foundation of our Government. Yet
this proposed constitutional amendment has not gone through even the
minimal preliminary step of being reported by the committee of
jurisdiction--the Judiciary Committee--before being brought to the
House floor. And, because the amendment has not been reported, there is
no committee report available discussing the reasons for the
legislation.
In fact, only one hearing was held on this subject in the Judiciary
Committee--in one of its subcommittees--and that was on a measure that
was significantly different from the one that we are to consider today.
This new proposal was introduced on March 28, just 1 day before the
House recessed for 2 weeks; and its only airing was in the Rules
Committee the following day, as Members were preparing to leave
Washington for their home districts.
Even worse, this amendment will be debated at a time when Members are
just returning from their districts after the 2-week recess, and have
not yet had a chance to focus on this proposal, and to consider the
merits of the arguments on both sides.
Why is so important a measure as this being debated under such
circumstances? For one simple reason: because its proponents believe
they will get some public-relations benefit by holding this vote on
April 15, the day many Americans identify with paying taxes.
[[Page H3260]]
The Republican leaders are so intent on holding this vote on April
15, to get publicity as part of today's tax-related news stories, that
they are willing to violate the normal legislative process to do so.
And, the Republican leadership is holding this debate today knowing
full well that they will not come close to obtaining the two-thirds
vote necessary to pass this measure.
This is a cynical strategy that demeans the U.S. Congress by using
the floor of the House of Representatives as a stage for a public-
relations stunt, and the debases the U.S. Constitution by using a
proposed amendment to it as a stage prop. That is a disgraceful misuse
of the legislative process.
It is also more different than anything could be from the careful,
thoughtful debate of 1787-1788 of the authors of the Constitution. If
more members had read any of their debates, we would never dishonor
them by attempting to overthrow what they had one in such an arrogant
and thoughtless manner.
If we care at all about the Constitution we all swore to uphold, we
would never consider bringing such an important proposal to the floor
in the slipshod and disgraceful way that has been followed here. I
cannot conceive of anyone being so disrespectful of the men who devoted
themselves to creating the great document that has bound us all
together so successfully now for more than 200 years than the very
manner in which this matter has been thus far considered--and is being
presented to the entire House for its final consideration here today.
Beyond the circumstances under which this amendment is being
considered, the proposal itself is extremely unwise, which perhaps
explains why the committee of jurisdiction refused to act on it.
The primary reason we ought to reject this amendment is that it
violates the principle of majority rule, which is at the heart of our
democratic form of government. By requiring two-thirds of each House to
agree on bills that increase revenues, it would hand control over tax
policy--one of Congress's most important responsibilities--to a one-
third minority in each House.
Currently, the Constitution requires two-thirds majorities for only
five kinds of measures: Presidential impeachment, expulsion of House or
Senate Members, ratification of treaties, overriding a veto, and
amending the Constitution. This amendment would for the first time
require two-thirds majority for passage of ordinary, regular
legislation.
Since the committee did not take the time to look carefully at the
issue which is being presented to us today, perhaps it might be useful
and of some benefit to Members if we were to consider that those who
wrote our Constitution, and fought to have it adopted, thought about
this very matter.
Mr. Speaker, let me read just very briefly, if I may, from two of the
issues of the Federalist, the first being No. 22, written by Mr.
Hamilton, published in December of 1787, in part, to give a minority a
negative upon the majority, which is always the case where more than a
majority is requisite to a decision is in its tendency to subject the
sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. This is one of those
refinements which, in practice, has in effect the reverse of what is
expected from it in theory, the necessity of unanimity in public bodies
or of something approaching towards it has been founded upon a
supposition that it would contribute to security but its real operation
is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the
government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an
insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junto to the regular deliberations
and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of the
Nation in which the goodness or badness or weakness or strength of the
government is of greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for
action. The public business must in some way or other go forward.
If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority
respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority in order that
something may be done, must then conform to the views of the minority.
Thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater
and give a tone to the national proceedings different from that of the
majority. Hence tedious delays, continual negotiations and intrigue,
contemptible compromises of the public good.
Secondly, from Federalist paper No. 58, published in February 1788,
attributed to both Mr. Hamilton and to Mr. Madison, but which scholars
now seem to believe was most likely written by Mr. Madison, here too,
Mr. Speaker, I read just a small part. I quote: If has been said that
more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; in
particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a
decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a
precaution cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to
some particular interests and another obstacle generally to hasty and
partial measures, but these considerations are outweighed by the
inconveniences in the opposite scale in all cases where justice or the
general good might require new laws to be passed or active measures to
be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be
reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule. The power
would be transferred to the minority, where the defensive privilege
limited in particular cases, an interested minority might take
advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the
public wheal or in particular emergencies to extort unreasonable
indulgences.
Mr. Speaker, two additional comments, if I may, which I believe are
relevant:
No. 1, it is useful to recall that the reluctance of the Framers of
the Constitution to including supermajority provisions in the
Constitution was largely due to the ineffectiveness of the Articles of
Confederation which they were drafted to replace. The articles required
a supermajority for both taxing and spending, and the fact that it was
so difficult to pay off debts from the Revolutionary War and to pay for
the regular national expenditures thereafter was the main reason for
the downfall of the Articles of Confederation. For that reason, the
Philadelphia Convention chose to reject proposals to impose
supermajorities in legislative fields of even special sensitivity and
concern, reserving them for the five specific and special areas we have
heretofore mentioned.
No. 2, the Founding Fathers were willing to accept the fact that
Congresses in the future might use poor judgment at times and pass
harmful laws by a majority vote--but they believed so deeply in the
principle of majority rule, that they placed that principle above
whatever personal concerns they had that the majority at times would
act in a manner contrary to their own feelings.
And, finally, in Federalist No. 30, Hamilton argued that taxation is
a necessity ``in one shape or another,'' and that any effort to weaken
the power to tax is to minimize what he referred to as ``the most
important of the authorities'' of government.
For these reasons and many others which I will submit in the form of
extended remarks, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this proposal. I urge
Members to vote down the rule. That is not the way to bring a
constitutional amendment before this body.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California, put this
in real simple terms. We are talking about taxes, taxes, and taxes. You
know, taxes do not need rain. Taxes do not need fertilizer to grow. All
they need are politicians.
What we are trying to do with this two-thirds, which I live in a
State which exercises that, what we are trying to do is put a speed
bump in front of politicians that want to continue to increase taxes in
this country. It is not going to stop the opportunity from funding the
Federal Government. Obviously, that is important. It is going to make
you slow down before you hit that speed bump. If you go over it at the
proper speed, you are going to get through it. If you do not go over it
at the proper speed, it means you are raising taxes too much.
I think April 15 is a very appropriate time for people to be
considering, gosh, how much further are we going to let the Federal
Government go, how much deeper into our pockets are we going to
[[Page H3261]]
let them get. This proposal we have today was called by the gentleman
from California a stage prop, sinful, slipshod.
You know, what we are attempting to do, one thing, we are attempting
to give this to the States, every State in the Union, that is what this
Constitution says, they are entitled to debate it. One debate took 203
years. We want every State, we want thousands of elected officials to
debate this with the constituents they represent. That is all we are
trying to do today. This does not automatically put a two-thirds
limitation on the United States of America. It says to the States of
the United States of America, here, States, we want you to debate this,
here States, here is the opportunity under this Constitution, under
Jefferson and so on, to debate it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Barton], who is well versed in this area.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
I rise in strong support of the rule to bring up the tax limitation
amendment this evening for floor consideration.
I would like to point out, under the rule the minority party has an
opportunity to offer a substitute if they so wish. So, if they have a
problem with specific language in the amendment, they will be given an
opportunity to offer their own language. It is my understanding they
are not going to do so.
The distinguished member, the ranking member of the Committee on
Rules, Mr. Moakley, said in his remarks earlier that this is
irresponsible. I would take exception to that and say, Mr. Speaker,
that this is the most responsible thing we could do on tax day, 1996.
For over 125 years of this Nation's history, we had tax limitation in
the Constitution. It was not a supermajority vote requirement, it was a
requirement that all tax bills had to originate in the House of
Representatives, that are the people's body most closely related to the
people and elected for 2-year terms. Unfortunately, in 1913 we passed
the 16th amendment to the Constitution that said an income tax was
constitutional.
The marginal tax rate in that first income tax bill in 1913 was 1
percent. Today it is 39.8 percent. That is an increase of 4,000 percent
in the marginal tax rate on the American people. In 1913, less than 1/
10th of 1 percent of the American people had to pay ever 1 percent.
Today, literally every American working has to pay some sort of income
tax, and as we speak on the floor, 10 minutes after 5, April 15, 1996,
it is 10 after 4 in Texas, 10 after 3 in Colorado, 10 after 2 in
California, there are millions of American taxpayers, one-third of all
American taxpayers do not file their tax return until the last 2 weeks.
There are millions of Americans as we speak scrambling to fill out
their taxes, to file an extension, to understand the Tax Code, and
every one of those, I think, with almost no exception, is saying my
taxes are too high. Sixty percent of working families in this country,
both spouses have to work. Of those that are single-parent families,
over half of them have to have two jobs. Is it not time to say enough
is enough? A 4,000 percent increase on working Americans in their
marginal tax rate should be enough for even the biggest-spending
liberal in this body.
Let us vote for the two-thirds tax limitation later this evening,
send it to the Senate, send it to the States, where three-fourths of
them are necessary to ratify it, and begin to focus where we should
have focused on all along, and that is on spending limitation, not on
tax increases.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Rangel].
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1715
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, when there was a different
majority, we used to have a little pamphlet called How to pass a law. I
know the freshmen had a chance to read it before they took it off. But
it used to go something like this: A Member introduces a bill. It is
forwarded to a committee. The committee assigns the bill to a
subcommittee. They have hearings on the bill and people who are for it
and against it, they listen to the testimony. Then the committee
members amend it, they change it. But when they pass it, they take it
up to the full committee.
The full committee, they too sometimes have hearings, and they have
people to listen to it, to see whether it makes sense. Then they amend
it and they report it to the floor. And that is the way it used to be,
before the new rules come in.
Nothing goes to the committees anymore. You can sit on the
subcommittee, the full committee, and all you have to do is be in the
back room with the Speaker and let someone have a great idea and pass
it to my dear friend, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, and Mr.
Solomon brings it to the floor.
I do not mind that. When you lose, you are entitled to be subjected
to this type of legislative oppression. I never complain. But do not
mess with my Constitution. Do not do that to the American people. Do
not send it to a public relations firm on the day that we are supposed
to pay taxes, and to believe that this document that allowed our
country to survive for 200 years can now be distorted just because you
are down in the polls and you are trying to make a couple of points.
No, no, no, no. The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over
this, and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary should be
entitled to have hearings with scholars, with judges, and with those
people who hold this document precious.
Mr. Speaker, oh, it is a good gimmick. I would use it if I could. But
the thing is that I would not use it on the floor, not to be a hoaxer
to the American people to believe that this is going to become law and
we are going to change the Constitution.
We can take a lot of tomfoolery, we can take a lot of jokes, a lot of
hoax, a lot of hypocrisy, but somewhere in your hearts you know that,
when you want to amend that precious and sacred document called the
U.S. Constitution, that at least the committee of jurisdiction should
hear it, should have hearings, and report back to the House.
Mr. Speaker, I know it is an election year. I know it has been done
before. We like to have flat taxes. We like to have fair taxes; we like
to make certain that everyone pays an equal amount. But when the time
comes, since you have the votes to put in a bill, to have hearings on
the bill and to vote if you want the flat tax, vote for it. You have
the votes to pass anything you want in taxes. But I warn you, do not
mess with our Constitution. Do not do that to this Congress or to the
American people.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to follow the
gentleman from New York, because he laid out what we are talking about:
A political trick being played with the Constitution as a prop, and
that ought to be beyond the pale.
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is the most outrageous abuse of the
procedures I have seen in 16 years. Here is what happened.
This constitutional amendment was presented in a hearing to the
Judiciary subcommittee on which I sit. At the hearing, the chairman of
the full Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Hyde], was unable to conceal his lack of belief in this amendment. He
was quite critical of it.
As the hearing proceeded, this was the original amendment which is
still the one they plan to vote on in the Senate, it became clear under
the amendment they originally presented, to go to a flat tax in the
income tax, or to go to a sales tax, or to give the President the power
to impose a countervailing tariff on a Nation discriminating against
our project, all of those would have required two-thirds. There was
some disagreement among the sponsors, but they agreed to that.
So what happened then? Well, it was clear from listening to several
of the Republicans on the subcommittee that they did not have the votes
to get it out of subcommittee. So there was no markup on this in
subcommittee, there was no markup in committee. Instead, a private
conference was held with the
[[Page H3262]]
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who to his credit thought
the original amendment was really stupid. And it was.
Mr. Speaker, the hearing showed it to be stupid. It did all kinds of
things, and I mean stupid in that it did all kinds of things the
original sponsors did not mean it to do. So it has been totally
changed.
We now have an amendment before us which is wholly different than the
one that was originally introduced. This amendment has had no hearings,
because we had one hearing which showed a great flaw in the original
amendment. They were so embarrassed and the chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means said they cannot do this, so they came up with a
whole new one. They did not learn from their mistakes. They learned if
you are going to have a stupid amendment, do not have a hearing on it.
Because this one did not have a hearing.
They could not defend the original one in the hearing, so they bring
this one forward, and it had no hearing, no markup, nothing. It came
out of the private set of conversations.
I talked to one of the sponsors of the bill today after it had been
rewritten. He said I have not seen it yet.
The chairman of the Committee on Rules quoted George Will. George
Will wrote in his column supporting this amendment that the language of
this version is problematic. George Will asks us to vote for a
constitutional amendment that is problematic.
Now, George Will, with whom I disagree, does not want to put
problematic language into the Constitution. Obviously he thinks this is
a good political gimmick and that is why he talks about it. Why else
would he say pass something that is problematic?
Here is one of the things problematic about it. It would require,
according to the majority's own views, two-thirds to cut the capital
gains tax. I heard a little colloquy before in which one of the
sponsors of the amendment said, well, not necessarily. The
Congressional Budget Office does not score it that way.
Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer. Let me put this within the
rules. That was not an answer consonant with the reality of the facts
of the situation. The facts of the situation are that this amendment
does not give CBO that authority. CBO is irrelevant. This amendment
says by a method to be determined, we will require two-thirds if that
method says that has got a reasonable chance of raising revenues more
than de minimis.
Never have we seen such imprecise language in the Constitution. I
have more respect for my friends than to think they are serious about
putting this kind of sloppiness into the Constitution. But it does show
what a political game this is.
But what they say is that, if it raises the revenues, well now, they
believe every single sponsor of this believes that cutting the capital
gains tax raises revenues. If you put up a board that reflected their
views, that board would rule that it needed a two-thirds vote to reduce
the capital gains tax.
Now, I guess their view is this: They will be in control, a group
that believes that reducing the capital gains tax will raise revenue
will be in control, they will propose such a thing, and then they will
set up a board which will rule contrary to their rule that it will cut
the revenues. Obviously it will not happen.
The reference to CBO was not a legitimate intellectual response,
because CBO has no role under this amendment and the people who will be
in control at the time that a tax bill is proposed will be the ones to
deal with it.
The fundamental problem we have is this: The right wing group that
has taken over the Congress, because they are a majority of the
minority, or a minority of the majority, but a very intense one, they
have control; the ideological right wing group that has taken over has
recognized that their viewpoint is not supported by the majority.
The majority does not like their attacks on Medicare, their attacks
on Medicaid, their attacks on the environment. It does not like those.
The majority did not even like their tax cut. If you poll them, they
said we are serious about balancing the budget, unlike some who want to
use it as a game.
What they are trying to do is change the rules, if they are
successful, so the temporary majority they got in 1994 would continue
to govern long after it has been repudiated at the polls. What this
says is if the majority of the American people decide 10 years from now
they would like to spend more money on the higher education, the
environment, defense, or anything, tough. Because we, having gotten
control now, will change the rulings.
But even on those terms, they had a hard time coming up with an
amendment. And this amendment, which has never had a hearing and never
had a committee vote, which is problematic in its language, according
to George Will, which would require you to get a two-thirds vote to cut
the capital gains tax, is a disgrace.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while it is interesting to hear the gentleman from
Massachusetts refer to the right wing, I would remind the gentleman
from Massachusetts that this concept is supported by 68 percent of the
Federal employees, that this concept is supported by 71 percent of the
union workers.
Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts makes a very eloquent speech
about how this is not getting a fair hearing. If the gentleman from
Massachusetts wants to get this proposal a fair and a complete hearing,
he will vote for this. You know why? Because if he votes for it and we
get the necessary votes, we can send it to the 50 States.
If you want a fair hearing, if the gentleman from Massachusetts
really wants a complete hearing, he will get it out here to every State
in the Union, in which, during the process of ratification, thousands
and thousands of elected officials will have the opportunity to listen
to their constituents, who frankly think their taxes are awful high.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr.
Shadegg].
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this constitutional
amendment. It is an amendment whose time has come. It has well embodied
the principle that enough is enough. Six times since 1980 this Congress
has raised taxes on the American people. In 1993, the largest of those
tax increases passed with the barest of majorities.
There is a simple premise behind this constitutional amendment, a
premise embraced by 73 percent of all Americans, a premise adopted by
the 10 States that already have a constitutional amendment requiring a
supermajority, indeed, the 10 States whose population represents one-
third of all Americans, and that is the premise that the U.S. Congress
needs to be more responsible about spending the tax dollars it takes
from American taxpayers.
If you believe in that premise, then you should not oppose this
amendment, but support it. Because by making it somewhat more difficult
to raise taxes yet again, we will force on this Congress a level of
fiscal discipline which has been missing. Indeed, if you look at this
Congress and the past Congresses, our record of fiscal discipline, of
spending cuts, is abysmal.
The gentleman earlier on the other side referred to George Will and
implied that Mr. Will had criticized the language of this amendment.
But he omitted the conclusion of Mr. Will. And the conclusion of Mr.
Will at several of the different points in his article was that this
was indeed a good amendment. He said:
The properly 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.
Mr. Will continues:
Such am amendment will be voted on by the House on Monday
April 15, tax day. Such an amendment could represent a
restoration of the values embodied in what the framers did in
Philadelphia.
This is indeed not an extreme amendment. I would cite the words of a
professor from Cardozo Law School and the University of San Diego Law
School who said:
The amendment should be seen as an attempt to revive the
original values of the Constitution, rather than as a radical
innovation.
In a Nation where the average American family spends more on taxes
than
[[Page H3263]]
on food, clothing and shelter combined, this is not a radical amendment
of the extreme right. It is an amendment supported by labor, it is an
amendment supported by rank and file Democrats, it is an amendment
whose time has come, and I urge its passage.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the concept is popular, but
the problem Members cannot seem to get through their heads there is we
do not deal just in concepts. We have to deal in reality. We are
amending the Constitution of the United States. We are creating
litigation, we are creating rights, we are dealing with the basic law.
I did not imply that George Will was critical. I quoted George Will.
He said the language was problematic. That is in response to the
gentleman from Colorado, who says, and of all the silly arguments, I
think this is the silliest we get today, oh, vote on the constitutional
amendment; and you should vote yes, even if you disagree with it,
because you leave it to the people.
Of course, when we vote on the Equal Rights Amendment, that argument
disappears. When we vote on a lot of others, that argument disappears.
No, you are supposed to vote on it, whether you agree with it or not.
Here is the problem: It will not get a fair hearing in the States
because they cannot change it. The point I am making is on its own
terms, it is stupid. It does not do what the gentleman wanted it to do.
If we had a markup and a hearing we might be able to do that. The
States cannot change it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my question is, If you do not agree
with the language but you agree with the concept, is there going to be
alternative language offered by the Democrat minority?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would
say no, because we have not had the time to do that. We have not had a
markup. You know, these rules that we have of hearings, and we have had
no hearings on this language, of markups, these are not games. There is
a reality to them. People that care about something come together and
talk and bounce it off.
I am not going to play the kind of game you play. No, there was not
in the 2 weeks, all of which was recessed, during which we could see
the new language, which replaced your original wholly inadequate
language, your original language was repudiated on your side, so they
had to come up with whole new language, it has similar kinds of
problems, and you have studiously avoided subjecting any of this
language to any of the legislative procedures that would test it.
So, no, we are not going to be able to in this short period of time
under this gun play that kind of game with the Constitution.
{time} 1730
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a report on the balance of time
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
McInnis] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time, and I am reluctant to get into this high-powered
debate. But I do sit on the Committee on the Judiciary, and I sit on
the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary,
and I will tell my colleagues that this bill has not come to either one
of those committees for hearings or consideration. It was simply
brought to the floor so that we could deal with it on April 15, tax
day, so that it could be the backdrop for a political debate on an
issue that really needs substantive deliberate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, Members may think that we are playing games when we talk
about representation and majority rule, but that is what the entire
concept of our country is based on. Each one of us, as Members of this
body, is sent here to represent a different constituency, to bring our
input to bear from that constituency on every problem that comes to
America. When we talk about doing away with the concept of majority
rule, what we are doing is undermining the basic fabric and principle
of the Constitution and the democracy that we are sent here to
represent. So this whole notion that we can take one-third or one-
fourth of our Members and tie up the whole process and make them a
majority is counter democratic.
Mr. Speaker, I have been arguing with my colleagues all this term
that this whole concept of undermining the Constitution is not a
conservative concept. Conservative government is based on the
Constitution, and not withstanding that, these revolutionaries who call
themselves conservatives have four times, during the course of this
Congress, come to us and said let us do away with the Constitution that
we believe in so dearly, that we are sent here to preserve.
Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to vote down this rule and vote down
the bill and send it back for a proper consideration and deliberation.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
McInnis] for yielding me the time.
Nowadays when you speak up for something the American people want,
they call you a revolutionary. I do not think that is a pejorative. I
think that is a praiseworthy word now. We need to, I think, focus on
the issue. The real issue today is April 15 and it is tax day.
The Federal Government's bite has grown larger and more painful over
the years. Today, the average American has to work from January 1 to
May 6 just to earn money to pay his or her taxes. That is not fair.
Today the average American family has to pay nearly 40 cents out of
every dollar it earns for taxes. That is up in the Federal Government
by some month more than it was just 10 years ago. What is interesting
to me, I read in the paper over the weekend that our Committee on Ways
and Means, some 40 people only 6 fill out their own taxes, some 15
percent. That means our tax system is too complicated. If the people
who write the taxes here, legislation here in Congress, if this
legislation is too complicated for the people in the Congress, can you
imagine what it must be for the American people?
Mr. Speaker, this is a vote whose time has come and today is the
appropriate day, and I appreciate the Committee on Rules bringing this
legislation up so we can vote on it for the American people.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in strong
support of this proposed constitutional amendment, because there is
nothing extreme about allowing the American people to hang on to more
of their hard-earned money, and there is nothing nonsensical about
requiring a supermajority to raise taxes. Indeed, history has proven
all too eloquently in recent years that this institution has raised
taxes time and again to the point that over the past few years, for
every dollar raised in new taxes, Congress spends $1.59.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great idea whose time has come. Just as
Arizona and several other States of the Union have put provisions such
as this in their respective State constitutions, I rise in full support
of doing the same thing in our Federal Constitution. As we have seen
the cost of government grow 13,500 percent since enactment of the 16th
amendment, we stand on the rights of taxpayers. We stand on the rights
of the American people. We stand for this rule. And we stand for this
amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, every single rule the House has adopted
this session has been a restrictive rule; you heard that correctly, the
Republican House has so far adopted 100 percent restrictive rules in
this session. And if it is adopted, the rule before us will leave that
100 percent purely restrictive rules record intact.
[[Page H3264]]
This is the 66th restrictive rule reported out of the Rules Committee
this Congress.
In addition 73 percent of the legislation considered this session has
not been reported from committee--11 out of 15 measures brought up this
session have been unreported.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous material for the
Record.
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................ Compliance........ H. Res. 6 Closed................ None.
H. Res. 6...................... Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed; contained a None.
Package. closed rule on H.R. 1
within the closed
rule.
H.R. 5*........................ Unfunded Mandates. H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion N/A.
adopted over
Democratic objection
in the Committee of
the Whole to limit
debate on section 4;
Pre-printing gets
preference.
H.J. Res. 2*................... Balanced Budget... H. Res. 44 Restrictive; only 2R; 4D.
certain substitutes;
PQ.
H. Res. 43..................... Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; N/A.
Scheduling. considered in House
no amendments.
H.R. 101....................... To transfer a H. Res. 51 Open.................. N/A.
parcel of land to
the Taos Pueblo
Indians of New
Mexico.
H.R. 400....................... To provide for the H. Res. 52 Open.................. N/A.
exchange of lands
within Gates of
the Arctic
National Park
Preserve.
H.R. 440....................... To provide for the H. Res. 53 Open.................. N/A.
conveyance of
lands to certain
individuals in
Butte County,
California.
H.R. 2*........................ Line Item Veto.... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
gets preference.
H.R. 665*...................... Victim Restitution H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Act of 1995. gets preference.
H.R. 666*...................... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Reform Act of gets preference.
1995.
H.R. 667*...................... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Incarceration Act Time Cap on
of 1995. amendments.
H.R. 668*...................... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Deportation gets preference;
Improvement Act. Contains self-
executing provision.
H.R. 728*...................... Local Government H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Law Enforcement Time Cap on
Block Grants. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 7*........................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Revitalization Time Cap on
Act. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference; PQ.
H.R. 729*...................... Death Penalty/ N/A Restrictive; brought N/A.
Habeas. up under UC with a 6
hr. time cap on
amendments.
S. 2........................... Senate Compliance. N/A Closed; Put on None.
Suspension Calendar
over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831....................... To Permanently H. Res. 88 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Extend the Health order only the
Insurance Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Waives all points of
Self-Employed. order; Contains self-
executing provision;
PQ.
H.R. 830*...................... The Paperwork H. Res. 91 Open.................. N/A.
Reduction Act.
H.R. 889....................... Emergency H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Supplemental/ order only the Obey
Rescinding substitute.
Certain Budget
Authority.
H.R. 450*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Moratorium. Time Cap on
amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 1022*..................... Risk Assessment... H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Time Cap on
amendments.
H.R. 926*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 100 Open.................. N/A.
Flexibility.
H.R. 925*...................... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. 1D.
Protection Act. time cap on
amendments; Requires
Members to pre-print
their amendments in
the Record prior to
the bill's
consideration for
amendment, waives
germaneness and
budget act points of
order as well as
points of order
concerning
appropriating on a
legislative bill
against the committee
substitute used as
base text.
H.R. 1058*..................... Securities H. Res. 105 Restrictive; 8 hr. 1D.
Litigation Reform time cap on
Act. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference; Makes in
order the Wyden
amendment and waives
germaneness against
it.
H.R. 988*...................... The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive; 7 hr. N/A.
Accountability time cap on
Act of 1995. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 956*...................... Product Liability H. Res. 109 Restrictive; makes in 8D; 7R.
and Legal Reform order only 15 germane
Act. amendments and denies
64 germane amendments
from being
considered; PQ.
H.R. 1158...................... Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations nonemergency 1159 and
and Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in
order only pre-
printed amendments
that include offsets
within the same
chapter (deeper cuts
in programs already
cut); waives points
of order against
three amendments;
waives cl 2 of rule
XXI against the bill,
cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of
rule XVI against the
substitute; waives cl
2(e) od rule XXI
against the
amendments in the
Record; 10 hr time
cap on amendments. 30
minutes debate on
each amendment.
H.J. Res. 73*.................. Term Limits....... H. Res. 116 Restrictive; Makes in 1D; 3R.
order only 4
amendments considered
under a ``Queen of
the Hill'' procedure
and denies 21 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 4*........................ Welfare Reform.... H. Res. 119 Restrictive; Makes in 5D; 26R.
order only 31
perfecting amendments
and two substitutes;
Denies 130 germane
amendments from being
considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a
``Queen of the Hill''
procedure; All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments.
H.R. 1271*..................... Family Privacy Act H. Res. 125 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 660*...................... Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open.................. N/A.
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*..................... The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive; Self 1D.
America Tax Executes language
Relief Act of that makes tax cuts
1995. contingent on the
adoption of a
balanced budget plan
and strikes section
3006. Makes in order
only one substitute.
Waives all points of
order against the
bill, substitute made
in order as original
text and Gephardt
substitute.
H.R. 483....................... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive; waives cl 1D.
Extension. 2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill;
makes H.R. 1391 in
order as original
text; makes in order
only the Dingell
substitute; allows
Commerce Committee to
file a report on the
bill at any time.
H.R. 655....................... Hydrogen Future H. Res. 136 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 1361...................... Coast Guard H. Res. 139 Open; waives sections N/A.
Authorization. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration and the
committee substitute;
waives cl 5(a) of
rule XXI against the
committee substitute.
H.R. 961....................... Clean Water Act... H. Res. 140 Open; pre-printing N/A.
gets preference;
waives sections
302(f) and 602(b) of
the Budget Act
against the bill's
consideration; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI, cl
5(a) of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Makes in
order Shuster
substitute as first
order of business.
H.R. 535....................... Corning National H. Res. 144 Open.................. N/A.
Fish Hatchery
Conveyance Act.
H.R. 584....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 145 Open.................. N/A.
Fairport National
Fish Hatchery to
the State of Iowa.
H.R. 614....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 146 Open.................. N/A.
New London
National Fish
Hatchery
Production
Facility.
H. Con. Res. 67................ Budget Resolution. H. Res. 149 Restrictive; Makes in 3D; 1R.
order 4 substitutes
under regular order;
Gephardt, Neumann/
Solomon, Payne/Owens,
President's Budget if
printed in Record on
5/17/95; waives all
points of order
against substitutes
and concurrent
resolution; suspends
application of Rule
XLIX with respect to
the resolution; self-
executes Agriculture
language; PQ.
H.R. 1561...................... American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive; Requires N/A.
Interests Act of amendments to be
1995. printed in the Record
prior to their
consideration; 10 hr.
time cap; waives cl
2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill's
consideration; Also
waives sections
302(f), 303(a),
308(a) and 402(a)
against the bill's
consideration and the
committee amendment
in order as original
text; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI against
the amendment;
amendment
consideration is
closed at 2:30 p.m.
on May 25, 1995. Self-
executes provision
which removes section
2210 from the bill.
This was done at the
request of the Budget
Committee.
H.R. 1530...................... National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive; Makes in 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization Act order only the Bipartisan.
FY 1996. amendments printed in
the report; waives
all points of order
against the bill,
substitute and
amendments printed in
the report. Gives the
Chairman en bloc
authority. Self-
executes a provision
which strikes section
807 of the bill;
provides for an
additional 30 min. of
debate on Nunn-Lugar
section; Allows Mr.
Clinger to offer a
modification of his
amendment with the
concurrence of Ms.
Collins; PQ.
H.R. 1817...................... Military H. Res. 167 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Construction cl. 6 of rule XXI
Appropriations; against the bill; 1
FY 1996. hr. general debate;
Uses House passed
budget numbers as
threshold for
spending amounts
pending passage of
Budget; PQ.
H.R. 1854...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive; Makes in 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. order only 11 Bipartisan.
amendments; waives
sections 302(f) and
308(a) of the Budget
Act against the bill
and cl. 2 and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill. All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments; PQ.
H.R. 1868...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 170 Open; waives cl. 2, N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 5(b), and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Gilman
amendments as first
order of business;
waives all points of
order against the
amendments; if
adopted they will be
considered as
original text; waives
cl. 2 of rule XXI
against the
amendments printed in
the report. Pre-
printing gets
priority (Hall)
(Menendez) (Goss)
(Smith, NJ); PQ.
H.R. 1905...................... Energy & Water H. Res. 171 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against the bill;
makes in order the
Shuster amendment as
the first order of
business; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; if adopted
it will be considered
as original text. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 79................... Constitutional H. Res. 173 Closed; provides one N/A.
Amendment to hour of general
Permit Congress debate and one motion
and States to to recommit with or
Prohibit the without instructions;
Physical if there are
Desecration of instructions, the MO
the American Flag. is debatable for 1
hr; PQ.
H.R. 1944...................... Recissions Bill... H. Res. 175 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
for consideration of
the bill in the
House; Permits the
Chairman of the
Appropriations
Committee to offer
one amendment which
is unamendable;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment; PQ.
[[Page H3265]]
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)........... Foreign Operations H. Res. 177 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
Appropriations. for further
consideration of the
bill; makes in order
only the four
amendments printed in
the rules report (20
min. each). Waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; Prohibits
intervening motions
in the Committee of
the Whole; Provides
for an automatic rise
and report following
the disposition of
the amendments; PQ.
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*...... Interior H. Res. 185 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act and cl
2 and cl 6 of rule
XXI; provides that
the bill be read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 1977...................... Interior H. Res. 187 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f), 306 and
308(a) of the Budget
Act; waives clauses 2
and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; provides
that the bill be read
by title; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment
and makes NEA funding
subject to House
passed authorization;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against the
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 1976...................... Agriculture H. Res. 188 Open; waives clauses 2 N/A.
Appropriations. and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
that the bill be read
by title; Makes Skeen
amendment first order
of business, if
adopted the amendment
will be considered as
base text (10 min.);
Pre-printing gets
priority; PQ.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)........... Interior H. Res. 189 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations. for the further
consideration of the
bill; allows only
amendments pre-
printed before July
14th to be
considered; limits
motions to rise.
H.R. 2020...................... Treasury Postal H. Res. 190 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
the bill be read by
title; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.J. Res. 96................... Disapproving MFN H. Res. 193 Restrictive; provides N/A.
for China. for consideration in
the House of H.R.
2058 (90 min.) And
H.J. Res. 96 (1 hr).
Waives certain
provisions of the
Trade Act.
H.R. 2002...................... Transportation H. Res. 194 Open; waives cl. 3 0f N/A.
Appropriations. rule XIII and section
401 (a) of the CBA
against consideration
of the bill; waives
cl. 6 and cl. 2 of
rule XXI against
provisions in the
bill; Makes in order
the Clinger/Solomon
amendment waives all
points of order
against the amendment
(Line Item Veto);
provides the bill be
read by title; Pre-
printing gets
priority; PQ. *RULE
AMENDED*.
H.R. 70........................ Exports of Alaskan H. Res. 197 Open; Makes in order N/A.
North Slope Oil. the Resources
Committee amendment
in the nature of a
substitute as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides a
Senate hook-up with
S. 395.
H.R. 2076...................... Commerce, Justice H. Res. 198 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Pre-
printing gets
priority; provides
the bill be read by
title.
H.R. 2099...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 201 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Provides
that the amendment in
part 1 of the report
is the first
business, if adopted
it will be considered
as base text (30
min.); waives all
points of order
against the Klug and
Davis amendments; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
that the bill be read
by title.
S. 21.......................... Termination of H. Res. 204 Restrictive; 3 hours 1D.
U.S. Arms Embargo of general debate;
on Bosnia. Makes in order an
amendment to be
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee (1 hr); If
motion to recommit
has instructions it
can only be offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee.
H.R. 2126...................... Defense H. Res. 205 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Appropriations. 2(l)(6) of rule XI
and section 306 of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; self-
executes a strike of
sections 8021 and
8024 of the bill as
requested by the
Budget Committee; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title.
H.R. 1555...................... Communications Act H. Res. 207 Restrictive; waives 2R/3D/3 Bi-
of 1995. sec. 302(f) of the partisan.
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; Makes in order
the Commerce
Committee amendment
as original text and
waives sec. 302(f) of
the Budget Act and
cl. 5(a) of rule XXI
against the
amendment; Makes in
order the Bliely
amendment (30 min.)
as the first order of
business, if adopted
it will be original
text; makes in order
only the amendments
printed in the report
and waives all points
of order against the
amendments; provides
a Senate hook-up with
S. 652.
H.R. 2127...................... Labor/HHS H. Res. 208 Open; Provides that N/A.
Appropriations the first order of
Act. business will be the
managers amendments
(10 min.), if adopted
they will be
considered as base
text; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against certain
amendments printed in
the report; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title; PQ.
H.R. 1594...................... Economically H. Res. 215 Open; 2 hr of gen. N/A.
Targeted debate. makes in
Investments. order the committee
substitute as
original text.
H.R. 1655...................... Intelligence H. Res. 216 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Authorization. sections 302(f),
308(a) and 401(b) of
the Budget Act. Makes
in order the
committee substitute
as modified by Govt.
Reform amend
(striking sec. 505)
and an amendment
striking title VII.
Cl 7 of rule XVI and
cl 5(a) of rule XXI
are waived against
the substitute.
Sections 302(f) and
401(b) of the CBA are
also waived against
the substitute.
Amendments must also
be pre-printed in the
Congressional Record.
H.R. 1162...................... Deficit Reduction H. Res. 218 Open; waives cl 7 of N/A.
Lock Box. rule XVI against the
committee substitute
made in order as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1670...................... Federal H. Res. 219 Open; waives sections N/A.
Acquisition 302(f) and 308(a) of
Reform Act of the Budget Act
1995. against consideration
of the bill; bill
will be read by
title; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1617...................... To Consolidate and H. Res. 222 Open; waives section N/A.
Reform Workforce 302(f) and 401(b) of
Development and the Budget Act
Literacy Programs against the
Act (CAREERS). substitute made in
order as original
text (H.R. 2332), cl.
5(a) of rule XXI is
also waived against
the substitute.
provides for
consideration of the
managers amendment
(10 min.) If adopted,
it is considered as
base text.
H.R. 2274...................... National Highway H. Res. 224 Open; waives section N/A.
System 302(f) of the Budget
Designation Act Act against
of 1995. consideration of the
bill; Makes H.R. 2349
in order as original
text; waives section
302(f) of the Budget
Act against the
substitute; provides
for the consideration
of a managers
amendment (10 min.)
If adopted, it is
considered as base
text; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 927....................... Cuban Liberty and H. Res. 225 Restrictive; waives cl 2R/2D.
Democratic 2(L)(2)(B) of rule XI
Solidarity Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order H.R. 2347 as
base text; waives cl
7 of rule XVI against
the substitute; Makes
Hamilton amendment
the first amendment
to be considered (1
hr). Makes in order
only amendments
printed in the report.
H.R. 743....................... The Teamwork for H. Res. 226 Open; waives cl N/A.
Employees and 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI
managers Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order the committee
amendment as original
text; Pre-printing
get priority.
H.R. 1170...................... 3-Judge Court for H. Res. 227 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Certain committee amendment
Injunctions. as original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1601...................... International H. Res. 228 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Space Station committee amendment
Authorization Act as original text; pre-
of 1995. printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 108.................. Making Continuing H. Res. 230 Closed; Provides for ..............
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2405...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 234 Open; self-executes a N/A.
Science provision striking
Authorization Act section 304(b)(3) of
of 1995. the bill (Commerce
Committee request);
Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2259...................... To Disapprove H. Res. 237 Restrictive; waives cl 1D.
Certain 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI
Sentencing against the bill's
Guideline consideration; makes
Amendments. in order the text of
the Senate bill S.
1254 as original
text; Makes in order
only a Conyers
substitute; provides
a senate hook-up
after adoption.
H.R. 2425...................... Medicare H. Res. 238 Restrictive; waives 1D.
Preservation Act. all points of order
against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the text of
H.R. 2485 as original
text; waives all
points of order
against H.R. 2485;
makes in order only
an amendment offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment; waives cl
5 of rule
XXI (\3/5\
requirement on votes
raising taxes); PQ.
H.R. 2492...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 239 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations for consideration of
Bill. the bill in the House.
H.R. 2491...................... 7 Year Balanced H. Res. 245 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
H. Con. Res. 109............... Budget order H.R. 2517 as
Reconciliation original text; waives
Social Security all pints of order
Earnings Test against the bill;
Reform. Makes in order only
H.R. 2530 as an
amendment only if
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; waives cl
5 of rule
XXI (\3/5\
requirement on votes
raising taxes); PQ.
H.R. 1833...................... Partial Birth H. Res. 251 Closed................ N/A.
Abortion Ban Act
of 1995.
H.R. 2546...................... D.C. H. Res. 252 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Appropriations FY all points of order
1996. against the bill's
consideration; Makes
in order the Walsh
amendment as the
first order of
business (10 min.);
if adopted it is
considered as base
text; waives cl 2 and
6 of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Bonilla,
Gunderson and
Hostettler amendments
(30 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; debate on
any further
amendments is limited
to 30 min. each.
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 257 Closed; Provides for N/A.
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 258 Restrictive; Provides 5R.
in the Statutory for the immediate
Debt Limit. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee; self-
executes 4 amendments
in the rule; Solomon,
Medicare Coverage of
Certain Anti-Cancer
Drug Treatments,
Habeas Corpus Reform,
Chrysler (MI); makes
in order the Walker
amend (40 min.) on
regulatory reform.
H.R. 2539...................... ICC Termination... H. Res. 259 Open; waives section ..............
302(f) and section
308(a).
[[Page H3266]]
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 261 Closed; provides for N/A.
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of a
motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 262 Closed; provides for N/A.
in the Statutory the immediate
Limit on the consideration of a
Public Debt. motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H. Res. 250.................... House Gift Rule H. Res. 268 Closed; provides for 2R.
Reform. consideration of the
bill in the House; 30
min. of debate; makes
in order the Burton
amendment and the
Gingrich en bloc
amendment (30 min.
each); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; Gingrich
is only in order if
Burton fails or is
not offered.
H.R. 2564...................... Lobbying H. Res. 269 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Disclosure Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. against the bill's
consideration; waives
all points of order
against the Istook
and McIntosh
amendments.
H.R. 2606...................... Prohibition on H. Res. 273 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Funds for Bosnia all points of order
Deployment. against the bill's
consideration;
provides one motion
to amend if offered
by the Minority
Leader or designee (1
hr non-amendable);
motion to recommit
which may have
instructions only if
offered by Minority
Leader or his
designee; if Minority
Leader motion is not
offered debate time
will be extended by 1
hr.
H.R. 1788...................... Amtrak Reform and H. Res. 289 Open; waives all N/A.
Privatization Act points of order
of 1995. against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the
Transportation
substitute modified
by the amend in the
report; Bill read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the
substitute; makes in
order a managers
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1350...................... Maritime Security H. Res. 287 Open; makes in order N/A.
Act of 1995. the committee
substitute as
original text; makes
in order a managers
amendment which if
adopted is considered
as original text (20
min.) unamendable;
pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2621...................... To Protect Federal H. Res. 293 Closed; provides for N/A.
Trust Funds. the adoption of the
Ways & Means
amendment printed in
the report. 1 hr. of
general debate; PQ.
H.R. 1745...................... Utah Public Lands H. Res. 303 Open; waives cl N/A.
Management Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. and sections 302(f)
and 311(a) of the
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration. Makes
in order the
Resources substitute
as base text and
waives cl 7 of rule
XVI and sections
302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act; makes
in order a managers'
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min).
H.Res. 304..................... Providing for N/A Closed; makes in order 1D; 2R.
Debate and three resolutions;
Consideration of H.R. 2770 (Dorman),
Three Measures H.Res. 302 (Buyer),
Relating to U.S. and H.Res. 306
Troop Deployments (Gephardt); 1 hour of
in Bosnia. debate on each.
H.Res. 309..................... Revised Budget H. Res. 309 Closed; provides 2 N/A.
Resolution. hours of general
debate in the House;
PQ.
H.R. 558....................... Texas Low-Level H. Res. 313 Open; pre-printing N/A.
Radioactive Waste gets priority.
Disposal Compact
Consent Act.
H.R. 2677...................... The National Parks H. Res. 323 Closed; consideration N/A.
and National in the House; self-
Wildlife Refuge executes Young
Systems Freedom amendment.
Act of 1995.
PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
H.R. 1643...................... To authorize the H. Res. 334 Closed; provides to N/A.
extension of take the bill from
nondiscriminatory the Speaker's table
treatment (MFN) with the Senate
to the products amendment, and
of Bulgaria. consider in the House
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous question is
considered as
ordered. ** NR; PQ.
H.J. Res. 134.................. Making continuing H. Res. 336 Closed; provides to N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131............... appropriations/ take from the
establishing Speaker's table H.J.
procedures making Res. 134 with the
the transmission Senate amendment and
of the continuing concur with the
resolution H.J. Senate amendment with
Res. 134. an amendment (H. Con.
Res. 131) which is
self-executed in the
rule. The rule
provides further that
the bill shall not be
sent back to the
Senate until the
Senate agrees to the
provisions of H. Con.
Res. 131. ** NR; PQ.
H. R. 1358..................... Conveyance of H. Res. 338 Closed; provides to N/A.
National Marine take the bill from
Fisheries Service the Speakers table
Laboratory at with the Senate
Gloucester, amendment, and
Massachusetts. consider in the house
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous quesetion is
considered as
ordered. ** NR; PQ.
H.R. 2924...................... Social Security H. Res. 355 Closed; ** NR; PQ..... N/A.
Guarantee Act.
H.R. 2854...................... The Agricultural H. Res. 366 Restrictive; waives 5D; 9R; 2
Market Transition all points of order Bipartisan.
Program. against the bill; 2
hrs of general
debate; makes in
order a committee
substitute as
original text and
waives all points of
order against the
substitute; makes in
order only the 16
amends printed in the
report and waives all
points of order
against the
amendments;
circumvents unfunded
mandates law;
Chairman has en bloc
authority for amends
in report (20 min.)
on each en bloc; PQ.
H.R. 994....................... Regulatory Sunset H. Res. 368 Open rule; makes in N/A.
& Review Act of order the Hyde
1995. substitute printed in
the Record as
original text; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI
against the
substitute; Pre-
printing gets
priority; vacates the
House action on S.
219 and provides to
take the bill from
the Speakers table
and consider the
Senate bill; allows
Chrmn. Clinger a
motion to strike all
after the enacting
clause of the Senate
bill and insert the
text of H.R. 994 as
passed by the House
(1 hr) debate; waives
germaneness against
the motion; provides
if the motion is
adopted that it is in
order for the House
to insist on its
amendments and
request a conference.
H.R. 3021...................... To Guarantee the H. Res. 371 Closed rule; gives one N/A.
Continuing Full motion to recommit,
Investment of which if it contains
Social security instructions, may
and Other Federal only if offered by
Funds in the Minority Leader
Obligations of or his designee. **
the United States. NR.
H.R. 3019...................... A Further H. Res. 372 Restrictive; self- 2D/2R.
Downpayment executes CBO language
Toward a Balanced regarding contingency
Budget. funds in section 2 of
the rule; makes in
order only the
amendments printed in
the report; Lowey (20
min), Istook (20
min), Crapo (20 min),
Obey (1 hr); waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; give one
motion to recommit,
which if contains
instructions, may
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
H.R. 2703...................... The Effective H. Res. 380 Restrictive; makes in 6D; 7R; 4
Death Penalty and order only the Bipartisan.
Public Safety Act amendments printed in
of 1996. the report; waives
all points of orer
against the
amendments; gives
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) on enblocs;
provides a Senate
hook-up with S. 735.
** NR.
H.R. 2202...................... The Immigration H. Res. 384 Restrictive; waives 12D; 19R; 1
and National all points of order Bipartisan.
Interest Act of against the bill and
1995. amendments in the
report except for
those arising under
sec. 425(a) of the
Budget Act (unfunded
mandates); 2 hrs. of
general debate on the
bill; makes in order
the committee
substitute as base
text; makes in order
only the amends in
the report; gives the
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) of debate on
the en blocs; self-
executes the Smith
(TX) amendment re:
employee verification
program; PQ.
H.J. Res. 165.................. Making further H. Res. 386 Closed; provides for N/A.
continuing the consideration of
appropriations the CR in the House
for FY 1996. and gives one motion
to recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader;
the rule also waives
cl 4(b) of rule XI
against the
following: an omnibus
appropriations bill,
another CR, a bill
extending the debt
limit. ** NR.
H.R. 125....................... The Gun Crime H. Res. 388 Closed; self-executes N/A.
Enforcement and an amendment;
Second Amendment provides one motion
Restoration Act to recommit which may
of 1996. contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
H.R. 3136...................... The Contract With H. Res. 391 Closed; provides for N/A.
America the consideration of
Advancement Act the bill in the
of 1996. House; self-executes
an amendment in the
Rules report; waives
all points of order,
except sec.
425(a)(unfunded
mandates) of the CBA,
against the bill's
consideration; orders
the PQ except 1 hr.
of general debate
between the Chairman
and Ranking Member of
Ways and Means; one
Archer amendment (10
min.); one motion to
recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee;
Provides a Senate
hookup if the Senate
passes S. 4 by March
30, 1996. **NR.
H.R. 3103...................... The Health H. Res. 392 Restrictive: 2 hrs. of N/A.
Coverage general debate (45
Availability and min. split by Ways
Affordability Act and Means) (45 split
of 1996. by Commerce) (30
split by Economic and
Educational
Opportunities); self-
executes H.R. 3160 as
modified by the
amendment in the
Rules report as
original text; waives
all points of order,
except sec. 425(a)
(unfunded mandates)
of the CBA; makes in
order a Democratic
substitute (1 hr.)
waives all points of
order, except sec.
425(a) (unfunded
mandates) of the CBA,
against the
amendment; one motion
to recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee;
waives cl 5(c) of
Rule XXI (requiring 3/
5 vote on any tax
increase) on votes on
the bill, amendments
or conference reports.
H.J. Res. 159.................. Tax Limitation H. Res. 395 Restrictive; provides 1D.
Constitutional for consideration of
Amendment. the bill in the
House; 3 hrs of
general debate; Makes
in order H.J. Res.
169 as original text;
allows for an
amendment to be
offered by the
Minority Leader or
his designee (1 hr)
** NR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All
legislation 2d Session, 95% restrictive; 5% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress, 66% restrictive; 34%
open. ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented
standard procedure and was never reported from any House committee. ****** PQ Indicates that previous question
was ordered on the resolution. ******* Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which
can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed
rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This
definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules
Committee in the 103d Congress. N/A means not available.
[[Page H3267]]
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Earlier in this debate, I asked the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules if he might yield, and he indicated that I should
await my time, which has now come. The gentleman knows the rules,
because he followed the rules in bringing the flag desecration
amendment to this House. That was, as I recall, properly considered in
the Committee on the Judiciary, was the subject of hearings and markup,
then was brought to the Committee on Rules.
The gentleman from New York, earlier in this hour, observed that this
is important and serious business, amending the Constitution of the
United States. And I would simply ask the distinguished Chairman of the
Rules Committee, would it not have been proper and better procedure for
this proposal to have at least had a hearing in the Committee on the
Judiciary, so that the implications of these words, which have
otherwise received no hearing other than your Rules Committee hearing
on March 29, so that we could have had a careful examination of this
proposal, as we did of the gentleman's proposal to amend the
Constitution to protect the flag? Would that not have been better
procedure?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just say to the gentleman that it could
have been, the same as in three previous Congresses we have considered
balanced budget amendments that never went through the proper process,
either. The gentleman makes a point.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know the gentleman
knows better, because he has shown that he knows better than to follow
or to be a party to an abuse of the Rules of the House in considering
an amendment to the fundamental charter of this country, as we are
experiencing here this evening.
This is a sad, sad occasion, to have completely run roughshod over
the basic guarantees of serious, deliberate action on something as
fundamental as our Constitution. It is a shameful demonstration of the
priority being given to political theater, to symbolism over our
responsibilities as legislators for this country to look carefully
before we act on an amendment to the Constitution. Because the process
that has brought us to this point has been such an insult to the
intelligence and responsibility of the Members, I regretfully will need
to make sure that we have every opportunity to vote on every
conceivable procedural point for the rest of this evening.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the
purpose for it.
Mr. Speaker, as the American people endure yet another April 15, it
is appropriate to note the direct relationship between higher taxes and
higher government spending. While incomes have stagnated for many
Americans over the last 20 years, the actual take-home pay for
Government rose 58 percent and Government spending increased even
faster. In fact, the Federal Government spent 80 percent more in
inflation adjusted terms in 1995 than in 1973.
The rationale for the last two major tax hikes was deficit reduction.
The deal was this--give us more of your money and, trust us, we will
get serious about cutting spending. However, while the American
taxpayer kept his end of the bargain, prior to this Congress the
Federal Government maintained its reckless spending habits. Spending
did not slow down, it accelerated. Adjusting for inflation, nondefense
discretionary spending was 23 percent higher in 1995 than 1990. The
American people are not selfish and they certainly do not mind paying
their fair share, but they are not stupid either--they recognize when
their Government has sold them a bill of goods.
Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the same disheartening facts. Every
year, the average American works until May 5 just to pay his or her
taxes. Put another way, this means that 3 hours out of every work day
are dedicated solely to sustain Government spending.
This Congress has worked to reduce this oppressive tax burden. We
have sent President Clinton a variety of tax relief measures, from
middle-class tax relief to increasing the Social Security earnings
limit, making it clear that we intend to keep our word with the
American taxpayer. We have also begun examining long-term alternatives
to our current tax system, that would increase fairness and simplicity.
I commend Representatives Barton and Shadegg for their hard work to
provide long-term protection for American taxpayers through the bill
before us today.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding me the time.
Listening to my colleague across the aisle from Colorado talk about
this process being an insult, I would just simply remind all of us that
article V of the Constitution simply says in its opening clause: ``The
Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Constitution.''
It does not provide for any other folderol where there are urgent
questions of action to be taken. It is incumbent upon this Congress to
take those actions, so it is not insult. It is proper to move forward
in this fashion to amend the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is
recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I find it awfully interesting that one
would be able to stand up and talk about the word shameful and so on.
This is 2 years after this country experienced the largest tax increase
in the history of this country. And by the way, some may argue, well,
that tax increase really was to try and get the wealthy people of this
country and it did not impact the average working Joe or the working
Jane out there. It sure as heck did.
Anybody that buys a gallon of gasoline pays four cents more per
gallon because this Congress passed a tax increase on them. Some time
take a look, and this is a good day to do it, on April 15, take a look
at what you have to pay in taxes. Not just what you send in to the
Federal Government. Not just what you send in to the State government,
but stop and buy a gallon of gasoline. And after that, if you get
really depressed, stop by the liquor store and buy a fifth of whiskey,
and see what you pay on a fifth of whiskey in taxes. Then go to the
store and see what you pay in sales tax to buy a lawn mower to mow your
grass.
Taxes, taxes, taxes. Around here, that is the fuel that feeds this
fire in the U.S. Congress. And it seems that the U.S. Congress wants to
get the biggest bonfire it can ever have. Well, you know what it has
led to? It has led to this. It has led to a concept where we have got
to put a speed bump in the way of these people that love to raise your
taxes, and raise you taxes, and raise your taxes.
Right now, just in this proposal of this concept, 73 percent of the
American people are saying do it. An interesting number here, 68
percent of the Federal employees say do it. Seventy-one percent of the
union members say do it. In the Democrats, 64 percent of the Democrats
as polled say do it. It is time that we bring a conscience to this
country.
Now, some people say, well, you are not giving an opportunity for
debate. That is exactly what this concept does. That is why it so
carefully follows the Constitution of the United States. What it does
is it allows this to go to every State, all 50 States, all of the
elected State legislators in those States, which, by the time this
debate was thoroughly finished, by the time it got ratified or did not
get ratified, you would have thousands and thousands of locally, not in
Washington, but locally elected officials who were engaged in this
debate of whether or not we should require a supermajority to go out to
the working people of this country and raise their taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this rule is fundamentally fair, and I
think that this concept is fundamentally necessary for the positive
growth and the future of this country.
[[Page H3268]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 168, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 111]
YEAS--232
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--168
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--31
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Calvert
Chapman
Cremeans
de la Garza
Engel
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Ford
Frost
Gallegly
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Ney
Ortiz
Oxley
Pelosi
Stockman
Tauzin
Thornton
Towns
Williams
Wilson
Wise
{time} 1803
Mr. WYNN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GORDON and Mr. CHAMBLISS changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
motion offered by mr. skaggs
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Skaggs moves to reconsider the vote whereby the House
ordered the previous question on House Resolution 395.
motion to table offered by mr. mc innis
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McInnis moves to lay the motion to reconsider on the
table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote, followed by a
5-minute vote on the adoption of the rule.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 169, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 112]
YEAS--232
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
[[Page H3269]]
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--169
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--30
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Calvert
Chapman
Cremeans
de la Garza
Engel
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Ford
Frost
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Ney
Ortiz
Oxley
Pelosi
Stockman
Tauzin
Thornton
Towns
Williams
Wilson
Wise
{time} 1820
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234,
noes, 162, not voting 35, as follows:
[Roll No. 113]
AYES--234
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--162
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--35
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Calvert
Chapman
Conyers
Cremeans
de la Garza
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Ford
Frost
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kasich
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
McKinney
Ney
Ortiz
Oxley
Pelosi
Rose
Scarborough
Studds
Tauzin
Thornton
Tiahrt
Towns
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
{time} 1829
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Calvert for, with Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas against.
Mr. Lightfoot for, with Mr. Towns against.
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H3270]]
motion offered by mr. skaggs
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to reconsider.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Skaggs moves to reconsider the vote whereby the House
adopted House Resolution 395.
motion to table offered by mr. mc innis
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken be electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 164, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 114]
AYES--233
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--164
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--34
Baesler
Bateman
Berman
Borski
Brown (FL)
Calvert
Chapman
Clinger
de la Garza
English
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Ford
Frost
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
McKinney
Ortiz
Oxley
Pelosi
Rose
Scarborough
Schiff
Talent
Tauzin
Thornton
Towns
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
{time} 1847
Mr. GIBBONS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of
House Resolution 395, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 159)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to
require two-thirds majorities for bills increasing taxes, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of consideration of
House Joint Resolution 159.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is: Will the House
now consider House Joint Resolution 159, as amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241,
noes 157, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 115]
AYES--241
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
[[Page H3271]]
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--157
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--33
Bonilla
Borski
Brown (FL)
Calvert
Chapman
Clay
Clinger
de la Garza
DeFazio
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Ford
Frost
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
LaFalce
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Martinez
McKinney
Ortiz
Oxley
Pelosi
Rose
Scarborough
Tauzin
Thornton
Towns
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
{time} 1906
So the House agreed to consider House Joint Resolution 159.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
motion offered by mr. skaggs
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to reconsider the previous
vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Skaggs moves to reconsider the vote whereby the House
agreed to consider House Joint Resolution 159.
motion to table offered by mr. canady of florida
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to
reconsider the vote on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] to lay on the table the motion to
reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Skaggs].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 236,
noes 157, not voting 38, as follows:
[Roll No. 116]
AYES--236
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--157
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--38
Becerra
Bonilla
Borski
Brown (FL)
Calvert
Chapman
Clay
Clinger
de la Garza
DeFazio
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Ford
Frost
Hayes
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
LaFalce
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Martinez
Ortiz
Oxley
Pelosi
Rose
Schumer
Stockman
Tauzin
Thornton
Towns
Waters
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
[[Page H3272]]
{time} 1923
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall votes Nos.
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, and 116, I was unavoidably detained, out of
town at a meeting with my constituents.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on 111, ``no'' on 112,
``no'' on rollcall 113, ``no'' on 114, ``no'' on 115, and ``no'' on
116.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, because I was unavoidably detained, I
missed the procedural rollcall votes Nos. 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, and
116. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these
votes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). Pursuant to House Resolution
395, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text
of House Joint Resolution 169 is adopted.
The text of House Joint Resolution 159 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 159
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years after
the date of its submission for ratification:
``Article --
``Section 1. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the
rate or base of any tax may pass only by a two-thirds
majority of the whole number of each House of Congress.
``Section 2. The Congress may waive section 1 when a
declaration of war is in effect. The Congress may also waive
section 1 when the United States is engaged in military
conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to
national security and is so declared by a joint resolution,
adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House,
which becomes law. Any provision of law which would, standing
alone, be subject to section 1 but for this section and which
becomes law pursuant to such a waiver shall be effective for
not longer than 2 years.
``Section 3. All votes taken by the House of
Representatives or the Senate under this article shall be
determined by yeas and nays and the names of persons voting
for and against shall be entered on the Journal of each House
respectively.''.
The text of House Joint Resolution 159, as amended, is as follows:
H.J. Res. 169
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years after
the date of its submission for ratification:
``Article --
``Section 1. Any bill, resolution, or other legislative
measure changing the internal revenue laws shall require for
final adoption in either House the concurrence of two-thirds
the members present, unless that bill, resolution, or measure
is determined at the time of adoption, in a reasonable manner
prescribed by law, not to increase the internal revenue by
more than a de minimis amount.
``Section 2. The Congress may waive section 1 when a
declaration of war is in effect. The Congress may also waive
section 1 when the United States is engaged in military
conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to
national security and is so declared by a joint resolution,
adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House,
which becomes law. Any provision of law which would, standing
alone, be subject to section 1 but for this section and which
becomes law pursuant to such a waiver shall be effective for
not longer than 2 years.
``Section 3. All votes taken by the House of
Representatives or the Senate under this article shall be
determined by yeas and nays and the names of persons voting
for and against shall be entered on the Journal of each House
respectively.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Canady] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] each
will control 1\1/2\ hours of general debate time.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
general leave
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on House Joint Resolution 159.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], and I ask unanimous consent that he
may be permitted to yield blocks of time to other Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 45 minutes
to the distinguished past chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means,
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], and I ask that he be
recognized to yield blocks of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Canady].
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, the millions of Americans rushing to meet the
midnight deadline to file their Federal income tax return are asking
themselves--why is it that every year more and more of my family's
income goes to pay Federal taxes, leaving me with less and less to meet
my needs and the needs of my children? As they write that painful final
check to the IRS or review the bottom line of their tax liability, they
are asking themselves--is there any relief in sight? Will Congress ever
be weaned from imposing higher and higher taxes? Will Washington ever
get its spending habits under control? To the American people I say,
today's vote should give you a glimmer of hope.
Today, we are again considering a mechanism that will bring relief to
the American taxpayers. We will be debating and voting on a
constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote of each House of
Congress for any bill that increases revenue by more than a de minimis
amount.
Members voted on a similar provision that was part of House Joint
Resolution 1, the balanced budget constitutional amendment of the
Contract With America in January 1995. In the 1st session of the 104th
Congress, the Subcommittee on the Constitution held hearings and the
Full Judiciary Committee favorably reported the balanced budget
constitutional amendment which included a supermajority requirement for
raising tax revenue.
On January 26, 1995, the House voted 253 to 173 in favor of the
balanced budget constitutional amendment that had been reported by the
Committee on the Judiciary. That version of the amendment, which was
sponsored by Congressman Barton, would have required a three-fifths
majority of the entire House and Senate to increase tax revenue and
would have allowed a simple majority to waive the requirement in times
of war, or in the face of a serious military threat. The balanced
budget amendment ultimately adopted by the House did not, however,
include the Barton supermajority tax limitation provision.
When the House passed a balanced budget amendment without the Barton
supermajority requirement, Speaker Gingrich promised to schedule
another vote on the supermajority tax limitation amendment in the 104th
Congress. Today's vote fulfills that promise.
On March 6, 1996, the Subcommittee on the Constitution held an
additional hearing on the Barton tax limitation constitutional
amendment. House Joint Resolution 159 was criticized as being too
broad. For example, as originally drafted House Joint Resolution 159
would have required a two-thirds majority of each House to close a tax
loophole or make revenue neutral changes to the Tax Code. Under the
Barton substitute amendment made in order under the Rule, such actions
would not require a supermajority vote as long as the legislation as a
whole was revenue-neutral or resulted in only a de minimis increase in
revenue.
The amendment before us this evening requires a two-thirds vote of
each House for any bill that is not revenue neutral. Congress may waive
this requirement when a declaration of war is in effect, or by adopting
a joint resolution upon finding that the United
[[Page H3273]]
States in engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and
serious threat to national security. The amendment requires that all
votes be taken by rollcall.
This substitute amendment is in keeping with the supermajority
requirement that was approved by the Committee on the Judiciary and the
House in January 1995 as part of the Contract With America.
In addition, the House Rules as adopted at the beginning of this
Congress require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a Federal income
tax rate increase. However, the House Rule cannot bind future
Congresses and can be waived by the Rules Committee as had been done at
least once this past year--yet another reason why we need the
permanence and certainty of a constitutional amendment.
Members should be aware that the language of the constitutional
amendment we are voting on today differs significantly from the House
Rule. The constitutional amendment, unlike the House Rule, does not
apply to bills that cut taxes or that are roughly revenue neutral. It
will make it harder for Congress to raise taxes, yet allows flexibility
to make revenue neutral changes to the tax laws.
The National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform, headed by
former Congressman Jack Kemp, recently recommended requiring a two-
thirds supermajority vote to raise the tax rate. The Kemp Commission
recommended substantial changes to the Tax Code and argued that such
changes should be held in place by requiring a supermajority vote to
raise taxes. The Commission report stated ``a two-thirds supermajority
vote of Congress will earn Americans' confidence in the longevity,
predictability, and stability of any new tax system.''
The Framers of our Constitution understood the need for requiring
supermajority votes for certain fundamental decisions. The Constitution
currently includes ten supermajority requirements for decisions of
importance including the requirement of a two-thirds vote to send a
constitutional amendment to the States for ratification. I submit that
under our current system it is too easy for us to add to the already
onerous tax burden Congress has placed upon the American people. The
adoption of a supermajority provision can only help us give careful
consideration to proposals to raise taxes, and will require us to reach
broad consensus in order to do so.
I urge my colleagues to support this important measure and I reserve
the balance of my time.
{time} 1930
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to include extraneous
material.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as one distinguished Republican told me as
we were coming over here, ``And to think we gave up a whole day of
vacation for this debate.'' I think he put his finger right on the
issue here. Everybody in this Chamber and everybody within the sound of
my voice knows that what we are doing tonight is show business; not
very good show business, but show business.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] sent us a Dear Colleague letter
numbering some 20 pages. As I read it and studied it, it reminded me of
a quotation that a distinguished Supreme Court Justice made about 100
years ago: Taxes are what we pay for civilization. Taxes are what we
pay for civilization.
How well have Americans done? The Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, which keeps statistics on all of the
industrialized countries on Earth, tells us that there are 24
industrialized countries on Earth. Of those 24 industrialized countries
on Earth, the United States has the lowest tax rate of any of those 24
countries. This is not ancient history, this is today's history,
compiled by the OECD. They are not an American organization. The United
States is a member of the OECD, but the headquarters of it is in
Europe. It rates all of the industrialized nations.
Of all of the industrialized nations, the United States of America,
this Federal Government, has the lowest tax rate of any of them. Do any
of you in this Chamber dispute what I have just said? I would ask the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], does he dispute what I have just
said?
In fact, in the 20-some page letter of the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Barton], he included in his Appendix E on page 20 a list of all of the
industrialized nations that had tax limitations in their procedures. I
do not think the gentleman from Texas even read this himself or he
never would have sent it to us. Of all the nations in this chart that
have tax limitations, guess what? Every single one of them has a higher
tax rate than the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Texas, did he know that
when he sent this to us?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], I did read that memo.
Mr. GIBBONS. It did not sink in then, though, did it?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to debate it if the
gentleman wishes to.
Mr. GIBBONS. I just wondered if the gentleman had read it. He is
arguing for a tax limitation by constitutional amendment. He sent us a
chart listing all the other countries on Earth that have tax
limitations. Every one of them has a higher tax rate than the United
States of America.
Mr. Speaker, taxes are the dues of civilization. It is what we pay
for civilization. The tax rate in America, being the lowest of the 24
industrialized countries, has remained remarkably stable for about the
last 50 years. The tax rate for the 1950's comes out at 17.62 percent.
That was the tax rate for the 1950's. The tax rate for the 1960's comes
out at 18.31 percent. We have to remember that we were fighting the
Vietnam war at that time. The tax rate for the 1970's comes out at
18.47 percent. The tax rate for the 1980's comes out at 18.97 percent.
For the first 5 years of 1990, the tax rate has dropped to 18.75
percent.
Mr. Speaker, the ridiculous thing about this amendment is its
unintended consequences that will occur. If this amendment ever became
law, we would first of all have to declare war on some unsuspecting
country, so that for 2 years we could handle the ordinary and necessary
business of this country, which from time to time requires us to make
certain adjustments in the Tax Code. After 2 years we would have to
find some other unsuspecting country and declare war on it, or maybe we
can declare war on somebody in outer space. As long as we declare war,
we can waive all of this.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just stated some interesting
statistics of 17 percent and 18 percent tax rates. I suspect the
gentleman was referring to the percentage of gross domestic product.
Mr. GIBBONS. That is correct. That is the only way you can measure
tax rates.
Mr. STARK. That is the only effective way to measure it?
Mr. GIBBONS. That is the only way you can measure tax rates.
Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for clarifying that.
Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the gentleman for bringing up that question and
letting me clarify it.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many other reasons why this is just a
ridiculous piece of show business here today, but Mr. Speaker, at this
time I will go back and yield time to other Members so they can
participate in the debate.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following document:
CENTRAL-GOVERNMENT TAXES AS PERCENTS OF GDP, 1992: AN INTERNATIONAL
COMPARISON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Country Rank GDP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netherlands....................................... 1 45.2
Luxembourg........................................ 2 43.1
Belgium........................................... 3 42.5
Italy............................................. 4 41.0
Greece............................................ 5 39.7
France............................................ 6 39.3
Finland........................................... 7 37.3
Norway............................................ 8 37.0
Ireland........................................... 9 35.2
[[Page H3274]]
Austria........................................... 10 34.1
New Zealand....................................... 11 33.7
Denmark........................................... 12 33.6
United Kingdom.................................... 13 33.5
Sweden............................................ 14 32.9
Spain............................................. 15 31.4
Portugal.......................................... 16 31.2
Germany........................................... 17 28.1
Iceland........................................... 18 26.6
Japan............................................. 19 22.0
Australia......................................... 20 21.8
Turkey............................................ 21 21.2
Canada............................................ 22 20.8
Switzerland....................................... 23 20.2
United States..................................... 24 19.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Of the 24 countries for which the OECD keeps statistics, the
United States ranks lowest in terms of tax burden.
Source: Committee on Ways and Means Democratic Staff based on
information from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development [OECD]. Prepared April 15, 1996.
Total U.S. Federal revenue as percents of GDP, 1950-95
Fiscal year Total receipts
1950..............................................................14.8
1951..............................................................16.5
1952..............................................................19.4
1953..............................................................19.1
1954..............................................................18.9
1955..............................................................17.0
1956..............................................................17.9
1957..............................................................18.3
1958..............................................................17.8
1959..............................................................16.5
Average, 1950's...................................................17.62
1960..............................................................18.3
1961..............................................................18.3
1962..............................................................18.0
1963..............................................................18.2
1964..............................................................18.0
1965..............................................................17.4
1966..............................................................17.8
1967..............................................................18.8
1968..............................................................18.1
1969..............................................................20.2
Average, 1960's...................................................18.31
1970..............................................................19.6
1971..............................................................17.8
1972..............................................................18.1
1975..............................................................18.5
1976..............................................................17.7
1977..............................................................18.5
1978..............................................................18.5
1979..............................................................19.1
Average, 1970's...................................................18.47
1980..............................................................19.6
1981..............................................................20.2
1982..............................................................19.8
1983..............................................................18.1
1984..............................................................18.0
1985..............................................................18.5
1986..............................................................18.2
1987..............................................................19.2
1988..............................................................18.9
1989..............................................................19.2
Average, 1980's...................................................18.97
1990..............................................................18.8
1991..............................................................18.6
1992..............................................................18.4
1993..............................................................18.4
1994..............................................................19.0
1995..............................................................19.3
Average, 1990-95..................................................18.75
Note: Federal Revenue has hovered at 18-19 percent of GDP for all of
our Post-WWII history.
Source: Committee on Ways and Means Democratic Staff based on
information from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). Prepared April 15, 1996.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE CURRENT FEDERAL TAX BURDEN
[Projected 1996 income levels]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Effective
families Average tax rate
Income range (in income (in (in
millions) dollars) percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000................ 14.6 $6,009 6.7
$10,000-$20,000.................. 18.5 14,794 10.4
$20,000-$30,000.................. 16.6 24,941 16.5
$30,000-$40,000.................. 13.5 34,841 19.4
$40,000-$50,000.................. 10.8 44,808 21.7
$50,000-$75,000.................. 17.7 61,278 23.6
$75,000-$100,000................. 8.6 85,637 25.4
$100,000-$200,000................ 7.0 129,788 26.7
$200,000 or more................. 1.9 486,031 31.9
--------------------------------------
All........................ 110.8 48,165 23.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Committee on Ways and Means Democratic Staff based on June 1995
information from the Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Archer], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, let me quickly say that the percentage of GDP is not the
only way to determine the tax burden on Americans. GDP and its
percentage relative to taxes means very little to the worker. What is
important to the worker is how much comes out of his or her paycheck,
not what percentage of GDP.
We can talk in those glossary terms inside the beltway, but the
American people who are out there producing understand that what they
have left in their paycheck is not as much as it should be. That is why
I rise in strong support of this constitutional amendment that will
serve as a barrier to those who seek to raise taxes and increase the
Federal Government's role in our lives, because that is what this
debate is all about. That is what the balanced budget debate is all
about: How big will the Federal Government be, and how much will it
take out of our hard-earned pay?
Taxes in this country are too high, irrespective of what they are in
other places around the world. That is because too often Congress has
found it easier to raise taxes than to say no to new spending. A
constitutional limitation on tax increases will rectify that
unfortunate bias. It is time to tilt tax and spending decisions in
favor of working Americans who pay the taxes. This proposed
constitutional amendment does exactly that.
I have made no secret of my desire to tear our current income tax out
by its roots and replace it with a consumption tax on the purchase of
goods and services; so simple, because it will remove the IRS
completely and totally from every American's individual lives.
Accordingly, the amendment's sponsor and I have worked hard to come up
with language that would require a supermajority vote for tax increases
without making it harder to replace the current income tax system. This
revised language accomplishes these twin objectives.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a brief colloquy with the sponsor,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], about how the amendment will
work in practice.
Mr. Speaker, as I read the proposed constitutional amendment, the
two-thirds requirement would not apply to tax legislation that is a net
tax cut or that is revenue-neutral overall.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, that is
correct.
Mr. ARCHER. Accordingly, the supermajority requirement would not have
applied to the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 or the Contract With America
Tax Relief Act of 1995, since those bills provided a net tax cut, is
that correct?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. ARCHER. It would also not apply to legislation that replaces one
tax system with another, as long as that replacement is revenue-
neutral; for example, if we were successful in tearing the income tax
out by its roots and replacing it with a broad-based consumption tax,
that legislation would be subject to a simple majority vote, is that
correct?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the replacement tax raised the same amount or
less revenue than the current tax, then the answer is yes.
Mr. ARCHER. Also, the superma- jority requirement does not apply to
tax legislation that raises a de minimis amount of revenue. Am I
correct in assuming that a bill that increases Federal tax revenue by
less than one-tenth of 1 percent would be considered de minimis?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct.
Mr. ARCHER. Therefore, H.R. 831, which increased and extended the
health insurance deduction for the self-employed, H.R. 2778, which
provided tax relief to our troops in Bosnia, and H.R. 3103, the Health
Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 1996, would not have
required a two-thirds vote. Is that correct?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Those
bills would have met the de minimis exception.
Mr. ARCHER. I thank the gentleman for the clarification. I would also
like to point out that the amendment allows Congress to establish
procedures that would provide certainty at the time of passage as to
whether the two-thirds requirement applies.
I want to address one spurious criticism. Some opponents of House
Joint Resolution 159 have argued that it poses problems similar to
those alleged with the current House rule that requires a supermajority
vote for Federal income tax rate increases.
{time} 1945
Anyone who makes that argument clearly has not read the amendment.
[[Page H3275]]
The amendment and the House rule are fundamentally different. Indeed
the wording of the constitutional amendment reflects the lessons that
we have learned from our experiences in dealing with the House rule.
The House has not passed any bill containing a Federal income tax rate
increase.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Rangel].
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that this is April 15, the
time that we are supposed to pay taxes. But some of my colleagues think
it is April 1, that is, April Fool's Day, because the whole idea of
passing a constitutional amendment has been aborted.
Normally a bill would go to the committees that have jurisdiction so
that we could really find out the impact of this bill on the American
people and especially the American taxpayer. But my dear friend from
Texas, Mr. Barton, did not ask for the House Judiciary Committee that
is headed by Chairman Hyde who everyone knows is an expert on the
Constitution, he just went to his friend James Perry of the Americans
for Tax Reform. I see that 17 pages was sent in support of the Barton
amendment. There is nothing here from the Committee on the Judiciary
because they never had hearings.
My distinguished chairman, at least chairman for the rest of this
year, Bill Archer, was here, and this really talks about how this thing
is supposed to work, and there is an asterisk next to Mr. Perry's name,
but no place here does it say who he is. But it is not important. I
would rather have seen something from the Committee on Ways and Means
that would just answer certain questions.
Under this amendment if we wanted to protect the Social Security
system or to protect the Medicare system and if we had to increase the
premium, we would need a two-thirds vote in order to do that. On the
other hand if we wanted to raise taxes for education or health care or
Social Security or anything, we would need a two-thirds vote for that.
But suppose we wanted to close the loopholes, because I refer to this
as a lobbyist amendment, not a constitutional amendment. Suppose those
people were supporting corporate welfare or wanted to strike it out,
close the loopholes. That would mean an increase in taxes. And we would
need a two-thirds vote or lock in the lobbyists who are protecting the
corporations.
On the other hand, it seems to me that when the majority party
decided it was going to increase the taxes of the earned-income tax,
the benefits that we give to the lowest, the poorest working people we
have in the United States, they just waived a provision that they have
in the rules.
Someplace they would say this to the taxpayers as they said, and let
me read this section here from this paper that the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has given to me. This is not a committee report,
this is not a Ways and Means report. This is not a Judiciary report.
This is a report from Americans for Tax Reform and this is how they
open this debate.
That millions of Americans while they are standing out there in front
of the post offices paying their taxes, for the first time would see
these Republicans on the floor on TV, drive-time radio talk shows will
offer live coverage as the votes and hearings proceed. What hearings?
As the vote proceeds, and for the first time this resolution will give
guaranteed live media coverage.
And so, my friends, enjoy your gimmick, enjoy your public relations,
but let us not treat the Constitution that way, and you should have
more respect for the American taxpayers than to do this gimmick on this
particular day.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. HOKE. I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, in 1950, the average income family in America had 2
percent of its income paid to the Government in taxes. In 1996, that
number has gone up to about 25 percent. We have had, you could say, a
12 times, a 1,200 percent increase in the percentage of taxes that the
average American family is paying to the Government. We have seen that
increase in taxation that falls directly on the backs of working men
and women fuel the explosion in growth in government in the past 45
years. That is what has fueled it.
What I would ask the gentlemen and gentlewomen on the other side of
the aisle is do you think that would have been possible if this tax
limitation amendment had been in place? I would suggest to you that it
would not have been possible and that today what we are fighting and
what is a fundamental problem that faces our society and our economy is
that families cannot make it on one income, and the reason that they
cannot make it on one income is not because it is not enough money to
actually raise children with one person staying at home, and it makes
no difference to me whether it is the mother or the dad staying at
home, but they cannot make it because too much money is being kept out
of the paychecks and given to the Government. That is the fundamental
problem. When you go from 2 percent in 1950 to 25 percent in 1996, and
we are not talking about the rich people, upper-class people, we are
talking about the average income family in America. That is the
fundamental problem. That is the fundamental problem that tears at the
social fabric. That is the fundamental reason that we have been able to
fuel this tremendous growth in government, this explosion in the size
of government.
The other thing that I wanted to address, and I would draw to your
attention, particularly the gentleman from Florida, the senior Member
who is retiring this year, this is an article that just appeared in
this week's, or I guess last week's Time magazine. It says ``Europe's
Job Crunch.''
You draw attention to the fact that other economies, other countries
have got higher tax rates. I want to just read a little bit about what
they say because what we do know is that in other countries, there is
tremendous stagnation. They say:
Call it Eurosclerosis, the combination of a staggering tax
burden and a blanket of regulations that smother new
businesses and entrepreneurship. The symptoms. Europe's
unemployment rate of 11 percent is twice as high as the
United States and its job creation chart is a flat line. Over
the past 3 years the U.S. has created 8.4 million new jobs.
Europe none. Significantly many of those new American jobs
pay higher than average wages and as many as 60 percent are
managerial or professional.
Spain has got a 20-percent unemployment rate; Italy 12; we have got
11 percent in Germany; and France has got 12 percent. This is exactly
what you get when you have higher and higher and higher taxes. It is
not what created the American success story. It is not what holds the
potential of the American dream. We ought to pass this. It will really
slow down the growth of government.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, there are at least five very good reasons to
vote ``no'' on this ill-advised constitutional amendment.
The first is that it is a classic example of pure political
posturing. At the very beginning of this session of Congress we passed
legislation, a rule that said that we would require three-fifths votes
to raise taxes, and every single time that rule was to apply, the
majority had the rule waived. So we cannot even abide by the rule that
exists now, and we want to make it into a constitutional amendment so
that we cannot even waive the rule.
Imagine what would have happened with all of the tax legislation that
passed for the last 20 years if we had had this rule. There was only
one minor piece of legislation that would have passed.
Second, it is fiscally irresponsible. It makes it almost impossible
to raise revenue to reduce the deficit, whether it is to cut capital
gains taxes, which would increase revenue in the initial years, or
particularly to close corporate and individual tax loopholes. We cannot
do that under this legislation.
Third, it really shows contempt for the wisdom of the Founding
Fathers. They debated this many times and they decided that the
Articles of Confederation, article 9, which required a supermajority to
increase revenue, was not working, that the minority was thwarting the
will of the majority. And
[[Page H3276]]
so in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention they decided, they voted
that they had to have a pure political majority for this democracy to
work.
The Constitution is not some rough working draft. It is a body of law
that has served this Nation better than any Constitution has served any
nation in the history of mankind. For 200 years it has made us the most
democratic, the strongest nation on Earth, and now we want to mess
around with it, with this kind of constitutional graffiti.
Fourth, it shows a contempt for the legislative process. This
language was not even considered by the subcommittee or the full
Committee on the Judiciary. We bring it out here and we look at it here
on the floor. By the seat of the pants we are coming up with
definitions that we want to put into the Constitution.
For example, what does ``de minimis'' mean? We say, well, how about
0.1 percent of the Federal budget? What kind of constitutional
definition is that? We do not even know how many years we should
measure whether the revenue is de minimis or not, or whether user fees
would apply.
There are all kinds of issues that have not even been adequately
considered. The fact is that this is just pure political grandstanding.
We are making politically expedient points at the cost of the integrity
of this body. This is a bad amendment. we all ought to vote ``no'' on
it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the distinguished chairman of the Joint
Economic Committee.
(Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support
of the tax limitation amendment requiring a supermajority to raise
taxes, and I commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] for his hard
work and determination in bringing this amendment to the floor tonight.
I am also proud to say that in 1991, along with my colleague from
Texas, I was one of the first Members to bring this supermajority
voting requirement to the American people's attention. Tonight we bring
it to the attention of the American people once again, this time in
anticipation of passing the measure.
For many years we have known that a fundamental change in the way
Congress does business is needed, and this is an example of the kind of
change that we sincerely believe is needed. Currently it is much easier
to raise taxes on the hard-working American people than it is to cut
spending, and so we have seen year in and year out as the budget went
up, and 1990 is a good example, we increased taxes. In 1993 once again
the majority increased taxes, and still we have a deficit.
Let me just say what I think the real issue is here. It is
demonstrated by this chart on my left. Today there are 10 States that
have supermajority requirements for raising taxes. They happen to be
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Four of those States have a
two-thirds supermajority requirement, 3 have a three-fifths, and 3 have
a three-fourths requirement.
This chart demonstrates quite clearly that in the States on average
that have a supermajority requirement, that growth is much lower in
government than in States that have no supermajority requirement, that
is, growth in spending.
So, of course, that makes us believe that the same pattern would hold
true within the Federal Government. If we went on the street today and
asked almost any American, the great majority would say that government
is too big, it is too burdensome, it is growing too fast, it is too
overwhelming on the American people, and taxes are too high.
So this provision creates a situation in which both parties will
realize a major objective that we promise the American people every
year, lower taxes.
How does this work? It is very simple. We are trying to restore some
balance to the way we operate here in the Congress, the pressures for
spending. Just take, for example, a State that wants to build a highway
or a series of highways.
{time} 2000
There is a very focused effort by a number of special interest groups
to get those highways built. There are people who want to get quicker
from point A to point B, and that is very important for them for their
morning and afternoon commute to and from work. They are focused on
those projects. There are labor unions who want jobs; they are focused
on those jobs. There are contractors and business people who will make
a profit, and they are focused on those projects.
So an intense lobbying effort takes place because of that focus. Now,
nobody wants higher taxes. But how deeply do the American people have
an opportunity to lobby for lower taxes? Only on the surface, only at
election time. They do not have lobbyists in this town, like the
special interest groups. And so it seems to me that by requiring a
larger vote known as a supermajority, we put some balance back in the
system to achieve what these 10 smart-minded States have been able to
accomplish. That is slower growth in their governments, and slower
growth is what both parties have promised the American people in this
House.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, leave that chart there just a minute. Do not move that
chart. That chart is as phony as a $3 bill.
He has got California and Florida in that supermajority States.
Florida requires a supermajority for increase in corporate income tax.
But you can increase the Florida sales tax, which collects 90 percent
of the revenue. California you listed as a supermajority State, and
California only applies to property taxes. But you can increase the
income tax and the sales tax and everything else. I do not know how
many other phony things you have got in that, but that chart is no
good.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Stark].
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment proposal is really nothing more than
political sham, phony or not, and we all know it.
These proceedings, which will amount to 5 or 6 hours, are a pathetic
political circumstance, staged by the radical Republican leadership of
the House, to hopefully be broadcast at prime time on today's tax day.
At this moment in our history, a brief moment, the House happens to
be under the control of a misguided vanguard who are ideologically
opposed to any tax increases whatsoever. That does not mean we should
pervert our Constitution, which has served us so well and supports the
longest lasting system of democratic government in modern history.
That is right. This is just another cheap publicity stunt. Remember
the Contract With America? That bunch of stupid ideas that sounded so
good? Now the Republicans are using that constitutional amendment as a
prop and a shallow scheme to convince the public that new majority is
working in the best interests of average Americans.
The same radical zealots who said they would save Medicare when they
actually wanted to destroy it and handed out tax breaks to the rich are
trying to trick us again. Just as Americans file their tax forms, we
have the promise of a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds
vote. But the absurdity of this proposal goes much deeper. Any major
government initiative requires funding.
Think of it, if this law had been in effect, you would not now have
Social Security or you would not now have Medicare. And somebody
earlier mentioned family values. Well, that would be fine, except there
would be no highway system for the families to go anywhere and you
would not be able to vaccinate your children, because we pay for those
childhood vaccines with a tax.
All of that would not be here today if this amendment were to pass,
and that is not how it is supposed to be done. Amending the
Constitution is a serious matter, and this resolution has been rushed
through without any discussion or deliberation at the committee level,
without any public debate, simply so it could be here tonight on tax
day. This is no way to run a country, and my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle
[[Page H3277]]
who support this proposal should be ashamed.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I must say, as a freshman Member of this body, it
disappoints me to see the kind of name-calling, shallow partisan
rhetoric that seems to always seep its way into this debate,
particularly by senior Members that have brought distinction to this
institution for a long period of time. And now it seems like the same
angry, hostile words are used over and over again as if the American
people do not know better.
I am not much for partisan rhetoric and shallow words, and I do not
come down here on a regular basis to say that Republicans are always
right, Democrats are always wrong. I come down here tonight because I
do think this is a fundamental issue in 1996. It is the litmus test of
this whole process today, and that is the size and scope of the
government and the difference in the two parties and their positions
and their record on this issue. The barometer of the issue of the size
and scope of the Federal Government is taxes. The government is going
to grow as the Congress taxes the American people. The government is
going to shrink which the American people would like as we reduce taxes
on the American people.
Our party, the party of Lincoln, clearly today stands for less
government and lower taxes. The Democratic Party, as you have seen
tonight, is still Congress coming down here in defense of big
government, in defense of higher taxes, even stating that maybe we
should or inferring that we should have higher taxes like other
countries in other parts of the world where I personally do not want to
live. I want to live here, and we want our country to have lower taxes.
Let us look for a moment where we have been: $2,286 per person was
paid in 1980, just a few short years ago. I remember that year very
well--1980, per person to the Federal Government, $2,286. Last year,
that figure was $4,996, almost $5,000. We have gone from $2,286 per
person to almost $5,000, well over doubled in those few short years the
amount the average American is paying to the Federal Government.
I tell you, the reference was made to our Framers of our Constitution
and our Founding Fathers. Obviously they cannot report to us tonight,
but here is what I think they are doing tonight, they are rolling over
in their graves, screaming we told you so, we warned you time and time
again about the government. You know, think about this, a balanced
society would have government, business, religion, and family, all four
at the same level in a healthy balance.
Do we not realize that the government is way above the line? The
family is now way below the line, our religious institutions are way
below the line, business is now way below the line, because the
government has sucked off the responsibilities of those other four
institutions. In order to bring it down, we have got to reduce the tax
burden and balance out our society.
We had the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] report that in 1950 we paid
2 percent of our dollars in revenues to the Federal Government; now
that figure is 25 percent. I have a 9-year-old son and a 7-year-old
daughter. My question is, at this pace, what are they going to be
paying or will they have anything at all left from the dollars that
they make? Because I suspect that they will not unless we draw a line
in the sand tonight.
Ladies and gentlemen, people of America, this is about drawing a line
in the sand and saying we are not, as a responsible Congress, going to
raise your taxes anymore. We are going to have to learn to do with
less. We need to limit Congress' ability to raise taxes. It happened in
1993. I think that one vote was the defining vote of the election of
1994 if there was one vote you could turn to. This is something we need
to do.
I come from east Tennessee. I consider east Tennessee the center of
the universe. The hills and valleys of east Tennessee, the people are
honest and straightforward. They believe very passionately that the
government is too big, that taxes are too high. They want me to do
something about it. And I am.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
constitutional amendment. The amendment is not what it appears. This
amendment is more than mischievous it will bring the definition of the
word ``gridlock'' to new highs.
This constitutional amendment could add to the deficit. Normally when
revenue raisers and spending provisions are matched to assure that
legislation is paid for they do not match exactly but rather yield
slight differences that are used to reduce the deficit. This amendment
would seem to preclude that, meaning that the authors of bills will
adjust their spending upward so as to avoid a super majority
requirement. This simply makes no sense.
This constitutional amendment is being considered without hearings
and without ever being considered by the Judiciary Committee.
Constitutional amendments are serious matters and they deserve the most
careful consideration. The handling of this amendment on this
particular day is more suitable to a publicity stunt than to a change
to the Constitution.
This amendment would require a super majority to close down egregious
tax shelter or corporate welfare if the proceeds went to deficit but
not if the proceeds went to fund tax cuts or other corporate welfare.
Again, this simply does not make sense: We should not have a
constitutional bias against deficit reduction.
Ordinary reauthorizations of popular programs would require super
majorities under the amendment.
The only tax bill enacted last year would have violated the proposed
amendment. The Congress last year enacted legislation to extend the
health insurance deduction for the self insured and paid for it by
closing down a tax loophole after press reports about its abuse by one
corporation. Under the terms of the amendment, however, a super
majority would have been required--since shutting down a loophole would
meet the definition of a tax increase.
Finally, the majority has already waived a similar House rule three
times. They waived it for consideration of their big tax cut bill
because it would have increased taxes on working American families by
$36.45 billion to help pay for tax cuts for better off families. They
waived it for consideration of the Medicare bill because the premium
increase could be construed as an income tax rate increase. And they
waived it on the recently passed health insurance reform bill.
If the majority can not live under its own rule, they clearly can not
be serious about a constitutional amendment. I believe our Constitution
and the American taxpayer deserves better treatment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman].
(Mr. STOCKMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am really shocked. In fact, as you are
in Texas right now, 7:15, filling out your taxes, you heard on the
House floor tonight that it is radical to allow you to keep your money.
Listen to what I am saying. They say it is radical for you to keep your
money.
Now, I do not know about you, but I find that a radical thought and a
little bit shocking that you are so stupid that we need to take your
money and bring it up here in Washington and make your State of Texas
weaker and make us stronger.
I believe in you. They obviously, on the other side, do not. They
want to take more of your money. The gentleman from Ohio, very
articulate gentleman, said that the unemployment rate in Europe is 12
percent, and so since they are doing what they are doing and the
gentleman suggests we should follow them, then the logic says maybe we
should make our unemployment rate 12 percent. Let me finish.
point of order
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is radical for them to deny you
your money as you are going to file your income tax.
[[Page H3278]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman from Texas will
suspend so the gentleman from New York can be heard on his point of
order.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in the well has made it
abundantly clear that he is addressing his constituents in Texas
somewhere and his eyes are directed at the camera so that it is
difficult for me really to know whether he is talking to me or making a
political address to his constituents. I thought that violated the
rules of the House.
Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will address that through the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point or order offered by the gentleman
from New York is well taken. The Chair will remind all Members to
address their remarks only to the Chair.
Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you your money tonight is
going to be spent by Washington, and, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you
that I am going to stand here in the well and say we are going to
defend every American's right to keep their money regardless of the
demagoguery and to me a very offensive rhetoric on the other side. We
believe in the American people, and we think the money does not belong
here in Washington but indeed it belongs in your pockets across
America, and remember, 12 o'clock, when you are filing that check, they
want more of it.
{time} 2015
Point of Order
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman will state his
point of order.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, cleverly the gentleman has wound up his
speech once again addressing his taxpayers back home.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Jacobs].
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends and colleagues to recognize
something that has occurred tonight in this debate, and that is a
betrayal of an inclination to suggest that there is no connection
between taxes and spending. It is said that if taxes are curtailed,
spending will be curtailed. In my nearly 30 years in Congress, I have
not found that to be the case.
In 1976 I began the movement for a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution. By the way, mine was called the Payment Book Amendment.
After the balance was achieved, then 5 percent of the national debt,
which then was $750 billion, had to be retired each year by a surplus
equal to the 5 percent.
I do not mean to pick out any particular President, but as a good
example, almost never has the Congress appropriated as much money as a
President requests. President Reagan's budgets increased spending in
his first 4 years in office by $1 trillion and cut taxes in 1981 by
$750 billion, restoring some of that the following year by a reguessive
tax increase.
One night when ``I pondered weak and weary'' and could not sleep, I
turned on a TV interview program, on which a prominent Member of the
Congress was advocating a $40 billion increase in spending on a new
space program. The interviewer was thoughtful enough to ask, ``Would
you offer an increase in taxes by $40 billion to pay for the increased
spending?''
The Member of Congress replied, ``Mr. Rose, this country spends $40
billion a year on dog food.''
Mr. Rose did not ask the logical follow-up question, which, of
course, was, ``which dog are you going to ask to give up his food?''
The mere fact that people spend a certain amount on dog food does not
mean you can increase spending in the Government without increasing
taxes to pay for it.
If you really want to curtail spending constitutionally, forbid the
Government from borrowing. The easiest thing in the world is to whip
out the U.S. Government credit card, and that is exactly what has been
done in a bipartisan manner as long as I have served in the Congress.
As for complaints about making car payments or paying the electric
bill or any of the other things that are necessities in life, and I do
not say that all the increased spending in the eighties was a
necessity--I cast my district's vote against much of it--but I do say
the necessity is to get cracking and pay for it and stop paying
interest on it.
People have not only recently complained about paying taxes. I do not
like to pay taxes. I do not like to pay any of my bills, and I do not
like it if someone else runs up bills that I have to pay. Will Rogers
said, ``It is a great country, but you can't live it in for nothing.''
Some of the greater patrioteers I would say in this country swear
their allegiance and undying love, ``patrioticer'' than thou. They do
not serve in the military, they do not go out and sweep the streets.
There is one way they can show their love for the country, and the only
way is not to complain about the taxes. But do they ever.
And it is human nature to avoid distastful duty. It is poor state
craft indeed to have an arrangement where it is easier to run up the
bills than to pay them. A constitution is supposed to restsorum the
more foolish aspects of human nature, not view force and encourage
them.
Finally, if I have time, I want to disabuse people of a couple of
myths. One myth is that the 1993 tax act was the largest increase in
history. That is not true. Neither was the 1982 act--the Reagan tax
increase--the largest in history.
In World War II, there were all sorts of increases that dwarfed both
of them. Between the two, however, the Reagan tax increase in 1982 was
$340 billion in 1993 dollars, the only fair comparison, adjusted for
inflation, and the Clinton tax increase was $249 billion. And the myth
has gone on for decades that John F. Kennedy was elected President
because they stole it in Chicago and Illinois went for Kennedy. The
fact is that at 3:33 on the morning following the election, Michigan
went over to Kennedy and elected him. Illinois was surplusage. These
are two myuths which have been asserted so certainly and so often, that
most people have come to believe them. ``Truth crushed to earth * * *''
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this joint
resolution. Today the people in my home State of Iowa are filing their
tax returns. The average Iowan is sending more of their hard-earned
money to Washington than they spent on food, shelter, and clothing
combined.
For the last 40 years, liberals in Congress have been incapable of
restraining the urge to spend and spend and spend. I am glad that my
colleague just recently mentioned a credit card, because it is as easy
for a Member of this Congress to pull out their congressional credit
card, their congressional voting card, slip it into the slot and push a
yes button, and you have just spend billions of dollars.
Iowans are frustrated, because instead of working for their families,
they have been working to support the spending habits of past liberal
Congresses. A minister's wife told me just the other day, ``I went back
to work part-time. The extra income that we made for our family bumped
us up into the next tax bracket. I basically went back to work to pay
our family's taxes.''
One of the things we can do to put a halt to this madness, this
raising of taxes time and time again, is to pass this resolution.
The problem is not that Americans do not pay enough taxes; the
problem is that Congress spends too much. By making it harder to raise
taxes, we can accomplish two goals: First, more money stays where it
should, in the families; second, it mades reducing spending even more
necessary.
If liberals in Congress have a tougher time raising taxes, maybe they
will be forced to quit spending more money that we have. They have
spent too much for too long, and the American people are tired of
paying for it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this joint
resolution.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is the essence of
nonsense. Just look at it--read it.
[[Page H3279]]
But we are not here because this is a well-written, well-reasoned
amendment. this amendment isn't even a good idea. We are here because
it is April 15, tax day--it is time to score political points--the
Constitution be dammed.
Two fundamental truths underlie our Government--majority rule, and
the Constitution. This amendment is contrary to both. It is ill-
conceived, ill-constructed, and ill-advised.
Our Constitution is a sacred document. It is the foundation of the
greatest democracy on Earth. Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights
over 200 years ago, the people have seen fit to amend it only 17 times.
That is because the Constitution is not merely law--it is the
foundation of our Nation. It is liberty. It is the separation of
powers--checks and balances. It is the essence of democracy.
I revere the Constitution. We must not amend it lightly. Welfare
reform--Government spending--tax policy--these are the province of
laws. We must not clutter our Constitution with such matters. We must
not cheapen the foundation of this great Nation.
It appears that many of my colleagues disagree.
In the past 16 months, the Republican leadership has brought four
constitutional amendments to the floor of the House. This is nothing
less than an assault on our Constitution--on our democracy. Republicans
would restrict the right of voters to choose their Member of Congress.
They would limit free speech. They would deny majority rule--deny
democracy.
If this amendment had been part of our original Constitution, there
would be no Social Security. There would be no Medicare. You see,
Republicans voted against Social Security and Medicare. They did not
want these programs. They do not want these programs today. Republicans
want Medicare to wither on the vine. You have even heard the Senate
majority leader brag about his ``no'' vote.
Democrats--the majority of Congress--the majority of America--
supported Social Security. They supported Medicare and they won.
Republicans lost--they could not stop the will of the people. With this
amendment, they could. No majority rule. No one man--one person--one
vote. So much for fundamental truths. So much for our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that I, as a Member of this House, have
been reduced to voting on such a terrible and unwise amendment. I am
embarrassed. There have been no hearings. This amendment was born in
darkness and conceived in a den of inequity. It is a vague, overly
broad, political stunt. It is silly.
Our Constitution is not silly. Democracy is not silly. This amendment
is not worthy of the U.S. Constitution, of majority rule, or of this
body. Do not demean, do not cheapen--the Constitution of the greatest
nation on Earth.
This amendment does not belong here--it certainly does not belong in
the Constitution. Get this amendment out of here. Get if off of the
floor, out of this House. It is a waste of paper. It is trash. It
belongs in the garbage--the waste heap of political stunts.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I must address the remarks of the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. Speaker, the den of iniquity that the gentleman referred to
where this specific language was actually drafted was a Committee on
Ways and Means hearing room right across the hall. There have certainly
been some shady deals discussed in that room over the past, but this is
not one of them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Fox].
(Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
leadership on this issue and for bringing it forward.
Mr. Speaker, the tax limitation balanced budget amendment will
ensure that, like American families, the Government spends only within
its means. The tax limitation balanced budget amendment will prevent
the Congress from balancing governmental books on the backs of working
Americans. The tax limitation balanced budget amendment is necessary
because Congress has repeatedly failed to control its spending.
When Gramm-Rudman would have forced budget cuts in 1987, Congress
revised the act to put off a balanced budget. Congress' inability to
cut the deficit and pay down the debt demonstrates the need for this
legislation. A balanced budget amendment is the best approach to
eliminate the deficit while protecting the fruits of the American
worker's labor.
Had this measure been in effect, Mr. Speaker, during 1993, the
largest tax increase in history would have needed 290 votes, rather
than 218. Instead of passing by only one vote with the support of only
one party, a clear bipartisan consensus would have been required.
If you believe that Americans are undertaxed and passing tax
increases ought to be as easy as possible and the quick-fix solution to
our fiscal problems, do not vote for this measure. On the other hand,
if you do not want to hold your constituents' hard-earned tax dollars
hostage, you will vote for this reform.
{time} 2030
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], I heard him take that cheap shot at
the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman is not inferring that we
had anything on the Committee on Ways and Means to do with this joke of
yours, is he?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to anything.
Mr. GIBBONS. The gentleman is not saying the Committee on Ways and
Means took any action on this.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Lewis] used the term of ``den of iniquity'' and the room is the
Committee on Ways and Means where we drafted this language. That was
the only point I was trying to make. I did not refer to that as the den
of iniquity.
Mr. GIBBONS. Well, it was a cheap shot.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Payne].
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-
conceived amendment. And while I can certainly agree with those Members
who are attempting to find ways to cut spending and to reduce the size
and the scope of the Federal Government, I strongly oppose their use of
this mechanism to accomplish that goal.
Mr. Speaker, while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
like to convince us that the debate on this amendment is about whether
or not we believe it should be easier or harder to raise taxes, in
reality, the real issue at stake here is very different. This amendment
does not make it harder to raise taxes so long as the tax money raised
is immediately spent on something through the Tax Code. That is the
part of this bill that its sponsors are not making clear.
Under the language of the resolution, Congress can raise taxes on
anyone by a majority vote: The rich, the poor, the middle class,
corporations, large ones, small ones, foreign or domestic, anyone, so
long as we immediately spend the money we raise on someone else through
the Tax Code. The only ones we cannot spend this money on are our
children and grandchildren, because tax bills which raise money for
deficit reduction are the only bills that will be subject to this
supermajority vote. This means that we cannot close corporate
loopholes, even those considered inadvertent or egregious, and dedicate
the money to deficit reduction unless we can get a supermajority of the
Congress to agree. However, it will only take a simple majority of the
Members to close those same loopholes and spend the money, creating new
loopholes for a different group which just might happen to be more
popular in some future political climate.
Since my election to Congress, I have spent many hours working on
various proposals to balance the Federal budget. I have done this
because I believe that budget deficits hurt our economy and represent a
legacy of fiscal irresponsibility that we then pass on to future
generations. But despite my efforts and the efforts of many other
[[Page H3280]]
Members on both sides of the aisle, those who have worked to produce a
balanced budget that is fair and responsible and acceptable to the
majority of Congress and the American people, this goal has not been
achieved, and I cannot in good conscience support an amendment to the
Constitution which will make the task of balancing our budget even more
difficult in the future.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this constitution amendment.
The greatest sin against our children is the sin of the deficit,
spending more than we are willing to raise in tax revenue. It will
impose a paralyzing burden on our children, crippling government in
their adulthood, robbing it of the resources necessary to provide even
essential services. The deficit is the greatest threat we face. It
destroys the lifeblood of economic growth, robbing our neighbors of
their jobs and our kids of a strong, vital economy.
We must cut the rate of growth in spending. We must reform
entitlements to address real, not imagined, need. But if we fail, we
must pay for the services we are enjoying. High taxes have finally
elected a Republican majority that is finally discipling spending,
providing important public services in a more efficient, cost-effective
way. That is the real answer. That is the right answer in a democracy,
disciplined spending, balancing the budget.
I am proud as a Republican that we have had the courage to offer and
to pass a balanced budget to cut spending, to wipe out the annual
deficit over 7 years, but I leave each generation free to establish
that balance between taxing and spending that they believe is in their
interest. Democracy is about taking responsibility. Responsibility to
identify and serve society's needs, to appropriate and to tax, that is
democracy, and I am for it. I oppose this amendment.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today is a day that is
dreaded by most Americans for one reason or another. Today, April 15,
is commonly known as Tax Day. Anxiety is high and many Americans are
scrambling to meet the deadline. People across America are concerned if
they have to pay or if they did their taxes right. Today, the House is
participating in a publicity stunt to try to ease the anxiety and fear
about our current tax system.
Tonight, we are debating an amendment to the Constitution. Any time
we amend the Constitution it should be done in a serious manner.
Amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly.
As a former history teacher, I value the Constitution and I have
tried to pass this on to my students. Currently, the Constitution
requires a two-thirds majority vote in the House in only three
instances--overriding the President's veto, submission of a
constitutional amendment to the States, and expelling a Member from the
House. These instances differ substantially from the issue before us
today.
The issue of requiring a two-thirds majority is not a new issue. This
issue plagued our Founding Fathers. This proposed amendment would
gravely weaken the principle of majority rule that has been at the
heart of our system for more than 200 years. The Constitutional
Convention rejected requiring a super-majority approval for basic
functions such as raising taxes. James Madison associated majority rule
with ``free government.'' He believed a person whose vote is diluted by
super-majority rules is not an equal citizen and his freedom is not
fully enjoyed. The arguments of James Madison still hold true today.
With the adoption of this amendment, power would be transferred to the
minority. A minority would be able to prevent passage of important
legislation. Our Founding Fathers recognized the difficulty of
operating under a two-thirds majority. The Articles of Confederation
required the vote of nine of the thirteen States to raise revenue. We
should learn from the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
The proposed Constitutional Amendment would change how the House
currently functions. This amendment would require any bill closing
loopholes for deficit reduction to require a two-thirds majority.
However, the amendment would permit tax increases on one group of
taxpayers to pay for a tax break for another group of preferences.
This proposed amendment would require a two-thirds majority to
reinstate funding of the Superfund program. A supermajority would be
required to reinstate the trust fund for the airport and safety and
improvement program.
Deficit reduction should be our primary focus and this proposed
amendment would make it harder to enact deficit reduction. The
coalition budget which was a responsible balanced budget would require
a two-thirds majority by closing unnecessary tax preferences.
We should take a hard look at the action we about to take today. Last
week the Washington Post ran an editorial entitled ``False Promises.''
This editorial hit the nail on the head. It reminds us that damage done
to the Constitution cannot be undone. We simply cannot waive the
Constitution.
We are all in election mode and we should realize that we are elected
to make hard decisions. A majority of major legislation passes with
less than a two-thirds margin. Our job would be easier here if two-
thirds of us could always agree this is not supposed to be an easy job.
We have to make tough decisions which often result in close votes.
Between 1982 and 1993, five bills that raised significant revenue
were enacted. President Reagan signed three and the other two were
signed by President Bush and President Clinton. All five of these bills
did not receive a two-thirds vote on the House Floor.
I cannot predict the future, but based on past precedents, I believe
it will be extremely difficult for any President to have a budget pass
Congress if this amendment is enacted. So many of us hear the
complaints from our constituents about gridlock. This amendment could
add to the gridlock. We would not be able to pass the budget deals of
the past without a supermajority. We should all know from this year's
budget battle how difficult this could be.
We will hear today that this amendment is important because it will
help reduce our taxes. If we really want to help the American taxpayer
can do better than this legislation today. Our energy should be focused
on deficit reduction. This amendment would make deficit reduction more
difficult.
We all want to make our tax system more fair and simpler. This
amendment will not help reach that goal. We have not studied the
effects of this amendment closely enough. The wording of this amendment
is not clear and could result in years of litigation. The resolution is
not specific enough to address questions such as the length of the
budget window or what constitutes a tax or a fee.
I urge you not to support this proposed amendment. We do not know
enough about its effects. Tomorrow, we have on the schedule the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights and this an example of legislation that will
really help the individual taxpayer. Just because it is Tax Day, we
would not support a constitutional amendment that sounds good at first.
In reality, this amendment will create numerous problems and will
change the concept of majority rule. With this amendment, we are
turning back the clock of history and not moving forward.
I offer a suggestion tonight, Mr. Speaker, that we reject this
foolhardy proposal.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to increase our
Federal taxes.
The average American family of four already spends 38.2 percent of
their income to government in taxes. We need to pass this amendment so
that we can have two-thirds of this body's vote to help cement a
pattern we have advanced in this Congress, that pattern being that when
we face a problem of deficit spending, we address it by reducing
spending and not taxing our citizens of these United States, taxing
them out of a job or making a decent living.
I have heard liberal opponents of this measure describe it as
fiscally irresponsible, and I want to throw out a few statistics to
counter those claims. For instance, the States that have a
supermajority for tax increases have incurred 13 percent less debt than
those
[[Page H3281]]
States with a simple majority. Second, a supermajority does not exclude
government from raising taxes in the event of fiscal hardships. It just
ensures that the legislators, those elected officials, will scrutinize
their options and provide added projections to the average taxpayer.
I heard earlier this evening the gentleman from Florida, the ranking
Member, making comments about California, and I want to say that I
served in the State assembly in California, and I want everyone to know
that you need a supermajority, two-thirds, to raise taxes. In fact, as
a member, I opposed a measure about 5 years ago that increased taxes on
the citizens of California. However, my point is that still we were
able, that body was able to increase taxes even with a supermajority.
Last, Mr. Speaker, statistics show that the States that live under
the supermajority tax increase requirement have smaller tax and
spending increases, grow faster, create more jobs and accumulate less
debt. I urge Members to back this supermajority for tax increases.
Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of comments about cheap shots and
publicity stunts, but I will tell you, my 26-year-old who is just
entering the job market, my daughter who is 24, are anxious, like your
children and grandchildren, are anxious for us to do this tonight.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the time.
This is a sad day in the House of Representatives. Amending the
Constitution of the United States is a very serious matter. I have
voted to amend the Constitution of the United States on a number of
occasions. I believe we ought to have a requirement that we will be
constrained by our revenues in our expenditures. I believe that
deficits eat at our economy and place at risk the next generation. But
tonight, in my opinion, is the theater of the irresponsible. I do not
see senior Members who have given thoughtful consideration to this
speaking very much on this floor on behalf of this amendment. I do not
see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary on the
floor as a proponent of this amendment. I did see a distinguished
senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], say that she believed in democracy, she
believed in our Constitution, and unlike many documents, it gave to the
people the right to choose.
Perhaps the people sometimes make mistakes, as each of us do, but it
gave them that right. It did so for the most part by majority vote.
This House, under this leadership, does not trust the people, no matter
what it may see, and let me give the examples. We adopted a rule. It
said that we could not raise taxes except by a three-fifths vote. We
have waived that rule, of course, on a number of occasions when it
suited the fancy of the leadership of this House.
{time} 2045
Seventy-three percent of the bills that have come to this floor have
come without a hearing in the substantive committees, out of the
Committee on Rules. That shuts the American public out of the
decisionmaking process.
One hundred sixty-five legislative riders have been added to
appropriations bills without a single hearing on any of those riders.
Term limits. Term limits is a classic ``we don't trust the people.''
We do not trust them to elect the right people. Every 2 years they have
that opportunity to choose in a democracy, to send us back or to retire
us. But there are some in this body who believe that, no, we do not
trust the people to make that decision.
We started this Congress by disenfranchising in the Committee of the
Whole the representatives of American citizens from Puerto Rico, from
Guam, American Samoa, the District of Columbia. Perhaps we did not
trust those people as well.
We passed an amendment through this House, which I opposed, sponsored
by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] and the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], which said, ``That if you get Federal money to
propose a program, if you get money, you cannot spend your own money to
advocate issues before the Congress or other political bodies.''
Why does this leadership not trust the people?
The line-item veto was essential, I have been told, over the years,
and my friend from Texas, Mr. Stenholmand I agreed that there was a
necessity for a process. But it kept even the relationship between the
Executive and the Legislature. The line-item veto was essential, but
not until January, not in this budget process, my colleagues. The line-
item veto would go into effect next year.
My colleagues, Warren Rudman was mentioned. Warren Rudman is a
distinguished Republican, a Senator from New Hampshire, not known as a
profligate fiscal State. Warren Rudman opposes this amendment. Why does
he oppose this amendment? Because he believes, as the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] believes, that it will undermine, not
enhance, the ability of this Nation to democratically and fairly
balance the budget, which is our objective and our responsibility.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
I rise in support of this constitution amendment which we are talking
about, and it has been stated here several times that amending the
Constitution is a serious matter. Well, raising people's taxes is also
a serious matter, and taxes are high in the United States of America,
particularly if we look at the range of about $30,000 to $60,000, and
we consider Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, personal income
taxes and all the local taxes which, after all, are part of the
taxation that people face. The important thing here is it is the
taxpayers' money we are talking about, and for that reason I believe
that we should have a higher standard before we appropriate the
taxpayers' money by passing tax legislation in the Congress of the
United States.
The history of this Congress is to spend too much, and then in later
years to tax to try to make up for that. We had the same problems in my
State of Delaware. Back in 1980 we had 19.8 percent personal income
taxes. we had businesses leaving the State, we were not balancing our
budget, and we came along and we said we have got to do something about
it, and we passed a balanced budget amendment, and we passed a
supermajority to increase our taxes, and we passed a line-item veto,
and since that time we have balanced our budget 19 times, we have cut
taxes 6 times, we lowered poverty more than any other State in the
United States of America. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates
in the entire United States of America. It has worked, and it has
worked well.
A tax limitation amendment is not a magic solution to our fiscal
problems, but like the balanced budget amendment and the line-item
veto, it will make a real contribution to putting the Federal
Government on a permanent path to fiscal responsibility. Without a
constitutional mandate, we may have some short-term success in limiting
the growth of government, but we will never change the fundamental
problems that lead to continued growth in Federal programs and
spending. The only way to change business as usual in Washington is to
make it more difficult for this Government to raise taxes and continue
deficit spending. We owe it to the people of this country to send this
amendment to them for ratification.
The easy decision is to vote no. The tough decision and the right one
is to vote yes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge its passage.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is said that the Republican majority has
returned and showed they have not learned a thing during this break.
The public has legitimate concerns about taxes, but I think the message
from the public, these last months, has been do not play games with
these concerns.
[[Page H3282]]
I wish the Republican majority has gone back, as I did, and read the
transcript of proceedings in 1982 over that tax bill. Here is what was
said by the Senate manager:
The bill would increase revenues of about $99 billion over
3 years. Confronted with the need to raise revenues, our
committee sought to emphasize eliminating or cutting back on
justified preferences in the Tax Code.
And then he went on to say:
Some of my colleagues, some of my Republican colleagues,
some of the pure supply-siders, though there are not as many
as there were, would say why are you raising revenues,
and this is what he continues to say on page 6907:
As I said earlier, I do not know what choice we had. The
bill can help eliminate much taxpayer resentment over the
perceived unfairness of our tax system by cutting back on tax
shelters that benefit the wealthy, who can afford
sophisticated tax planning.
Then a month later in the conference that same gentleman from the
Senate said this:
I would say that those who talk about tax increases where
you have not paid taxes at all, but now you have to start
paying taxes because of tax compliance. That is not a tax
increase. It seems to me, when you properly consider that,
then I suggest we have a pretty good bill. Call it a tax
bill, call it a tax increase, call it tax reform, call it
anything you want, but vote for it. Vote for it because it is
good policy.
That was Robert Dole in 1982. What is he going to do now with this
proposal? That bill in 1982, the conference report carried only 226 to
207 in the House. It would have been defeated under this legislation.
Is Robert Dole going to give in to the irresponsibles in the House
majority?
This proposal will defend tax loopholes. What our colleagues' bill
should be called is the Tax Loophole Preservation Act of 1996. I urge
its defeat. It is going to die in the Senate. It is clearly playing
game with legislative concerns of the American people. They have had
enough of that from our colleagues. Too much.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] talked about the lack of
senior Members speaking on behalf of this amendment. So far today we
have had the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Goodling, speak in
favor; the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Solomon, speak in favor; the chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Archer, speak in favor;
the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, Mr. Saxton, speak in
favor. We expect to have the chairman of the Republican Policy
Committee speak in favor later this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona
[Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding
me this time.
There are two documents to which we should pay great attention this
evening, Mr. Speaker. One, of course, the document which is the
foundation of our constitutional republic, the Constitution of the
United States, and I have listened with great interest, the spontaneous
historical revisionism which has gone on during the course of this
debate, for it is worth noting and worth asking: If a personal income
tax were so desirable, if a personal income tax were so laudable, why
did not our Founders spell that out by levying a personal income tax in
the main body of this document, the Constitution of the United States?
Now history shows us that it was a constitutional amendment that gave
us a personal income tax, the 16th amendment, ratified in 1913, which
leads me, Mr. Speaker, to the second document here, and unfortunately,
Mr. Speaker, it is a document with which Americans come into more
contact on an annual basis, unfortunately, than I dare say the
Constitution of the United States. Form 1040. This is the first.
Mr. Speaker, the Center for Small Business Survival conducted a
study, which I think is incredibly illuminating, for it went back to
the initial tax tables and the tax code levied or instituted in 1913
and projected that into real dollars in 1990, and the statistics and
the findings are nothing short of amazing. If we applied the tax tables
of 1913 to the American people today, in real dollars today, a single
filer would be exempt on his first $46,000 of income.
Simply noted, it is this. I can show my colleagues the tables, and I
will do it during a special order. But the fact is even adjusting for
inflation, since the institution of this income tax, the spending of
Government has increased by 13,500 percent, and if we are so quick to
riase taxes, our Founders did give us a mechanism to correct that. It
is a constitutional amendment, and the only game being played is the
increased transference of wealth from the American people to the shores
of the Potomac.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this amendment, and the American
people know it is the right thing to do.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues think the current tax
system is fair and equitable, then they will love this amendment. If
they like the loopholes and tax giveaways in our Tax Code, they should
embrace this constitutional amendment.
Why? Because it will let the special interests and foreign
corporations who are now getting a free ride under our loophole-ridden
Tax Code stop any reforms from moving through Congress.
Seventy-three percent of the foreign corporations doing business in
the United States pay absolutely no Federal corporate income tax. This
is a scandal, and the authors of this legislation want to keep it that
way. They say that a minority of either the House or Senate should be
able to stop tax reform that places a fair tax on foreign corporations
doing business in the United States.
Every year foreign corporations mine millions dollars of gold on
Federal lands. They pay no royalties to the U.S. Treasury. This bill
allows a minority of Members of the House or Senate to stymie any
legislation placing a reasonable royalty on mining operations on
Federal lands.
The oil and gas industry seems to be doing just fine. Prices are
rising at the gas pumps. Profits are up, stocks are increasing in
value. Do they really need a $1.5 billion a year Federal tax subsidy?
Do we need a constitutional amendment that protects their subsidies?
They majority thinks so.
This amendment has been cynically sold as tax relief for average
Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation
makes certain that Members of Congress, whose campaigns are fueled by
contributions from the oil industry and a host of other special
interests, can protect their tax breaks, subsidies, and loopholes those
special interests receive.
{time} 2100
Make no mistake about it, every dollar that the U.S. Tax Code dishes
out in corporate tax loopholes comes straight out of the pockets of
working people in this country. This cynical legislation ought to be
called the Special Interest Tax Loophole and Corporate Welfare
Protection Act. It is a desperate attempt to defend the status quo and
make sure that working Americans pay while foreign corporations and
special interests play.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the tax limitation
amendment. Americans today work almost 3 hours out of every 8-hour day
just to pay their taxes. That is unacceptable. Our taxes are heavy
burdens. They are hurting families and causing us to lose jobs. It has
been far too easy to raise taxes, far too easy.
Just recently, in 1993, we saw the tax burden increase by almost $250
billion by just a single vote. It should not be that easy to place
additional financial burdens on the backs of America's working
families. The tax limitation amendment would require a two-thirds
majority vote to increase taxes. That means any future tax hike would
be supported by a large majority in Congress, not just a single vote.
I know, while I have not been in Congress as long as some of those on
the other side who have come to the well in opposition to this
amendment, I have been here long enough to know that we need change. My
friends on the other side had it their way for 40 years. We
[[Page H3283]]
can point fingers wherever we want, but let us look at the facts. This
country is $5 trillion in debt. A child born last year owes $187,000
just in interest on the debt. How can we expect any American to realize
the American dream under those circumstances?
Will this solve all of our problems? Probably not. But it is another
tool to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government, a Federal
Government that has grown too large. Let us make the decision. Let
American working families keep more of what they earn. Vote for the tax
limitation amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I did listen when I was back home in the district over
the last couple of weeks. I listened to people who said they were tired
of the liberals with their fingerprints on their wallets and their
footprints on their backs, and that they are sick and tired of paying
$1 out of every $4 of their income in taxes. They are sick and tired of
having to have both spouses in a family work, one of those spouses just
to pay the tax bill for the family.
I do not know if any of the Members have read the recent article in
Readers Digest where it talked about the poll they did among Americans,
an equally divided poll among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents,
some that called themselves conservatives, many that called themselves
liberals.
One thing they all agreed on across all classes of our society here
in these United States was that they felt no family should be paying
more than 25 percent of their income in their total tax burden. But
what is the average family of four's tax burden? It is at 39 percent,
when you include the 24 percent of their income that goes to the
Federal Government, with little to show for it.
In fact, in 1950, middle-class couples with two children sent $1 out
of every $50 to Washington. Today they send $1 out of $4. What more do
they have to show for it? Of the last 16 major votes to increase taxes,
only half of them would have passed by the two-thirds vote. In the
1980's alone, we would have saved the taxpayer $666 billion, had this
measure been in effect.
If this is some cruel joke being perpetrated upon the American
public, then I fail to see the humor in it. The cruel joke is Americans
are working more and they are taking home less. More is coming here to
spend, spend on whatever. But they do not have anything to show for it.
I remember I heard a respondent that listened to President Clinton
talking about the 4 million jobs he took credit for. His comment was,
``That's great. I have three of them.'' The fact is, maybe Americans
are making more, but they are taking home less. It is time we stand up
for them. This cruel joke has been perpetrated on the American taxpayer
for long enough. Let us stand up for them and get rid of this
smokescreen of doublespeak for ``Let's stick it to the taxpayer one
more time.''
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Republican
publicity stunt, masquerading as public policy. We are having a hard
enough time as it is, trying to scale back some of the special interest
tax breaks in our tax code with just a simple majority vote. If
adopted, however, this constitutional amendment would make it virtually
impossible to reduce corporate welfare. What will this mean for middle-
class families? It will mean that Social Security, Medicare, education,
and the environment will all be on the chopping block, while corporate
tax subsidies are forever locked in place because of a two-thirds vote
requirement in the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment is designed to allow tax increases on
middle-class families just as long as those increases are offset by tax
cuts for the wealthy. Is that not convenient?
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this tax day publicity
stunt.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I heard the excuse that, well, we have
not had hearings. I do not think you have to have a hearing, to go in
your district, to have people feel that they are taxed too high. You
can go into any district across this country and people will say that
they are taxed too high. But the Democrats will give you every excuse
in the world why we should limit Democrats from increasing taxes. Why?
Because everything that we have been fighting for on these budget
debates is about the ability of the Federal Government to spend money,
to spend money to their constituents so they can get reelected, so they
got the power to start with, whether it is Medicare, Medicaid,
education, the environment, welfare. It is about the flow of dollars
that are going out of the Federal Government.
It is like they are talking about free money. Mr. Speaker, it is not
free money. They have to take it from their constituents in the first
place, send it to Washington, DC, feed a big bureaucracy, and get very
little of the money back to the areas which they are trying to help:
for example, welfare, where you only get about 30 cents on a buck back;
education, 760 programs in education, where you only fund about
6 percent of the total education revenue; 760 programs, where you only
get 23 cents on every dollar back into the classroom, because of the
spending.
Mr. Speaker, they say, ``Well, we all want a balanced budget.'' I
submit that that is not true, Mr. Speaker. The President submitted four
budgets that increased the deficit $200 billion a year. When he was
finally forced and cornered into producing a balanced budget scored by
CBO in 7 years, what did he do? He put off 90 percent of the
discretionary cuts until years 6 to 7, when he would not even be here,
if he is elected to a second term, and then increase taxes during that
time and increase spending. Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment
takes the power away from the Democrats. That is what they are
fighting.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from New York, [Mr. Engel].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman from New York
[Mr. Engel] is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to look at this proposed
amendment and call it for what is. It is a Republican election year
publicity stunt. They want to require a simple majority to go to war,
but want to require a two-thirds majority to correct a tax loophole to
end corporate welfare. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Congress the Republican
majority passed a much-heralded House rule requiring a three-fifths
vote to raise taxes, and every time we have raised taxes in this
Chamber with Republican votes and Republican majorities, they have
waived that rule, that house rule, three times. So who is kidding who?
The House rule was supposed to prevent taxes being raised without a
three-fifths majority. Each time the Republicans found it convenient to
raise taxes, they just waived it.
So with the same publicity at the beginning of this Congress that
they put in to look good, this is the same kind of election year
publicity stunt that they are putting in right now: a simple majority
to go to war, a two-thirds majority to correct a tax loophole to end
corporate welfare.
One can only conclude from this that they like the corporate welfare,
they like the special interests, they like catering to the special
interests, and it is the middle class once again under the Republican
plans that get kicked in the teeth. Americans should understand what
this is all about. This is to protect corporate welfare. It is a
cynical election-year publicity stunt. It hurts the middle class and
ought to be defeated.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham.]
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, if there is something wrong with our
corporate code, and there may be, and if foreign corporations are
getting away with tax murder, we need to change it. But I would suggest
that the party that has been in control for 40 years has some blame to
accept that that is true.
Let us stop blaming each other and try to fix the problem. What is
the
[[Page H3284]]
problem? It may make the gentleman feel better that this is an election
year, but I ran on the same concept in the election year 1994. This is
not a new thought to Congress. I believe very deeply that there should
be a wall between your pocketbook and the U.S. Congress' ability to
take money out of it.
One thing we have learned is that if you leave Congress to its own
devices, you lose. What would the Founding Fathers say about this
debate? They would want to know, how is the country doing? If you tell
them they are in 5 trillion dollars' worth of debt, they would say,
``What is $1 trillion?'' We have created new money amounts.
I do believe it is time to change the way we do business in
Washington, and this is a start. I do not trust the Republican Party
enough to leave it unhindered. I want to change America for the sake of
the people who earn the money and have to pay the taxes.
Let us have the line-item veto and give it to a Republican and
Democratic President to regulate the way we spend. Let us have a
balanced budget amendment that regulates both parties' conduct, so we
cannot leave here with a deficit. Let us have term limits so
Congressmen will come here with a different view of how to serve the
public. Let us change America and be serious about it before it is too
late.
Some say it is too late. I do not believe that. The two-thirds super-
majority vote requirement to raise taxes is long overdue. It is needed,
because we in America, in Congress, have been irresponsible. Do not
trust party rhetoric, do not trust political rhetoric. Change the rules
of how Congress taxes you, how it spends money. If we do not do that,
nothing in America is going to change.
This is a great debate to be having, and there is going to be a vote
pretty soon, and you will find out who is with you and who is against
you. If you believe this is corporate welfare, a way of protecting it,
then you can punish me if you thing that is true. If you believe this
is a good rule to limit congressional spending long overdue, you can
punish the people who voted the other way. This is a great debate to be
having. It is one of many we have had. I am proud to be part of it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this constitutional amendment on taxes is a cynical,
back door attempt by Newt Gingrich and his followers to appear to favor
cutting taxes for average Americans while actually preserving tax
breaks for their special interest and big business supporters.
Were it to become law--which all of us know it will not--average
Americans will continue to pay a high price for tax loopholes and
special interest giveaways.
Despite their rhetoric, Republicans under Newt Gingrich have been
working against family interests since they took over the Congress.
If they were serious about helping America's families, Gingrich and
his followers would not have voted to raise taxes on the working poor
by cutting the earned income tax credit. They would not have voted to
cut funds for education.
If Republicans were serious about helping American families they
would stop blocking a vote to increase the minimum wage, and they would
not allow companies to raid the pensions of hardworking Americans.
But they are not serious about helping American families get ahead.
They are cynical, and I think it is safe to say that one thing we don't
need more of in this country is cynicism.
Today's vote is a transparent gimmick intended to shield Republicans
from their lengthy antifamily record.
We all understand how it works. The Republicans say this vote will
make it harder to raise your taxes, and if you vote against them, they
will say you voted to raise taxes. Pretty neat. But wrong on all
accounts.
In fact, if you vote for this amendment, you will make it harder to
balance the budget. You will make it harder to resolve the crisis in
Medicare and Social Security. You will make it harder, if not
impossible, to make responsible budget choices for the future.
By making it nearly impossible to vote to end a tax loophole--because
the Republicans will say it is a tax increase--this amendment will
preserve the fundamentally unfair tax structure we have today.
Consider this: In 1952 corporate income taxes were 32 percent of
Federal revenues. By 1992, corporate income taxes had fallen to just 9
percent of Federal revenues because of tax loopholes and favorable, but
unjustified treatment.
This amendment will protect those special interest tax breaks, such
as the tax shelter for money hidden in foreign subsidiaries, or the
ability of businesses to deduct today capital depreciation that occurs
in the far off future.
It is tax loopholes like these and many others that allowed at least
130 large companies in the 1980's to avoid paying any Federal taxes at
all even though they had large profits.
The Democratic majority in the 1980's enacted the alternative minimum
tax to require these large profitable corporations to pay Federal
taxes.
Well guess what? Not only does the Republican majority want to
preserve tax loopholes, they want to repeal the alternative minimum tax
too. They want to help profitable corporations pay no taxes.
Think about that as you file your own tax returns.
So this amendment is really about locking in an unfair tax system--
not making the tax system more fair. It is about preserving what is
wrong with America and making the middle class and low-income Americans
pay the price. It is about selling the Constitution for a short-term
and short-sighted political gain.
Well, Mr. Speaker, guess what?
The constitution is not for sale. And I have enough faith in the
intelligence of the American voters that they will see that you are
trying to sell a piece of the Constitution that you swore to uphold to
buy a little air time for the November election.
My colleagues, clear your eyes. Summon your courage. Cast the right
vote tonight against this amendment and know that in doing so you are
standing up for what's right. Isn't that what the American people sent
us here to do?
Vote no tonight on the latest and most cynical ploy by the most
cynical man in American politics today.
{time} 2115
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, in 1988 we had a presidential candidate who pledged no
new taxes and then in 1990 taxes were raised. Then in 1992 we had
another candidate who campaigned on a middle-class tax cut and in 1993
he raised taxes. It should be no surprise to the minority Members in
this room that now there are a new group of people in this Congress who
want to actually require a three-fifths majority to raise taxes.
I am told that if this law were in place, the majority tax increases
over the past 15 years of 1982, 1984, 1987, as well as 1990 and 1993,
would not have gone through. I think it is good to have a firewall of
protection between the people's wallet and the Government of the United
States. I support this amendment. I encourage all of my colleagues to
support the amendment. We need this protection for the working people
in the United States.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do want to repeat, because
the outrageous tactics being used here need to be underlined
This is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the
text of which has never had a public hearing, has in fact been in
existence for barely 2 weeks, during almost all of which time we were
out of session. It is being rushed through late tonight just for the
symbolic version of it being on April 15. It really shows a fundamental
disrespect to democracy.
There has been zero pubic hearing on the text of this amendment. We
had a hearing on the text of the earlier amendment they introduced, and
it was so shabby that they had to withdraw it. They come up with a new
one and they learned they better not expose it to the light of day. But
this amendment shows a disrespect for democracy in another way.
The question here is not the substantive one of whether or not taxes
[[Page H3285]]
should be increased. Sometimes taxes are increased unnecessarily. When
Ronald Reagan and the then Senate Finance chairman Robert Dole and the
Democrats in the House collaborated in 1982 for a tax increase, I voted
``no.''
In 1982, with a Republican Senate and Ronald Reagan as President, we
did a tax increase. I thought it was a mistake. A year later when
Ronald Reagan and Robert Dole and Tip O'Neill came together to raise
taxes again for Social Security, I thought that was a mistake a I voted
``no.'' I thought they made a mistake.
The Reagan-Dole-O'Neill tax increase of 1982 and the Reagan-Dole-
O'Neill tax increase of 1983, I voted against both of them. But I did
not think that I had the right to have them defeated when I could not
get a majority on my side. We are not talking substance here. We are
talking about majority rule.
As of now, there does not appear to be much public sentiment for
significant tax increases, nor does there appear to be a lot of
sentiment for tax decreases. At this point the general public's
sentiment appears to be, let us do deficit reduction. But 8 years from
now, 12 years from now, should the majority of the American voters have
a right to decide then by majority rule that we need to increase taxes
some? Yes, I think they should.
As a matter of fact, one of the problems you will have with this
poorly drafted amendment, this keep it in the dark and let's not have a
public hearing amendment, is that you may make it harder for people to
lower taxes in the future, because in a rational world under the right
circumstances, we might decide to reduce taxes. But under this
amendment, if we were to reduce taxes 1 year and then 4, 5, 7 years
later decide that we erred or that for unforeseen reasons things did
not work out as we thought and we needed more revenue to defend the
United States, to protect the environment, to protect Social Security,
we should need two-thirds to do it.
In 1981 Ronald Reagan and Senator Dole and Tip O'Neill collaborated,
that time they fought. There was a tax cut in 1981. Apparenly it was
the Republican view, the Reagan-Dole view in 1981 was that they cut
taxes by too much. So they raised taxes back in 1982 to offset some of
that they had done in 1981. They said they overshot in 1981.
You would make it impossible for them to to do this. Make it
impossible for people to correct errors, and you make it less likely
they will act in the first place.
I talked about Social Security. We have a problem with Social
Security. One possible solution might be right now, Social Security
taxes stop at $62,000 of income, making it by far the most regressive
tax we have. Medicare used to stop, and we raised the amount of income
that is subject to the Medicare tax.
I think a reasonable thing to do might be to say from $60,000 to
$90,000 you have got to pay half a percent to Social Security, and from
$90,000 to $200,000 you pay 1 percent, and above $200,000 you pay 1.5
percent. That would be one way to help protect Social Security.
But you would make that impossible, or at least require a two-thirds,
which makes it very difficult. So any possibility that we might want to
raise taxes on people who make $60,000 or more to help protect the
Social Security system, that is what you are aiming at.
Are there bad tax increases that would be hurt by this? Yes, the
Reagan-Dole-O'Neill tax increases of 1982 and 1983 that I voted against
would not have become law. But I do not want to change the rules. I
want to have to go by majority rule.
What this amendment says is, ``No, no, we don't like this majority
rule stuff.'' That might have been all right for a while ago. Maybe
that is OK for France or Sweden or Belgium, but this is America. We do
not have majority rule anymore.
Those of us currently in power will change the rules and we will take
our substantive preference, and right now what they are saying is, ``We
don't like government, we think government is too big, so we want to
change the rules so that a majority in the future that disagrees with
our position and thinks we need more aid to education and more
environmental protection but doesn't want to cut the military, that
they won't be able to do that without getting two-thirds.''
By the way, what we are having here now is a fundamental distortion
of the democratic process to try and freeze in the views of a temporary
majority.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, whenever you follow the good Representative
from Massachusetts, you want to spend your time replying to some of his
preposterous arguments.
I submit on this House floor that disrespect to democracy has been
greatest with the $5 trillion debt, and what we need to do is bring
that debt down. We have had so many taxes on this House floor with 40
years of Democrat rule that we have not had the opportunity to control
this budget, and now we do with this great House joint resolution.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I will not yield.
Let me just say that going back 220 years, our Founding Fathers had
the foresight to mandate a two-thirds majority vote on certain priority
issues. This is something not brand new we are bringing to the Congress
here in April 1996. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and John Jay
would be turning over in their graves if they saw that we had a $5
trillion debt in this country.
James Madison, a vocal supporter of majority rule, argued that the
greatest threat to liberty in a republic came from unrestrained
majority rule, and that is why they proposed two-thirds majority for
conviction in impeachment trials, expulsion of a Member of Congress,
override a Presidential veto, quorum of two-thirds of the States to
elect a President, consent to a treaty, proposing constitutional
amendments. There were seven of these that were already in the
Constitution when they wrote the document, and since then three more.
I submit that to prevent any further debt, we must pass this
resolution.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] because the gentleman's name was mentioned
but he was not yielded to.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, typical of the hit-and-run
tactics of the gentleman, to make abusive remarks and then refuse to
yield so I could respond.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, no longer than he would to me.
Mr. STEARNS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, I follow the gentleman's example, and
I ask the Chair to please restrain the gentleman. The gentleman gets
up, makes insulting remarks, refuses to yield and then tries to
interrupt me when I am speaking. I am simply responding as he did under
his rule.
I would say this. First he talked about Democratic tax increases. The
disrespect for facts is glaring.
Mr. STEARNS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Regular order, Mr. Speaker. Please
instruct the gentleman who refused to yield that he may not interrupt.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman from Massachusetts
will withhold so that the Chair can admonish the gentleman from Florida
that the House will proceed in regular order, and that the gentleman
from Massachusetts controls the time and may proceed as he sees fit.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the Chair.
I would have been prepared to engage in a colloquy. The gentleman
made insulting remarks, refused to yield. Now what he is trying to do
is to prevent me from responding by deliberately flouting the rules of
the House. It is not worth further discussion.
What is worth further discussion is his blatant misrepresentation of
the facts of the situation when he talked about Democratic tax
increases. The tax increase of 1982 was a Reagan-Dole-O'Neill tax
increase. So was the one of 1983. In fact, these tax increases came
asked for, not just signed but asked for by Ronald Reagan.
The notion that you are justified in making it harder to raise
revenue because you want to reduce the debt is bizarre. As a matter of
fact, when we
[[Page H3286]]
were trying to save the Social Security system, we raised revenues in
part for Social Security. I suppose you could have reduced expenditures
to Social Security. I was not in favor of doing that. Maybe the
gentleman is. But that is how you deal with it in this situation.
Finally, the silliest thing I have heard today is to say that because
the Founding Fathers required two-thirds in a couple of extraordinary
circumstances, that must have meant that they wanted two-thirds in this
one. Yes, it shows that they were perfectly capable of understanding
when we required two-thirds, what extraordinary circumstances required
two-thirds and when the general principle of majority rule ought to
apply.
They felt that for raising the revenues of the United States,
majority rule ought to apply. That does not mean we cannot change it.
We have a right to amend the Constitution. But to invoke the Founding
Fathers so that you can say that they were mistaken seems very, very
unfortunate. They decided we did not need two-thirds. The current
Republican majority does not trust democracy, and therefore they want
to make the amendment.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, April 15 is a very important date in my
family because my mother was a tax consultant. My family has been
involved in income tax for 45 years and my wife now runs a business.
While I keep hearing this discussion about the constitutional issue,
let me remind you, the Founding Fathers not just once but twice
specifically in the Constitution said the income tax should not be
allowed. Twice in article 1.
The first thing they did is they said you make sure you have fair
apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives and a
fair apportionment of taxes.
So when someone brings up the founding Fathers, let us go back to the
Founding Fathers' constitutional document and the 16th amendment was
the only amendment that specifically reversed the direction of the
Founding Fathers. It should have included a supermajority at the time
the 16th was passed.
Mr. Speaker, my family has listened to working-class people talk
about being taxed too much and every time I hear people on the other
side of the aisle say, ``We're only raising the taxes on the rich,'' go
ask the middle-class people in my community in Imperial Beach and in
San Diego and whenever you are going to lower the taxes, ``Oh, it's
only going to be lowered on the rich.''
Let us be frank and open about it. That is what it is all about. You
want more money to increase spending so you get more power in
Washington and less freedom as individuals. I am telling you as
somebody who has worked in the communities as a working class, you
taxes are not on the rich, they are bearing down on the middle class,
and they are sick and tired of it. They want the original Founding
Fathers' intention that taxes should be fair and equitable and this
amendment will help to do that.
{time} 2130
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott], a member of the committee.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this late-night attack on
the Constitution. We all know that this initiative will not become law.
It is nothing more than a public relations ploy which panders to voters
on April 15. Perhaps some will think that the American people on April
15 will forget that the big fat tax cut for the wealthy that was part
of the Republican budget was funded by cutting Medicare, education, and
environmental protection programs.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said tonight about fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment does nothing to reduce spending. In fact,
it continues to allow spending money by majority vote whereas paying
the bills will require a two-thirds vote. It does not take a rocket
scientist to figure out what will happen to the deficit if this
amendment is adopted. Earlier this evening, we heard a list of taxes
which would not have been adopted if this amendment had been in effect,
but all of the prior spending would have still been adopted.
Shamefully, Mr. Speaker, this amendment will also have the effect of
requiring a two-thirds vote to eliminate special interest tax breaks
and cutting corporate welfare.
Mr. Speaker, we need to get serious about facing our budget problems.
This amendment will do nothing to curb spending. It will make it more
difficult to pay the bills we run up, and at the same time it will
shamefully protect corporate welfare and current special interest
loopholes.
We should defeat this resolution.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the tax man cometh tonight, and if there was
ever a more abominable tax system than the American income tax system,
we have yet to see it on the face of the planet. It came to use by a
two-thirds vote. It did not come to this Chamber, to this body, to the
American public except through a constitutional amendment that required
a two-thirds vote.
The first attempt to pass an income tax was declared unconstitutional
because our Constitution prohibited an income tax system in our country
as it was first written. So what is wrong with requiring that changes
should come only with a two-thirds vote? We are not saying taxes cannot
be raised in America. We are simply saying they should not be easily
raised, no more easily than the American public was first inflicted
with this system with a two-thirds vote when the 16th amendment was
proposed and later adopted.
I wish we were debating the repeal of the income tax system tonight.
We have such a bill before this body, House bill 3039, a bill to
establish an alternative tax system for America. This system taxes
Americans twice on the same money, once when you earn it and again when
you spend it, when you pay all the business taxes, when you consume
American products. It taxes only American products, not products made
from overseas and imported here. It is a lousy system. It costs small
businesses $4 to conform to the Code for every dollar they send in
tonight, and we are paying all of that cost. We are told $300 billion
worth of man-hours is spent in complying with this Tax Code. We ought
to get rid of it.
But at least we ought not raise taxes more easily than this country
was inflicted with income taxes, and that was with a two-thirds vote of
the Congress and a confirmation by the legislatures of the 16th
amendment.
I remind you, the income tax was declared unconstitutional once. It
was repealed in prior history in this country by Congress. Americans
hate it. They have a right to hate it. It is a lousy system, and we
ought to at least make it more difficult to raise taxes under that
system in America.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a distinguished member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I left this body earlier and
I went and watched these proceedings on television for a while to try
to get a flavor of what was going on here. And as I listened, I heard
my colleagues on the Republican side come to the floor and say that
this is about taxes, taxes, taxes.
I think they are missing the point. We can debate taxes when we talk
about whether to raise taxes or lower taxes. This is about whether to
amend the Constitution of the United States. This is about fundamental
fairness. Lord knows, I have been in on the losing end of a lot of
votes since I have come to this House, both when we were in the
majority and during this term when we are now in the minority. But on
every single one of those votes, almost without exception, it has been
by majority rule, because that is the basis on which our constitutional
democracy is founded. It is one person, one vote.
Every single Member of this House gets sent to this body by the same
number of people. That is why we redistrict the country every 10 years
after every census, to guarantee that each individual citizen in this
country, in this body, the people's body, has one
[[Page H3287]]
individual who represents their interests and that individual's vote is
equivalent to the vote of every other individual in this body.
So, this is not about taxes, taxes, taxes, my friends. This is about
the fundamental rights and belief in democracy. This is about majority
rule. And you all seem to have missed that point.
You say that you believe in conservative values. But four times
during this session of Congress you have come in to attack the
Constitution. I am beginning to believe that you do not believe in the
Constitution at all.
We should defeat this insane amendment to the Constitution and to the
fundamental rights that we all should believe in and support.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
(Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, the only point anyone has missed in
this whole debate is the fact that the American people are frustrated
and fed up. The last 30 years their taxes have been raised and raised
and raised every time. This amendment today would reassure taxpayers
that they are entitled to the money that they work so hard to earn and
the taxes will only be raised when absolutely necessary.
I am convinced that you can never satisfy the appetite of certain
Members of this body to tax and to spend the earned incomes of our
working families. While we may not be able to cure their appetite, this
supermajority amendment would put a hurdle in the system that
Washington's big spenders would have to jump before they could get into
our wallets.
President Clinton recently declared that the era of big government is
over. And he is right. By passing this amendment, we will put a needed
restraint on the politicians who want to keep raising taxes to pay for
more big government programs.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important amendment
to the Constitution of the United States and to restore some economic
sanity back to the people who sent us here.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Walsh].
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 159, the proposed amendment
to the Constitution to require two-thirds majorities for bills
increasing taxes. Those who support this concept are well-intended and
probably, like many of us, frustrated at not being able to cut taxes
for hard-working American families across the country.
The Constitution is alive and well today after 220 years. It granted
Congresses the power to levy taxes. To change this very special
document in this manner is inappropriate. The framers of the
Constitution had wisdom far beyond their years. They felt the strength
of the Nation, with few exceptions, was based upon majority, not
supermajority, rule. Let us stick to that concept. The surest way for
this Nation to ensure itself against higher taxes is to retain and
indeed expand the Republican majority.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
First of all, I want to say to some of the previous speakers, here is
a copy of the Constitution that talks, in article 5, about the
amendment procedure. Clearly, it would not be in there unless our
forefathers anticipated the need to amend it.
I also recommend to you something else you probably have not read,
the bill itself, which talks about how you can close a corporate
loophole. I am going to put both of these here if you want to take the
time to read them tonight before you vote on these and find out how
absurd some of the arguments are.
Here is why I support this thing. Forty-five percent of the income,
the household income of the middle class family, goes to taxes now.
Two-income families all over America, you know what that means, it
means the second employee, one spouse is working for the Government.
You can say, no, no, no, not my husband, not my wife. He is a real
estate agent, she sells clothes, he is a barber. That is not true. They
are working for the Government. They might be getting their paycheck
through the private sector. That money goes straight to the Government.
These people are government employees.
The middle class has had enough of this. I was here in 1993 when the
big Clinton tax increase came through here, and that 15 minutes, which
is the traditional voting stance, the 15 minutes came and the majority
was not there. So, what happened? The Democratic Speaker, the Democrat
Majority Leader, the Democrat Whip went around the House, and this
place looked like a beehive, all the buzzing around, because you want a
road, you want a bridge, you want a highway, you want a new committee
assignment.
The clock kept going, 20 minutes, 25 minutes, 30 minutes, squeezing
out that last vote, giving away that last bridge, that last committee
assignment or whatever it took to get it just over the hump. And, of
course, the votes where there, and the tax increase went by two votes.
And what happened as a result of it? The government got bigger, bigger.
Yes, the deficits went down, the government got bigger. What would have
happened without it? the deficit would have gone down. The government
would have got smaller. That upsets a lot of people who like agencies,
commissions, bureaucracies, red tape, micromanagement out of
Washington. But for John and Sue, middle class, they want less taxes,
not more government.
Support this. It is good legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Filner].
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint
Resolution 159, the supermajority bill, because I am convinced it is
really a super loophole bill.
This bill will require a two-thirds vote--a ``supermajority''--for
any legislation that increases revenue. While this may sound like a
good idea it is, in fact, a terrible idea for our country. Closing
existing tax loopholes will also raise revenue, therefore this
legislation will require supermajority votes to close tax loopholes.
Closing tax loopholes should not require a supermajority--it is not
fair, it is not right, and it is not constitutional.
I introduced H.R. 1497, the Insurance Tax Fairness and Small
Insurance Company Economic Growth Act, to close a tax loophole in the
life insurance industry. By closing a huge loophole in Section 809 of
the tax code, my legislation will level the playing field in the life
insurance industry, provide tax relief for small life insurance
companies and raise nearly $2 billion annually for the U.S. Treasury.
However, if this supermajority amendment is approved, a minority of
this House could prevent closing this or any other tax loophole.
Protected by the supermajority requirement, loopholes will continue to
ensure tax unfairness and inequality--the ``super loophole'' is born.
Legislation like mine, which targets nearly $2 billion in unpaid
taxes, demonstrates the financial irresponsibility of supermajority
constitutional amendment. My bill is about fairness and equality; this
amendment is about neither.
By requiring a supermajority vote on loophole closings and other tax
corrections, this bill will tie our legislative hands and prevent us
from taking the necessary actions to make our tax system fairer.
Legislation such as H.R. 1497, should be addressed individually by
Congress and not be made inconsequential by this proposed
constitutional amendment.
For more than 200 years, the U.S. Constitution has guaranteed certain
rights, privileges and protections. It has never guaranteed nor
protected the right to a tax loophole--and now is not the time to start
doing so. Oppose the supermajority, defeat this bill and prevent super
loopholes.
{time} 2145
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, this whole debate sort of revolves
around
[[Page H3288]]
what Thomas Jefferson once said, and that is that it is time we chain
the government and free the people. That is what this debate is about,
because we have operated in a policy of absolute unrestrained Federal
Government. The more money we give the Federal Government, the more
power this Federal Government has.
We have gotten to the point where nearly 50 percent of our ability to
see, our time, energy and intelligence, which we invest in our
workplace, we see almost 50 percent of that taken by the Federal
Government.
So it is time we put the restraints on the Federal Government. John
Marshall, our Supreme Court Justice back in 1819, said the power to tax
involves the power to destroy. The power to destroy may defeat and
render useless the power to create. These are propositions not to be
denied.
In 1996, that is what we are facing, and that is what we are dealing
with now in the Federal Government.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a Member who has been on the floor a lot
tonight.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I guess I am just an old-fashioned conservative. I
believe in majority rule. I think it is dangerous when we give over
power over a substantial responsibility of this Government to 34
Senators representing as few as 10 percent of the people.
I am also pretty conservative about the way this House ought to
operate. I think for some reason it is important that on a
constitutional amendment perhaps we have some serious deliberation and
examination, even in the Committee on the Judiciary. It is ironic, I
think, that the chairman of that committee is not here controlling
debate on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, we are the stewards of an incredible legacy in this
Constitution. It is astounding to me to see what we are about this
evening.
I suggest to my colleagues that we envision perhaps standing over
here in the well James Madison, and back there John Jay, and over here,
Alexander Hamilton, looking down on us and the way we are tending their
grand legacy of constitutional government.
I think that they would be ashamed of our performance here tonight,
absolutely ashamed.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this proposed amendment to the Constitution to
require the vote of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to approve
certain changes to Federal revenue laws.
This proposed amendment is a bad idea and bad constitutional law.
Even worse, we consider it today in this body under a process that
insults Members' intelligence and responsibility, that contradicts any
suggestion that this House is a thoughtful body, and that demeans and
debases the very amendment process itself.
Mr. Speaker, let me say a word about the process that has brought
this measure to the House today. The original proposal put forward by
Representative Barton, House Joint Resolution 159, received one hearing
in the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 6, 1996. It then was
removed from that committee and scheduled for a vote on the floor. It
was not marked up or approved by the Judiciary Committee. House Joint
Resolution 159 was then replaced by a second proposal, House Joint
Resolution 169, which is being considered here today. This version of
the amendment was introduced on March 28, 1996, considered by the Rules
Committee on March 29, 1996, and reported to the House. We then went
into recess for 2 weeks. So, very few Members have even seen the text
of this amendment, much less studied it. This proposal has had no
hearing at all in the committee of jurisdiction.
Second only, perhaps, to an act of Congress declaring war, an
amendment to the Constitution ought to command the most serious and
deliberate sort of legislative review, examination, and analysis 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. The Constitution shouldn't be used to make political
statements.
I would, however, like to commend the sponsors of this bill on one
point. They recognize that a change in the U.S. constitution is
necessary in order to require a supermajority to pass legislation on
this subject. In effect, they concede that the attempt by the House in
January, 1995 to simply pass a rule requiring a supermajority is not
the proper procedure.
I oppose this proposed constitutional amendment on a number of
grounds. It violates what Madison called the fundamental principle of
free government, the principle of majority rule. The Constitution makes
very few exceptions to that principle, none having to do with the core,
on-going responsibilities of Government. We should be extremely wary of
any further exceptions, especially if it would complicate the essential
responsibilities and competency of the government.
We have to be mindful that the logical corollary of supermajority
rule is minority control. And under this proposed amendment, 34
Senators representing less than 10 percent of the American people would
have the power to control the Government's revenue and tax policy.
I also oppose this proposed amendment because of its almost absurdly
impractical consequences--intended and unintended.
One such consequence would be for all practical purposes to lock into
law whatever was the then current tax structure at the time of this
amendment's ratification. If you like the tax system the way it is now,
or if you have supreme confidence that some future Congress will have
gotten it fixed just right before ratification, you ought to love this
proposal.
Another related consequence of this proposal would be to complicate
efforts to balance the budget, particularly as they entail reducing the
growth of entitlement programs.
Finally, I'm opposed to this proposed amendment because, like the
current House three-fifths rule, it is vague and will generate
confusion and litigation.
I know the authors of this proposal feel strongly about taxes. But
simply having strong feelings about an issue is not sufficient reason
to cede power over all future changes to an important area of national
law to a small minority. In addition to the tax issue, Members of
Congress will typically have very strong feelings on a number of
issues--civil rights or trade or the deployment of U.S. troops abroad.
In none of these areas does it serve the long-term national interest to
undermine the principle of majority rule. In short, my opposition to
this proposal is primarily grounded in the fundamental principle that
is at stake, the principle of majority rule--the fundamental principle
of free government.
Wiser lawmakers than we have considered the question of whether to
require a supermajority for passage of certain kinds of legislation. At
the Constitutional Convention, the Framers of the Constitution
specifically considered--and rejected--proposals to require a
supermajority to pass legislation concerning particular subjects such
as navigation and commerce. They rejected various legislative
supermajority proposals largely because of their experience under the
Articles of Confederation and the paralysis caused by the Articles'
requirement of a supermajority to raise and spend money. In other
words, we have a Constitution because it was impossible for the country
to function under a constitutional law such as is being proposed here.
The Framers' judgment on this matter, including whether to retain the
Articles' supermajority to raise revenues, should give us all cause to
reflect on the wisdom of the proposals before the House today.
In those cases in which the Framers did impose supermajority
requirements, none deals with topics of regular legislative business
central to the on-going operation and management of the Federal
Government, such as taxes and revenues.
In those cases in which the Framers did impose supermajority
requirements, only two require action by both bodies, namely, the
override of a Presidential veto and the referral of a proposed
amendment to the States. Both are extraordinary matters.
In sum, this proposal would go far beyond any existing constitutional
precedent. It would effectively paralyze the ability of future
Congresses to deal with one of the most nuanced of all legislative
issues--revenues and taxes, allowing a small minority to control
national policy.
The Presidential primary election season brought forward a number of
innovative ideas regarding the Federal tax system. Were it now in the
Constitution, this new amendment would likely serve to thwart these
ideas or other reforms. This amendment would certainly apply to flax
tax proposals which proponents claim would increase economic growth
and, therefore, federal revenues. This proposed amendment would likely
require a two-thirds vote on legislation implementing the consumption
tax or Value-Added Tax [VAT] proposed by some, which again proponents
believe would increase economic activity and Federal revenues. There's
been a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about getting rid of
corporate welfare. Many want to end corporate welfare by closing tax
loopholes--and that, of course, would likely bring in additional tax
revenue from affected corporations and so would require a two-thirds
vote under this proposal. And what about a capital gains tax cut? Its
advocates usually argue the effect will be to raise revenue. Does that
mean the two-thirds requirement would kick in?
[[Page H3289]]
But let's say we tried one of these ideas out before the amendment
took effect. Is anyone certain enough that one of them is the correct
solution to the tax reform problem that you wish to make repeal or
revision next to impossible?
And if this proposed amendment were part of the Constitution, it
would probably make it more difficult to reduce taxes. If at some point
in the future, Congress judges the budget and economy healthy enough to
reduce taxes, how likely is it that a responsible Congress would go
ahead and do so knowing that it would be almost impossible to raise
rates again in the event circumstance required it?
If now in the Constitution, this proposed amendment would certainly
make the current efforts to balance the budget a lot more difficult.
Whether adjusting the Consumer Price Index [CPI], or reducing business
and tax subsidies, or taxing the income of expatriates, or limiting the
use of section 936 tax credits for business activities in Puerto Rico,
or narrowing the EITC, or means testing Medicare Part B premiums, or
limiting the amount of profits companies can shift to overseas
subsidiaries--all would have to be passed by two-thirds.
It is important to realize that the proposal being considered here
today is not really a tax amendment at all. The word `tax' does not
appear in the text, nor does `income tax,' `tax rate,' or `new tax.' It
is a ``revenue'' amendment. The only legislation requiring a two-thirds
vote under this proposal is that which has the effect of increasing
``internal revenues.''
There is no technical definition of ``internal revenues'' except
perhaps as distinguished from revenues from ``external'' sources, such
as import duties. All other sources of Federal revenue are presumably
included under this proposed amendment. So any legislation to increase
any Federal fee or charge or fine would be subject to a two-thirds vote
if it results in more than a ``de minimis'' increase in revenues. So
would any proposal to sell Federal assets--another frequent component
of budget balancing and privatization plans. And according to the
proposed amendment, de minimis is to be defined by Congress at some
later time. Or quite conceivable, at each time a revenue bill is
considered, inviting an exercise in manipulative definition whenever
the prospect of winning two-thirds approval was dim.
On the other hand, it's arguable that this proposal would not
necessarily require approval of two-thirds for a tax increase. Some tax
increases can actually reduce or, at least, not increase revenues. For
example, the luxury tax on certain boats an cars that was repealed in
1993 is said to have actually reduced sales so dramatically that
associated revenues actually declined. Some even argue that most tax
increases on business activity actually reduce Federal revenues by
depressing economic growth. What economic theory, interpreted by which
expert, will therefore determine the application and effect of this
amendment if it were adopted?
So, once you consider how this amendment might be interpreted, many
absurd consequences come to mind.
In the context of deficit reduction, we should also consider the
fairness and equity implications of this amendment. Most Federal
benefits to lower and middle income Americans come from programs that
depend on direct expenditures. The benefits of upper income Americans
and corporations often come through various kinds of tax breaks. Since
this amendment would require a simple majority to cut programs
benefiting lower- and middle-income Americans, but a supermajority to
reduce tax benefits to wealthy Americans and corporations, it would
unfairly bias deficit reduction and create a path of least resistance
that would disproportionately hurt middle and lower income citizens.
Of course, it is to examine and understand exactly these sorts of
things that we usually refer legislation, especially amendments to the
Constitution, to committee. There, these and other questions can be
asked and answered and necessary refinements and revisions to a
proposal can be crafted. Sadly, no, shamefully none of this regular
order has been followed in the House. We should not be surprised at the
logical incoherence of the proposal which we are considering today.
In evaluating this proposed amendment, it's also helpful to examine
some recent experience in the House. In the 104th Congress, the House
pretended to operate under a new rule requiring a three-fifths vote to
pass any increase in a Federal income tax rate. Obviously, the
amendment before the House today would go much further.
The short history accumulated on the application of he New House rule
is instructive about the problems that would likely rise under this
proposed constitutional amendment. In the 14 months that the three-
fifths rule has been in effect, it has been waived during consideration
of the majority party's budget reconciliation bill H.R. 2491, the
Contract With American tax bill H.R. 1215, the majority's Medicare bill
H.R. 2425, and, recently, the House version of the Kennedy/Kassebaum
health care bill H.R. 3103. These waivers have been accompanied by
dispute and confusion as to the meaning of the rule.
The amendment we are considering is far more problematic because the
Constitution can't be waived for convenience sake when questions arise.
And you can be certain that similar questions about the meaning of this
amendment will arise in great number. The net effect would probably be
for almost any future tax bill that passed by less than two-thirds
under some claimed exemption from this amendment to be subject to
protracted litigation, creating an outcome we ought to avoid in tax
law--uncertainty and confusion.
Much of the criticism I have offered about the amendment being voted
on today in the House--House Joint Resolution 169--can also be made of
the original version--Senate Joint Resolution 49--which addresses any
new tax or increase in a tax rate or base, as opposed to an increase in
internal revenues. While the original version directly addresses the
issue of taxes, instead of the vague concept of internal revenue, it
would also obstruct many proposed approaches to tax reform and
interfere with efforts to balance the budget. It would require a two-
thirds vote on flat tax proposals which would increase the tax base as
they reduce the tax rate, on legislation implementing the new
consumption tax or value added tax [VAT] proposed by some Members of
Congress, and on closing tax loopholes that also necessarily increase
the tax base. Instructively, if the original version of the proposed
amendment were already a part of the Constitution, the new majority in
this Congress could not have passed its budget bill, which effectively
increased taxes on Americans eligible for the earned income tax credit.
One thing we can be sure of. We don't know the future. Why would we
wish to deprive our successors in Congress of the tools and ability to
deal with the problems they will face? To our successors we are in
effect saying, ``We don't care what the particular circumstances may be
in 10 or 50 years; we don't trust you, and you're stuck with our
expectations of your incompetence.'' What arrogance.
I urge the Members from both sides of the aisle to take a close look
at this proposed constitutional amendment in the light of the wisdom
and experience of the framers, its stifling and absurd effects, and the
history of the House of Representatives' three-fifths rule. Treat it
for what it is, a political statement--and one better made on the floor
of the House than put into the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes].
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Let us talk about being ashamed, $5 trillion worth of shame. And who
pays? The auto mechanic and the nurse who works at Brookhaven Memorial
Hospital who are sitting at their kitchen table as we sit here. They
are sitting at their kitchen table trying to figure out how they are
going to feed the spending monster in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, who should be ashamed? We should be ashamed. For 40
years this body has taken upon itself to spend and spend and spend.
Most recently in 1982, 1984, 1987, 1990, and 1993, this body has said,
``We are going to just get more money from the average working
people,'' average working people, who are out at home trying to make
hard-earned dollars as we sit here in Washington trying to take those
hard-earned dollars and redistribute them to our own political
constituencies.
Who pays? They are paying. The American people are paying, and they
are tired of it. They are tired of a Congress that just willy-nilly
over 40 years has raised the burden on average working families. If we
care about those families, we will support this super majority so that
we can put the brakes on spending, so that we can put the brakes on
raising taxes on people who are home right now racing to the deadline
of the annual day of reckoning, April 15.
If we care about average working people back home, we will support
the brakes that we need to put on the raising of taxes on average
working people in America.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to remind my
Republican colleague whose voice was raised pretty loudly about the $5
trillion debt that it was initiated under the administration of
Republican Presidents, sir. It was under the Democratic administrations
that we have been able to make a dent in this debt. So the gentleman's
fulminations are appropriate
[[Page H3290]]
for April 15, but factually they are seriously inaccurate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment to slice
another part out of the precious heritage of our Constitution. This is
in fact the fourth attempt by this Republican leadership in the 104th
Congress to rip apart the Constitution of the United States, a document
that has only been amended 17 times, excluding the Bill of Rights in
our 207 year history as a nation.
Now they are trying to rid it of majority rule, enshrined in the
Constitution since the beginning of this Republic. We are being asked
to undermine the delicate checks and balances between the executive and
legislative branches on the important issue of revenues. Other equally
weighty issues, such as borrowing or coining money or even declaring
war, itself could eventually become subject to the same supermajority
threshold.
Reread article I, sections 5 and 7. It specifically defines how
decisions are to be made between this legislative branch and the
executive branch. It does provide for a two-thirds override in the
event of a veto by the President, but majority rule is enshrined in
this Chamber.
In 1779 the emerging republic that was to call itself the United
States of America threw off the shackles of monarchy and gave voice to
the people by vesting all their legislative powers in those they
elected here, and they did it by majority rule, bound by the
Constitution that has kept us free.
Frankly, this amendment is a cheap shot against a sacred document
during a week that most Americans would like to forget: tax filing
time. But this Member is one that is unwilling to unravel the
Constitution and its environment of majority rule for the sake of a few
well-timed press releases at tax time. For shame.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the honorable
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], one of our chief sponsors of this
legislation.
(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is not a difficult issue at all.
It is rather simple actually. It just gets down to this, as to whether
or not in order to raise people's taxes, we want a simple majority to
do it, or do we want to make it a little bit tougher and require two-
thirds?
I think most Americans filing their tax returns today firmly believe
that they are paying too much in taxes at all levels of government.
These hard-working Americans are tired of a tax and spend Federal
Government. They want some financial accountability.
Let me issue a challenge to every Member of this body: When you go
home, look into the face of the first 15 of your constituents you see,
and ask them a simple question: Would you like me to make it a little
tougher for those folks up there to raise your taxes or not.
I challenge you to do that. I assure you that you will get 15 out of
15 that will tell you, Yes, I would. We are paying too much taxes. We
want more return for your tax dollars. We don't want higher taxes.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I rise today as a cosponsor, along with the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete
Geren, and the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg, in support of this.
A year ago we announced the sponsorship of this legislation, and the
leadership made good on its promise to allow us a vote on this bill on
tax day. Today we have an opportunity I think to show the American
taxpayer where we stand on this issue. For the first time in many year
this Congress has focused on efforts to achieve a balanced budget and
decrease taxes at the same time. These are goals that many of us have
worked on forever since we have been elected to Congress.
Last year the House passed an historic balanced budget amendment to
the constitution, and now we are asking our colleagues' support of the
tax limitation amendment, which will further ensure fiscal
responsibility and accountability in Federal Government. This amendment
will help make sure that future Congresses continue to focus on slowing
the government and slowing the spending at the Federal Government,
rather than increasing taxes as the means to balance the budget.
If history teaches us anything, Congress will always be tempted to
raise taxes, especially if a balanced budget becomes a constitutional
mandate. While raising taxes may eventually be necessary, this
important issue should not be resolved by a simple majority vote. The
tax limitation amendment would not make it impossible to raise taxes,
it would simply make it more difficult. Each of those 15 constituents
that you talk to and ask whether or not they want it to be more
difficult for us to raise their taxes, they are going to tell you yes,
make it as difficult as you possibly can.
A two-thirds vote, 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate, is a
lot higher standard, one that would afford more protection for the
American taxpayer. I think certainly, as has been noted, the two-thirds
requirement can be waived in the event of a declared war or military
conflict that threatens national security.
Mr. Speaker, fairness in taxation is an issue upon which this Nation
was founded. The tax limitation amendment would help restore this
fairness. We can go to the polls if we want to. Seventy-three percent
of registered voters support a two-thirds supermajority; 72 percent
believe there is no need to raise taxes. Sixty-four percent of the
Democrats said support the supermajority. Sixty-eight percent of the
Federal employees and 71 percent of union workers said support this
amendment.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in defense of what they are trying to do. I would
say to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], I would feel a lot
better if in speaking to the Senate the gentleman would try to amend
this to also call for a two-thirds vote to raise the debt limit for
this country.
You see, there is something equally as evil as tax and spend, in fact
something even more evil, and it is called borrow and spend. Tax and
spend, you at least ask this generation to pay for something. Borrow
and spend, we ask the next generation to pay for something.
Just 2 weeks ago this body by a fairly large margin voted to raise
the debt limit by $600 billion.
{time} 2200
And for those of you who are not following this, we now spend 30
times more money on interest on the national debt than we do on foreign
aid, more money on interest on the national debt than Medicade and
Medicare combined, more money on the interest on the national debt than
we do on defending this Nation.
I will vote for the bill of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]
but I sure as heck hope he would use this learning experience to turn
right around and call for a constitutional amendment that calls for a
two-thirds vote to raise the debt limit. And then turn right around and
let us pressure the other body to pass the constitutional amendment to
require the balanced budget that this House passed about a year ago
today.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. DeLay], distinguished whip, who is operating at reduced
power because of an accident rollerblading in Sugar Land.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The Chair did recognize the
distinguished majority whip's foot attire, but was not going to bring
attention to that.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sympathy expressed about my
foot attire.
I just want to commend my Texas colleagues, Mr. Barton and Mr.
Archer, on their fine work in developing this balanced budget
initiative alternative. I can give you one simple reason this tax
limitation balanced budget amendment is necessary: Bill Clinton. Bill
Clinton wants to raise taxes to pay
[[Page H3291]]
for more spending. He did it in the first half of his term in office
when he signed the largest tax increase in history. If Republicans did
not control the Congress in the second half, I believe he would have
raised taxes then, too. Even today, Bill Clinton is trying to raise
taxes to pay for more spending.
Mr. Speaker, the American people contribute more to government
spending than they do to family spending. In fact, the government now
takes more money from families, 52 percent, than families are allowed
to spend on their own. The government takes 52 cents out of every hard-
earned dollar that the American family makes today. Mr. Speaker, I just
think this is outrageous.
According to the latest polls, 66 percent of the American people
believe they are being taxed too much, while 1 percent believe they are
being taxed too little. It is time to bring our tax rates in the line
with what the American people want, not what Washington politicians
want.
The current budget impasse is being fought over the principle of
Washington spending. The President wants Washington bureaucrats to
spend more of the American people's money. We believe that the American
people would rather spend their own money for themselves. This battle
of principle is what this tax limitation balanced budget amendment is
all about and that is why I support it.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to get responsible about Washington spending.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation and send it to the
Senate.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds time to
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], a Member who was once the
speaker of the statehouse in Missouri.
(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I will take the full 3
minutes because it is hard to find very much to say about this radical
piece of legislation from the radical right that is bound and
determined to shift the tax burden of the American public, to shift it
from a progressive tax to a regressive tax. And why do I know the cat
is out of the bag? I listened to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer]
earlier in this debate. He said that under this proposed constitutional
amendment with a majority vote, he could pass a consumption tax, which
would be a national sales tax. That is the consumption tax, the most
regressive tax that we can find, and he can do it on majority vote. At
the same time, he can lower the high tax rate from 39, 36, eliminate
them altogether, make the highest tax rate around 25 percent, so that a
millionaire will only pay 25 percent. Then he would pay the national
sales tax of 20 percent maybe of what he buys only, and that is all.
Then the poor person out here that is making $20,000 a year, got a
wife and two kids, is going to pay that same 20 percent sales tax that
the millionaire pays, the same rate that the millionaire pays for
necessities. The cat is out of the bag, folks. That is what this is all
about: Who pays? Who pays? Who suffers the burden?
The Republican radical right under Newt Gingrich wants to shift that
burden. They proved it with their tax cut proposal last year. It is
again here right in this constitutional amendment, to shift the burden
from a progressive tax that basically says the more you earn, the more
you get from unearned income, either way, the more you pay. I believe
in that. I have always believed in that. I have been thankful for it.
I would like to pay $1 million in taxes next year. I would love to
pay $1 million in taxes next year, because that means that I got to
make at least 2 million, and I get to keep the other 1 million. Now
that is not too bad.
I got everybody in my district almost, 99 percent, going to take that
any day. They would love to pay more and make more. And I heard the
gentleman over here, the minority whip, talk about this 52 percent. He
ought to come to my district.
There are not very many people in my district paying that amount of
taxes to the Federal Government. I do not know of any in his district
that are paying that kind of money to the Federal Government. They are
not, because that is not the top tax rate.
But the story is, we need to kill this monster. That is what it is.
It is in disguise, a snake in disguise, to shift the tax burden from
the wealthy to the middle-income to the poor. Vote it down.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren.
Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate tonight. One thing I have
heard over and over is that this process has been hasty, that we have
had few hearings rather than several.
Mr. Speaker, I contend that this system has worked as it should, as
the founders intended. Our States have been a laboratory to test this
initiative. With all due respect to the committee process, a real-world
test that has been underway for several years involving 70 million
Americans in 10 States gives a better understanding of the impact of
this initiative than all the hearings that could ever be held.
What has the test shown? It has proven that this initiative works as
advertised, more jobs, more economic growth, less government and lower
taxes. Critics say that the supporters of this measure do not trust the
American people because of the supermajority. Surveys of the American
people show that an overwhelming majority of Americans support this
initiative, over 75 percent do, and nearly 68 percent of Democrats
support it. It is an initiative that is spreading from State to State
with broad and bipartisan support. It has received overwhelming support
at the ballot box.
But if the critics are right, the ratification process will prove the
undoing of this initiative, for this is just the first step. The Senate
would be next. Then it would go to the people, requiring three-quarters
of the States to say yes before it became part of the Constitution. I
say that those who vote no do not trust the American people with this
matter. Those who vote yes trust the American people to make this
decision.
Mr. Speaker, critics contend that this initiative empowers the
minority at the expense of the majority. My colleagues, the current
system has empowered a minority at the expense, literally and
figuratively, of the majority. The Federal Government, representing 20
percent of our GNP, has become the most powerful political force in
America. The full force of the government is used in the political
process to block efforts to cut or reduce the growth of government.
That majority has become the tail that wags the dog in this great
experiment in democracy.
In the real world of politics today, it is easier to raise taxes than
reform Medicare, even though we must do it. Politically it is easier to
raise taxes than reform Social Security. Politically it is easier to
raise taxes than reform the VA health care system, and on and on and
on. Rather than do what we know we must do, we raise taxes because it
is easier. Perhaps if the bar were raised, if it were a little harder
to raise taxes, we might tackle Medicare, we might tackle the other
issues that are considered political untouchable in this political
climate.
As far as the intent of the founders, the founders would never
recognize what has become of our government. Telling cities and States
how to run local government, telling school boards how to run their
schools, and involving itself in the most minute details of American
daily life. It is a government that controls so much of American life
that it has become the biggest force in American politics. It has
learned to manipulate the system so that it feeds itself and grows in
good times and in bad times. It grows in the antigovernment Reagan
years, just as it does in the pro-government years. During the so-
called antitax, antigovernment decade of the 1980's, the size of our
government grew by over 25 percent. It did not shrink even then. No
matter who controls the Congress, who controls the White House,
government grows. The record is clear.
This amendment, if passed tonight, approved by the Senate, and only
after being passed by three-fourths of the states, that would slow that
growth, will make the growth of government more judicious. It will give
the force of government, the political juggernaut that it has become, a
higher hurdle to
[[Page H3292]]
clear before it indulges its ambitions, is a higher hurdle to clear
before it takes resources from the people.
Over the 200 years of this experiment in democracy, those
institutions that get their funds from the political process have
figured out the political process. Those who pay the bills are no match
for those whose livelihood depends on growing government. This
initiative will put the political process back where it was when our
Constitution was ratified. It will level the playing field for those
who pay the bills.
This initiative is not elegant. It will never thrill the academics.
It is a blunt instrument to check the brute political power of a
government with an insatiable appetite to grow, to control more of
American life. It is a blunt instrument whose time has come.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth amendment to the
Constitution that the Republican leadership has forced the House to
vote on in the past 16 months. This radical assault on our Nation's
most sacred document is an outrage, and I rise in defense of our
Nation's Constitution and against this resolution.
This resolution before us is the product of a poll and a focus group.
It is election-year political theater at its worst. Our Constitution is
the greatest political document ever written, yet Speaker Gingrich is
convinced he can do better. Does the Speaker really think he can
improve upon the work of Madison and Hamilton?
Congress ought to be approaching the Constitution with reverence and
humility. Instead, the Republican leadership is treating the
Constitution as a rough draft. This amendment flies in the face of the
principle of majority rule that has guided this Nation since its
founding. It would vest unprecedented power in the hands of a small
minority and prevent the majority from enacting the will of the
American people. If the principle of majority rule was good enough for
James Madison, it should be good enough for Newt Gingrich and the
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] in whose State there
is a supermajority tax limitation amendment for that State.
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting coming from Oklahoma,
being a new Member of this body, the arrogance of this body. What we
hear tonight is arguments based on class envy. What we hear tonight is
arguments that the people in the States are not adequate to make
decisions about their own well-being. The very idea that our Framers of
our Constitution had in mind was that we should send to the States to
be decided amendments to the Constitution. By us precluding that, based
on what we think, not with prudence, but based on what we think that
they should not have the opportunity to decide that, that in the face
that the vast majority of people in this country when asked, do you
think we should change this system, do you think that we should make it
more difficult to raise taxes, would agree.
{time} 2215
So once again Washington collectively, Washington in its arrogance,
in its ego, has decided that we know better. Well, that is just not the
truth. It is arrogant, it is careerism, it is elitism at its worst, and
it is impossible for this country to survive with that kind of thinking
continuing.
The other thing that I hear tonight is that this bill would not allow
tax reform. That is not true. It does allow tax reform.
Finally, this is what this new Congress is all about, trying to put
us back in a redirection, trying to reform this institution, trying to
give it the self-discipline that it needs because it has obviously not
had it over the past 30 years.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. The people of Oklahoma support this
bill. This is something that we should and must do for the next
generation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I do not come to this well with a speech
that I have written because I had no intention tonight to give a
speech. I came to this House to hear the debate on amending one of the
most cherished documents that this world and this Nation have ever
seen.
And I want my colleagues to look around in this room at 10:15 in the
evening. There are very few Members here; there are more staff people
on the floor of this House than there are Members of the House. And the
reason I ask Members to look around is that this is the only hearing
that this amendment to the most cherished document in our country will
receive in this House. It is not arrogance to want a full consideration
and careful review of our Constitution.
I suggest it is reverence, reverence for our document that we all
proclaim to love and reverence for our country and the seriousness of
the issues which we debate this evening.
To my colleagues who genuinely believe that we should have such an
amendment, or a similar one, I suggest let us have the courage to
debate it in the light of day before the American people and not late
at night as a political gimmick simply because this happens to be tax
day.
To my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton],
who genuinely believes in tax limitation, let me suggest it says
something wrong about this process when even he, who has fought harder
for this issue than anyone I know, had to admit in a national
publication just a few days ago that even he did not understand the
content of this amendment to our Nation's Constitution.
I plead with my colleagues to pay respect not to our Constitution,
just with their rhetoric, but to pay respect to it with our process. I
think our Founding Fathers would be sad, whether they supported tax
limitation or not. I think our Founding Fathers would be sad that we
would have had no single hearing on such an important issue, that we
would debate amending the Constitution at 10:20 at night with very few
Members on this floor and more staff members than Members here.
Regardless of my colleagues' position on the issue, I suggest this is
a sad day for our country and a total lack of reverence for our
Constitution.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this resolution. I rise
to remind this body of an important fact that seems to have gotten lost
in the debate, that if this resolution passes tonight we will not have
amended the Constitution. Remember that it takes three-fourths of the
States and the people of the States in order to amend the Constitution.
When we vote for this measure, we are voting to let the people decide
that they would like two-thirds of congressional votes in order to
raise the taxes. We are voting to let the people decide.
Those who vote against this measure would like to keep the money and
the power here in Washington. Do not we trust the American people? I
think we should. Let us let the American people decide whether or not
they would like to make it harder for us to raise taxes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I only have two more speakers,
myself and the other chief sponsor. So I would like to reserve the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The Chair would advise that the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] has 8 minutes remaining, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I will step into the breach and yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a list of names. What is
wrong with this list?
Madison.
Adams.
Franklin.
Jefferson.
Wise.
Gingrich.
Mr. Speaker, if you said that the last two should not be confused
tonight with the first four, you are absolutely correct. No one is
going to confuse
[[Page H3293]]
what is happening tonight with Thomas Jefferson or John Adams or
Benjamin Franklin.
Careful consideration was what the Constitution was about. What
everyone should understand, there has not been one hearing on this, not
one committee action. The previous speaker said what is wrong with
sending it to the States. When we send it to the States, we send it as
is, and, yes, it is fair to let the States vote on it, but have us
perfect it first before we send it there.
I have to ask another question. If two-thirds is good for raising
taxes for protecting Rupert Murdoch, for instance, then what is wrong
with two-thirds for some other sacred areas? What about Social Security
cuts when beneficiaries pay more out of pocket? Should not that have
been two-thirds? What about Medicaid cuts?
I think if we are going to ask the middle class in this country to
potentially pay $36,000 a year for nursing home costs that Medicaid has
been paying for their loved ones, that might be worth two-thirds. That
is certainly an increase. Somebody adding $3 or $4,000 on a student
loan, and you proposed that earlier, Mr. Speaker, and the Republican
Party, and yet that would not require two-thirds vote. You were happy
with a 1--with 50 percent.
Sending our sons and daughters to war; I find it interesting, Mr.
Speaker, that to raise taxes on the wealthiest would require a two-
thirds vote, to raise an army to fight a war would only require a
simple majority. It seems to me that some priorities are wrong here.
Mr. Speaker, I have faith in the American people, and I do not think
it is arrogance. I have faith because I know that American people can
say I know how my representatives voted, and I can evaluate that person
whether or not they should have voted for that tax increase.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want a balanced budget. The American
people want to control spending. They want a line-item veto. The
Republicans have tried to give that to them. And the American people
want less taxes. They are going to pay until May 7 everything that they
earned this year in taxes. Almost half of the year everything Americans
earn are going to go just to pay taxes. They are fed up. Look at every
single poll.
I am talking to my liberal colleagues in this Chamber. They are being
taxed to death, and they do not want their taxes raised any further.
Now how do we guarantee that? We guarantee that by making it very
difficult to raise their taxes, and the best way to do that is to have
a supermajority.
The Barton bill is a very good step in the right direction. A two-
thirds majority to raise taxes makes sense. If it is really necessary
to raise taxes, our colleagues will get the two-thirds majority, but if
it is not necessary, they will not.
Now we need a balanced budget, we need a line-item veto. We have
given the President that. And we need to control taxes. Their party has
been in control for 40 years, and for 40 years the policy has been tax,
spend, tax, spend, tax, spend, and it has put this country in a
terrible downward spiral. Every time we raise taxes; there has been 3
major taxes in the last 12 years; every time taxes have been raised, we
spend more and more and more, and we are now into almost a 6 trillion
dollars national debt.
When our forefathers came up with the income tax for the first time
back in what, the early 1900's, it was 1 mill on a dollar, 1 tenth of 1
cent on a dollar, and said it was not going to go higher than probably
half a cent on the dollar, and now one is working almost 6 months a
year just to pay their taxes. it has to come to an end. The Barton bill
is a good bill and should pass.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me, and just to respond one moment to the gentleman from
Missouri who was talking about possibly the consumption tax in this
country, and we have built into it a two-thirds vote in which to
certainly raise that from a 15 percent to a 16 percent level, and more
importantly for his farmers in Missouri or any farmer throughout the
country, the estate tax is being abolished, which means that that
individual who builds this family business or family farm over a period
of time and turns around and wants to give it to his children or
grandchildren, this is not going to happen any longer, and he can do it
or she can do it at no interference with the Federal Government.
The second thing is I wanted to mention that there is built in a
personal exemption refund for the working poor all the way up to the
poverty line in this particular piece of legislation. So in essence the
working poor in this country would pay nothing as far as taxes go on
whatever they earn.
So I want to make this a very solid point, that the consumption tax
is not being debated now. The two-thirds vote certainly is, and I
certainly strongly support it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start here. There was
a budget that was offered here that supposedly was supposed to get a
lot of support, was going to cut Medicare $270 billion, was going to do
$240 billion worth of tax cuts. Right now we are not talking about
raising taxes on anybody. But it seems to me, if we are going to do
something of this magnitude, we would have some hearings on it,
especially something as important as amending the Constitution of the
United States.
And let us make one thing perfectly clear. We have been sitting here
for almost 3 hours, and what we have come down to is the gentleman from
Texas has talked about something that is a very frivolous thing in a
campaign year, a campaign year, and the gentleman from Indiana said
what we have done, we have given the President the line-item veto, but
they saw fit to pass everything else in that bill except give the
President the line-item veto the authority for this year. We are going
to wait until after the election.
{time} 2230
Everything is predicated on the November election. The consultants
have already been together and said,
Hey, look, what we are going to do on this amendment
tonight: The folks that vote against it, we are going to
brand them as big spenders and liberals and don't want to get
the balanced budget, and we will have a campaign issue in
November.
It is just that simple. They do not particularly care about
restrictions on raising taxes.
Nobody wants to vote to raise taxes. I pay taxes. I am a taxpayer.
But this is purely and simply about the November elections, about 30-
second spots, what we are going to do in November, how we can make the
inroads on folks that vote against this irresponsible constitutional
amendment. No hearings. Not even the chairman of the committee is here
talking about passing this amendment. It is totally irresponsible, and
that is basically what it is. Let us look at it for what it is; it is a
campaign tool for November, pure and simple. Had it not been there, we
would have been gone a long, long while ago.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, in the landmark case of McCulloch versus Maryland,
America's first giant judicial situation, John Marshall wrote that the
power to tax is the power to destroy. To be sure, in that instance
Justice Marshall was seeking to prevent my home State of Maryland from
taxing a Federal bank, but the principle remains. The fact is that
taxation, taken to the extreme, can render meaningless the right to
property, freedom of contract, or virtually any other freedom.
This amendment simply clarifies that Congress' use of that
potentially destructive power--the power of taxation--should be subject
to a higher approval standard than that of Congress' other powers as
defined under article I, section 8 of the constitution. This
[[Page H3294]]
amendment would make it subject to the same super-majority requirements
used for constitutional amendment, veto override, or treaty
ratification.
It is true that the Founders did not intend for taxation to be
subject to the same requirements. But it is also true that their
standards were adopted prior to the ratification (indeed the proposal)
of the 16th amendment. Prior to the 16th amendment, the power of
taxation meant tariffs and excise taxes. But the 16th amendment created
the income tax which refocused taxation on the livelihoods of
individuals. When the rights of individuals to earn a living face
potential threats from Government power, there should be a higher
legislative standard for government to use that power. The amendment
before us creates such a standard.
Mr. Speaker, today many people feel the strain attendant to tax rates
which have risen continually over decades. On this day more than any
other, our constituents are aware of the potentially destructive power
of Federal taxation. I am supporting this amendment to provide my
constituents a reasonable level of protection against that. I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] who is one of the original sponsors of this
legislation and who helped pass similar legislation in the Arizona
legislature, which is now in the Arizona constitution.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, it has been a privilege to be a part of
this debate today, but it has been at times a very sad debate. At times
we have heard from the other side that this is simply politics. That is
dead wrong. This amendment raises a straightforward issue regarding
fiscal responsibility. Should this Congress and this Federal Government
be more responsible about spending the money it has?
If you believe it should, then indeed you should vote for this
amendment, because simply by making it harder on this Tax Day, 1996,
for the government to reach into the pockets of average American
citizens and take more money out, we will force discipline on this
Congress and we will cause this Congress to be more cautious, more
prudent and more judicious in spending the money that we do take from
those citizens.
All day long, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the other side talk about
this as an attack on the sacred principle of majority rule. Well, bunk.
This is not an attack on the sacred rule, the sacred principle of
majority rule. Indeed, the very reason for placing it in the
Constitution is because Constitutions are designed to protect
minorities, to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority,
and indeed in this Nation where now the average American spends more on
taxes than on food, shelter, and clothing combined, since the adoption
of the 16th Amendment, we have a tyranny of the majority on the issue
of taxes over the minority.
Mr. Speaker, the second issue I have heard makes me question whether
anyone has bothered to read the amendment. Indeed, all day long I have
heard my colleagues on the opposite side decry that they could not do
any tax reform, they could not close corporate tax loopholes they could
not provide additional funding for Medicare or child care, or for
anything that they believed was a worthy cause.
That is dead wrong. I urge them to read the language which was left
here because, as written, this measure provides for ``revenue-neutral
tax reform''; that is, any measure which raised taxes on some but
lowered taxes on others could be passed with a simple majority. Indeed,
the other point they have made all day is that this is an outrageous
debate which is radical, which is politics, which is a public relations
ploy, theater and grandstanding.
Let me tell them, they are again wrong, because in 10 States in this
Union, an amendment just like this one has already passed. Are they
saying that it is radical of those States? If they are, they are
telling one-third of all Americans that they live in a State which has
adopted a radical grandstanding political theater of an amendment. That
is right; one-third of all Americans live in a State which has adopted
a tax limitation amendment just like the one before us tonight.
It is not radical, it is indeed a reasonable reform, a reform that
two law professors have said would attempt to retrieve the original
values of the Constitution, rather than a radical innovation. Let us
look at what has happened. In those States which have adopted
supermajority, taxes have climbed more slowly than in other States. You
would expect that. Spending has climbed more slowly than in States
which do not have a supermajority requirement. Those you could predict.
Let us look at the economic effect. We hear a lot of talk about the
economy and jobs. In those States which have a supermajority, which
have done what we have proposed to do here tonight, the economy has
grown at 43 percent since 1980 to 1992. In those States which have
refused to do what we do tonight, the economy has only grown at 35
percent. What does that mean? It means that the growth in the economy
creates jobs, and indeed the study reveals the same: higher levels of
job creation in those States which have a supermajority requirement.
The other side often talks about the importance of creation of jobs.
This measure tonight would do more to enable us to create jobs in this
Nation than anything else we could do in the 104th Congress. That is
why the last fact is rather evident and why the other side hurts,
because once examined by those facts, once made real to them, what
happens?
A survey result revealed that 64 percent of Democrats support a tax
limitation because it creates jobs; that 68 percent of Federal
employees support tax limitation. Why? Because they are sick of
wasteful spending at the Federal level; that 71 percent of union
members who pick up that tab also support tax limitation, and that 73
percent of all Americans support tax limitation. This is indeed an idea
whose time has come.
We have a tyranny of the majority in taxes in this Nation. I urge my
colleagues to support this reasonable reform to restore the Founding
Fathers' intent, and the intent that we should not have a tyranny of
the majority over the taxpayers in this Nation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that in his charts where he
indicates the supermajority of States, he includes California and
Florida?
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I believe those are 3 of the 10 States
which have supermajority requirements, as does my State of Arizona,
enacted in 1992, pursuant to an initiative drive with the support of 72
percent of the electorate.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, then does the gentleman know that in those
two States, that the requirement of supermajority does not apply to
sales tax, which is the principal means of raising revenue in those two
States?
Mr. SHADEGG. It applies to some taxes in various States. They are not
uniform across the Nation.
Mr. CONYERS. Is the gentleman aware of that?
Mr. SHADEGG. Certainly I am aware of that. But what we have seen is
that in all 10 States, the economy has grown more and jobs have
expanded more.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], made
some comments that need to be rebutted.
During the 40 years that we claim that Democrats were running wild,
we had Presidents Nixon, Bush, Eisenhower, Ford, and Reagan. We had
Republican majorities in the Senate. In many years, in some of those
years, we had Republicans with working control of this House, so I
think trying to blame this on one particular party, the debt that we
find ourselves in, is unfair and inaccurate.
Further, Mr. Speaker, under this President we have reduced the
deficit from $290 billion, the highest in history, to $140 billion,
which is more than a half, a 50 percent reduction.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot in this debate today about
the election year ploy and the campaign ploy of this two-thirds
majority.
[[Page H3295]]
There are some short memories in this body, because it was just last
year that we voted on this very issue in this same body. If we want to
talk about election year ploys, we would want to talk about the minimum
wage. Why did the Democrats not vote for it in 1993 when they
controlled all three bodies? They controlled all three bodies and they
raised their taxes, but why not minimum wage? Not until the AFL-CIO
came to town and the union bosses demanded of the President that he
bring this up and make it an issue in this election did they even talk
about the minimum wage this year.
Mr. Speaker, I want to support the two-thirds majority of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] for any further tax increases in this
country.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my distinguished colleague, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], would he not have felt better if a
constitutional amendment would have had some hearings in some committee
before we brought it to the floor to attempt to send it out to the
States?
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Speaker, we voted last year, I would say to my
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, just last year we voted on the
Barton amendment that had a two-thirds provision in it in the balanced
budget amendment. Then we did, in fact, vote to have this body have a
two-thirds vote to raise taxes last year.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to check a little
bit more carefully. I do not know how long he has seen the proposal
that is on the floor. It was only put together rather recently, in
remote corners of the Congress. It is different from the one that was
debated at the time the he suggested.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion or at least
concern on our side. I am the sponsor of the amendment, and I was under
the understanding that I have the right to close. I would like a ruling
on that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The manager of the joint resolution has the
right to close debate.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, can the manager of the bill yield
to me to close on his time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The manager of the joint resolution
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], can yield for the purposes of
closing debate to any Member.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the 6 minutes that I
control back to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] to use as he
may wish to; I yield the 6 minutes that I still control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is advised that that would be an
appropriate offer, and that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]
will now control 8 minutes of time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee a distinguished member of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.
{time} 2245
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat like my
colleague from Texas who previously spoke as I came to listen to this
dabate, recognizing that Congressman Barton has a sincere commitment to
this issue. But I take umbrage with the gentleman from Arizona and his
articulation of who is in control.
I think our Founding Fathers in the Constitutional Convention of 1787
were trying to do one thing, and that is to remove the colonies from
tyranny. We come today on April 15, 1996, to return them to that same
tyranny, and that is to allow a minority to rule.
The constitutional amendment would allow tax increases on one group
of taxpayers to fund tax breaks for another group. The Republican
leadership has already waived the existing House rule requiring a
three-fifths vote to raise taxes on three separate occasions,
demonstrating already the unworkability of such a proposal.
I am opposed to this amendment because we find ourselves again coming
to the floor of the House to allow a minority to dominate the majority.
This is tyranny, simply and purely.
The framers of the Constitution rejected the principal of requiring a
supermajority for basic Government functions such as raising taxes.
James Madison, one of the drafters of the Constitution, stated that
requiring more than majority of a quorum for decision will result in
minority rule and the fundamental principle of free government would be
reversed.
I am not sure what my Republican colleagues are trying to do but the
Houston Chronicle saw it for what it was, political trickery. Of course
we want to bring down the deficit, but do we want to bring down the
hammer on top of those who can least afford it. Do we want to continue
to see an increasing deficit when this Congress is not able to meet the
responsibilities of this government?
This amendment is poorly drafted, Mr. Speaker, and I would simply say
this is wrongheaded and wrong-directed. This is tyranny. This is not in
keeping with the Constitution or that of our Founding Fathers. I ask
that we vote this down.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, House Joint
Resolution 159, to amend the Constitution to require that any
legislation raising taxes be subject to a two-thirds majority vote in
the House and the Senate. If this amendment is added to the
Constitution, Congress will not have the flexibility that is necessary
to meet the important fiscal priorities of our Nation.
This proposal lists only two circumstances under which Congress could
waive the two-thirds requirement. Those instances are when Congress
adopts a declaration of war, or Congress adopts a resolution stating
that the United States is engaged in a military conflict causing a
threat to national security.
Even the House leadership understands the practical problems with
this proposal because the House adopted a House rule in January 1995,
similar to the constitutional amendment. The House rule requires a
three-fifths majority to pass any bill containing an increase in income
tax rates. On three occasions, the House leadership waived this
requirement when considering bills containing such increases such as
the Budget Reconciliation bill, the Medicare Preservation Act, and the
Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act.
I also oppose this resolution because it will give a minority of the
House and Senate control over tax legislation. Our democratic system of
government is based on majority rule. We must not undermine this
central concept by allowing one-third of the membership of either the
House or the Senate to exercise this power.
This amendment is poorly drafted. For example, the amendment states
that legislation containing only a de minimis increase in revenue will
not be subject to the two-thirds requirement. The problem, however, is
that the term ``de minimis'' is not defined. Thus, Federal courts would
ultimately decide the meaning of this term.
This resolution is not the most effective means of securing a
balanced budget, which the majority of Members of the House proclaim is
their legislative priority. In some instances, sound fiscal policy may
require a combination of spending reductions and tax increases. In many
cases, Congress considers legislation that contains such combination.
Moreover, if Congress has considerable difficulty raising taxes, it may
have to resort to more deficit spending in order to meet the critical
needs of the Federal Government.
Finally, this resolution really avoids the key concerns of most
taxpayers. They want simpler tax forms and they want their tax dollars
spent wisely by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. I urge my
colleagues to vote against this resolution. Let us get serious about
improving the tax system and moving forward on balancing the budget.
This proposed constitutional amendment will not help achieve these
important goals.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gillmor].
(Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILLMOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the joint resolution.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Baker].
Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, these new constitutionalists
are
[[Page H3296]]
certainly fabricating. The Founding Fathers did not allow a tax on
income, so why would they need a limitation? They just made it illegal
when we had to amend the Constitution. Yet speaker after speaker say
the Founding Fathers did not envision a two-thirds vote. They did not
allow you to steal from income at all.
And then, oh, but California. Rob the rich. Tax the rich. Soak the
rich. We love the rich. Baloney. California allows a two-thirds vote
only for all taxes; sales tax, income tax, all taxes. I served in the
legislature for 12 years. Do not fabricate, you new constitutionalists.
We are not after one group, we are not after another group. All
taxpayers should be protected. The rich, the poor, others.
In the 1950's we taxed at a 23-percent level. We are now taxing at 40
percent. Do you think we are undertaxed? Ask the people. Ask the people
tonight on the 15th, do you need protection or is Washington out of
control? Yes, we are out of control. No, you have done nothing about
the deficit. The new majority will protect you if you will keep us, the
new majority.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint
Resolution 159, and I want to spend a little time examining closely
what exactly we are voting on and what we are not.
On the floor earlier today a blanket statement was made that if you
are opposed to this amendment, there is only one reasonable
explanation: it is because you are a big spender. I find it
interesting, then, that the National Taxpayer's Union vote tally scores
me based on my actual votes on appropriation and reconciliation bills
as a Member who is a spending cutter.
I also find it significant that the Concord Coalition, one of the
most thoughtful, respected, and credible watchdogs of deficit spending,
is opposed to this amendment. They wrote, ``Enactment of this
constitutional amendment would be detrimental to the budget process. In
considering how to balance the Federal budget and keep it balanced over
the long term, all options for reducing spending or raising revenues
must be on the table. No area of the budget, on either the spending or
the revenue side, should receive preferential treatment such as
requiring supermajorities.''
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes, ``The Coalition
budget represented the most serious of all deficit reduction plans
developed in the last year. It contained more deficit reduction over
the next 7 years than any other plan. Under the proposed constitutional
amendment, the coalition budget would be unconstitutional unless it
received a two-thirds vote.''
The coalition budget would have balanced the budget in 7 years, with
considerably less debt than the reconciliation bill passed by the
majority, primarily through spending cuts. In fact over 90 percent of
the deficit reduction came from $731 billion in spending cuts. However,
it contained a limited number of commonsense changes that would have
resulted in increased revenues, hence unconstitutional unless two-
thirds of the House supported it.
Does that really make common sense? I believe amending the
Constitution is serious business and deserves serious debate. I suspect
it is precisely because Committee on the Judiciary chairman Henry Hyde
has the same respect for and concern about amending the Constitution
that his committee was never given its proper and vitally important
chance to consider the resolution before us on the floor tonight.
The Constitution serves to protect fundamental rights of the minority
in circumstances where majority rule does not adequately protect those
rights. I believe that the balanced budget amendment is an appropriate
addition to the Constitution because it protects the rights of future
generations who are not represented in the current political system. By
contrast, individuals who are affected by tax increases are represented
in the political system and are protected by our system of majority
rule. Our children and grandchildren are not.
It is too easy to borrow money. Debt going from $1 trillion to $5
trillion in the last 13 years is evidence that the theory behind the
amendment proposed before us tonight has not worked and will not work.
Tax limitation promises have a superficial appeal which completely
ignores the realities of the deficit. It is time for us to start eating
our vegetables and resisting the dessert, regardless of whether it is
Republican tax cut dessert or Democratic extra spending dessert being
peddled.
This debate is not about the level of taxes that Charlie Stenholm,
Joe Barton, Pete Geren, or any other Member of the 104th Congress
thinks is appropriate under the current circumstances for the next year
or even the next 7 years. This debate tonight is about whether those of
us here tonight should place in the Constitution an inflexible rule
that will apply for all future generations.
I wonder if this amendment has been fully thought out. I think the
debate today proves it has not. There are so many serious unanswered
questions about this amendment.
For example, the resolution before us amends the Constitution to
require a two-thirds majority vote to increase internal revenue by more
than a de minimis amount. Nowhere either in the bill or in any part of
the Constitution are there any clues as to what policies would be
covered by the phrase ``internal revenue'' or what ``de minimis'' might
mean.
Later this week the House will vote on a bill to take the
transportation trust funds off-budget. However, the airport ticket tax
which is supposed to fund the aviation trust fund has expired. Under
this amendment, a two-thirds vote would be required to extend this tax.
On the one hand, a majority of this body may say that these trust funds
deserve special protection, while on the other hand we are voting
tonight to prevent Congress from funding the trust fund at all unless
two-thirds of this body shall concur.
This bill should be sent back to committee for the further and
thoughtful review that any constitutional amendment, before it ever
gets to the floor of the House, should have had. Vote ``no'' on this
amendment. It is a very politically popular amendment but it is a
poorly thought out resolution.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are having a debate about
whether we should amend the Constitution to make it more difficult to
raise taxes. If you look back over the last 15 years, over the last 30
years, take that amount of time, it has become clear that whenever
Congress got into a bind, they just raised taxes. The fact is many of
us believe that it ought to be more difficult to raise taxes and many
of us believe that if we are going to balance the budget, we ought to
do it by reducing spending and controlling spending and not by
increasing taxes. A number of States already have tax limitation
language in their Constitutions, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and
South Dakota. They all have requirements to balance their State
budgets. And so you can see that these States have a tax limitation
amendment in their Constitution. They also have a requirement to
balance their budgets, and they are doing just fine, and this Congress
can do the same thing. The fact is it has been too easy to raise taxes
in this Congress. What we are trying to do is to tell the American
people, ``We're on your side, we're going to make it tougher.''
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman from
Michigan that he has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is not a good day to have brought this
measure to the floor. I would have liked to have recommended that you
brought it on April 1 instead of April 15, and that is because this is
a grand and elaborate but clear scheme that attempts to fool the
American people. It is also, as it has been pointed out, a sham, to
protect the wealthy of this country from being taxed fairly. It is a
proposal that the House has once earlier defeated as a constitutional
amendment and which the majority, the new majority, has on 4 different
occasions violated the very principle that
[[Page H3297]]
they now attempt to enshrine as a constitutional amendment on April 15.
It is a demeaning insult to a Constitution that deals with
fundamental rights and liberties, and it is a scam that will fail, and
many of its proponents are fully aware of that.
At heart, the measure before us tonight is designed to ensure that
the very wealthiest of individuals and corporations never have to pay
their fair share of taxes. And how?
Well, consider the tax loopholes for the super-rich that this bill
would all but ensure would never be closed. First, it would take a two-
thirds majority to make billionaires who make their fortunes in this
country, to make them pay their fair share of taxes instead of moving
out of the Nation and renouncing their citizenship to avoid such
payment.
Second, it would take a two-thirds majority to end tax incentives for
companies that open plants overseas.
Third, it would take a two thirds majority to stop the financial
markets from permitting the wealthy to defer capital gains.
Finally, it would take a two-thirds majority vote to stop the wealthy
from hiding their income from the Internal Revenue Service by using
foreign trusts for safe havens.
And so this is a cruel and a patent hoax that I hope will be refused
at this late hour of the night on a measure written somewhere other
than in the Committee on the Judiciary and which is one that does not
deserve to be supported on this night of April 15.
{time} 2300
I urge a ``no'' vote on the measure now pending.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
(Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this constitutional
amendment.
(Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes, the balance of
my time, to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], the sponsor of this
amendment.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the much maligned author of this
amendment, I feel somewhat put upon. Some of the more polite things the
amendment has been called tonight are irresponsible, stupid and insane.
It has not been called unnecessary. There have been concerns expressed
about the procedure by which it has been brought to the floor. I think
some of those concerns are valid. But there has not been anything
substantively said against the policy we are attempting to adopt.
We have heard some concerns about the language. Yet the rule offered
the Democrats an alternative. If they support the policy but do not
agree with the specific language, they could have brought a substitute
amendment based on the same policy to the floor, and they chose not to
do so.
There has been much said about the history and the Founding Fathers
and how in 1787 there was no requirement for supermajority vote for a
tax increase in the Constitution. That is true. The original
Constitution prevented an income tax of any kind. The 16th Amendment in
1913 made income taxes constitutional. So, for over 125 years the tax
limitation provision that we had in the Constitution was that all tax
bills should originate in the House of Representatives, which was the
body closest to the people and the only Federal body always elected by
the people.
But beginning in 1913, with the 16th amendment, we began to have
income taxes in this Nation. The first income tax was 1 percent on
income up to $20,000. In 1913, one-tenth of 1 percent of the American
people had to file a Federal income tax, one-tenth of 1 percent.
Since 1913, the average marginal tax rate on the American taxpayer
has grown to 39.8 percent of 40 percent, which is a 4,000 percent
increase, 4,000 percent increase in the marginal tax rate on the
American taxpayer since 1913 and the passage of the first income tax.
Enough is enough. It is time this evening to pass the two-thirds tax
limitation constitutional amendment and send it to the other body for
ratification so it can go to the States. We do not have a revenue
problem in the U.S. Federal Government. Federal revenues in the time
that I have been in this body since 1985 have grown an average of $55
billion a year, $55 billion a year revenue growth.
But, unfortunately, spending has grown $59 billion a year, $59
billion a year. We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending
restraint problem.
Fortunately, we have a laboratory called the State governments. There
are States that have tax limitations in their constitutions or in their
laws, and in those States that have it, there are four things that are
true in every State: Their taxes are lower; their taxes go up slower;
their jobs increase faster; and economic growth in those States goes up
faster.
Interestingly, no State that has tax limitations repealed it. In
fact, States are adding to it. There are 18 States that are considering
adding some form of tax limitation to their constitutions right now,
the most current one being Nevada, where it is going to be voted on by
the voters this November.
Tax limitation for supermajority vote requirements does work. The
polls support that. Seventy-three percent of the American people
support it. Eighty percent of Republicans support it. Eighty percent of
independents support it. Interestingly enough, 64 percent of the
Democrats, self-identified support it, low-income support it, with 80
percent. Middle-income people, 77 percent margins. High income people,
64 percent margins.
Those are polls. Let us talk about real people in Innis, Texas, where
I live, real people like Jan and Troy Rogers, who own the hardware
store. They support it. Real people like Bill and Helen Templen, who
own the drugstore, they support it. Single-parent families, like Linda
Gillespie, who works for me and has a son and daughter-in-law, married,
both working, and a daughter working her way through college, they
support it. They support it because they know that the average American
family today spends more time working for the government to pay the
government the tax revenue than they do for their own family, any other
thing in their family budget.
We simply, Mr. Speaker and Members of this body, must pass the tax
limitation language this evening, send it to the other body for
ratification, send it to the States so that three-fourths of the States
may have an opportunity to ratify this.
On tax day, April 15, 1996, it is time to say enough is enough and
pass this. If we do not pass it, we are like the movie villain Freddie
in ``Friday the 13th.'' We will be back next year on April 15, 1997,
until we do pass it. It is not if we are going to pass it, it is when
we are going to pass it.
This is not something that takes a long learning curve. In my town
meetings when I talk about this, after the first 10 to 15 seconds the
people are for it. I have yet to have one person in my town meetings or
my public meetings in the last year who say they oppose it, making it
more difficult to raise their taxes.
So let us, please, Mr. Speaker, vote for the two-thirds supermajority
vote to require a tax increase on the American people.
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker as a cosponsor of House Joint
Resolution 159, I rise in strong support for the passage of this
resolution which proposes a constitutional amendment to require a two-
thirds supermajority for passage of legislation that raises taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the situation of the taxpayer
is one of desperation. For years, the American taxpayer has been like a
person stranded in the middle of the desert, crawling, straining,
praying for the first sight of that precious, random oasis which would
provide him with the water to quench his thirst and give him relief.
However, the aching taxpayer suffering in the desert sun has become
rightfully cynical. He knows that because of the deception of the heat,
he may not be able to believe his eyes. You see, Mr. Speaker, over the
past few years, the taxpayer has had to deal with a series of tax-
related mirages. For example, he
[[Page H3298]]
had to deal with a mirage in 1988 that said to him ``Read my lips, no
new taxes.'' But that mirage raised taxes on the American people in an
ill-advised budget deal in 1990. After that, the taxpayer had to handle
the mirage that comes to him in 1992 and promised him middle-class tax
relief but then, in early 1993, that mirage went ahead and gave him the
largest tax increase in American history. Later, the mirage of 1992
returned in late 1994 to promise that taxpayer a ``middle class bill of
rights. Predictably, nothing ever came of that.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, for these long years, the hot, blistering sun of
big Government has parched the America taxpayer. The taxpayer of 1996
is presently fiscally dehydrated and it will be up to the members of
the 104th Congress to come to the rescue--to provide the American
taxpayer with the refreshment of fiscal discipline and the parasol of
tax limitation.
I think House Joint Resolution 159 is a commonsense solution. This
resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution to require a two
thirds majority vote for the House or Senate to pass any legislation
which would result in an increase in personal, business, or other
Federal taxes--taxes which have a significant effect on our national
security.
Mr. Speaker, this type of legislation is nothing new. It is not some
prototype piece of legislation which has not even been tested at the
small town level. According to the April 15, 1996, edition of the Wall
Street Journal, one-third of all Americans live in the 12 States that
have tax limitation provisions in their constitutions. The Journal also
pointed out that during the years 1980-92, the States that had the
supermajority provisions in their constitutions raised their taxes by
102 percent while the States without such a law raised taxes by 121
percent.
Also, I am sure, much to the chagrin of some of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle who have supported huge tax increases in the
past, this type of proposal has the support of our employers, the
American people. According to the Wall Street Journal, a Polling Co.
poll found that 73 percent of the American populace support the idea of
a supermajority when dealing with raising taxes. The same poll cited in
the Journal also found the supermajority idea is supported by 64
percent of Democrats, 68 percent of Federal employees, and 71 percent
of union members. This is not a concept that is only supported by rich
and their fat-cat friends. Rather, this thoughtful proposal is
supported by a broad spectrum of America. With this knowledge, I know
that this proposal can be supported in my district--from the corporate
manager in Danbury to the housewife in Shelton, from the teacher in
Newtown to the boilermaker in Waterbury, and so on.
Let me be clear--I can respect the arguments of those colleagues of
mine who express reservation about passing the constitutional
amendment. The Constitution is the most sacred document of our land and
it should not be used for momentary whims and passing fancy. But it is
my belief, and the belief of a great supermajority of Americans--not
just a mere majority, that is amendment is needed to bring an end to
confiscatory Government that has gone on for way too long. We need to
let the American people take home more of the money they work for and
utilize it in the way they see fit.
Accordingly, I fully support this amendment and encourage my
colleagues to do likewise. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve as an original
cosponsor of the tax limitation amendment, which would make it
impossible to raise the taxes of America's working families without a
two-thirds vote of Congress.
It is inconceivable that it requires a two-thirds vote to override
President Clinton's veto of our plan to provide tax relief to American
families. But in 1993, it only took a single vote majority to enact the
largest tax increase in American history.
Prior to Republican control of the House and Senate, history had
shown Congress to be reckless and irresponsible with the taxpayers'
dollars. This legislation will protect American taxpayers from the tax-
and-spend liberals in Congress, who are all too eager to raise taxes
and expand the Federal Government.
The 104th Congress has made great strides in rolling back the tide of
Government expansion and escalating debt, yet, we need to take every
precaution against backsliding. Requiring a two-thirds vote of Congress
to raise taxes will ensure a continued commitment to fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, though I am weary at attempts to amend our
Constitution and the concepts authored by our forefathers, I am
concerned that our Nation continues to drown in wasteful Government
spending and increased taxes, laying a heavy financial burden upon the
backs of our children and grandchildren. Our Nation is great because of
the principles espoused by our Founding Fathers and authored in the
Constitution. This includes the belief that if you are able and willing
to work hard you can adequately provide for your family.
However, Congress continues to ignore this principle and instead
chooses to place economic roadblocks in front of working Americans. It
is time to reel in the Federal Government's long arm. The Federal
Government has been reaching into the pockets of Americans for far too
long.
Accordingly, I rise in support of this constitutional amendment to
provide a supermajority to raise taxes.
The debate should not be about supermajority rule versus majority
rule, but instead about how best to provide jobs, investment, and
economic growth for all working Americans.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this initiative and all
measures aimed at providing working families with the ability to
succeed in our Nation's economy.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution
159.
After a long, hard winter, it seems that spring has finally arrived.
Across the Nation, many cities enjoyed their first warm, sunny weekend
in months. In Washington, the cherry blossoms have bloomed, adding
beautiful spring colors to the wonderful weather.
Regrettably, millions of Americans didn't get to enjoy this beautiful
spring weekend. Instead, many of us were stuck inside doing our taxes.
A wasted spring weekend is a relatively minor annoyance, however,
when compared to Americans' overwhelming frustration with the tax
system in general. I'll bet that most Americans would endure the hassle
of filing taxes with a lot less complaint--if only they felt that the
taxes they paid were fair and that their money was spent wisely.
Unfortunately, neither of the above is true. The fact is, Americans
pay too much in taxes, and the taxes they pay are all too often wasted.
The statistics are amazing: The average American citizen works well
into May for our Government. Think about it: Every dollar that a person
earns, from January 1 until several weeks after April 15, will go to
pay Federal, State, and local taxes. And that does not include gas
taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes.
And where does all of this money go? A great deal of it goes to
support worthy Federal programs, such as Medicare, national parks,
student loans, transportation, and defense. But too much of it is
wasted--to support a bloated Federal bureaucracy, pork barrel projects,
fraudulently received welfare benefits, and inefficient or outdated
Federal programs.
Is it any wonder, then, that Americans are fed up with paying taxes?
Should we be surprised that the American people resent having to pay
high taxes, only to see their hard-earned money thrown down a rathole?
I don't think so.
With the new majority in Congress, these frustrations are finally
being addressed. In fact, one of the primary goals of the new
Republican Congress is to reform how this Nation taxes and spends. We
have passed a balanced budget bill that would reduce Federal spending
by hundreds of billions of dollars over 7 years. We have passed
legislation that would reform or consolidate hundreds of wasteful
Federal programs. And, we have passed a bill that would have given
middle-class individuals and families a substantial tax cut.
The constitutional amendment we are considering today is part of
these continuing efforts. The amendment is simple: It would require a
two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to pass a tax increase.
Instead of a simple majority vote, it would take 290 votes in the House
and 67 votes in the Senate to raise taxes on the American people.
In doing so, this amendment would make it much more difficult to
raise taxes--and would finally stack the odds in favor of the American
taxpayer. If this amendment is passed, we will never again be faced
with a repeat of the 1993 tax debate, in which the largest tax increase
in American history was rammed through both Houses by one vote on a
party-line basis. Congress would still have the option of raising
taxes--but only if a broad, bipartisan coalition agreed that a tax
increase was necessary.
In all probability, however, supporters of a tax increase will never
convince two-thirds of both houses that such a tax hike is necessary.
History bears this point out: During the past 30 years, Congress has
passed 16 major tax increases. If this amendment were in effect, 8 of
those tax increases would not have been passed. In the 1980's alone,
this amendment would have saved American taxpayers nearly $700 billion
in increased taxes.
In short, this amendment will force Congress to stop looking to the
American taxpayer every time we want to spend more than we take in.
Instead, the tax limitation amendment will force Congress to do what we
have historically been unwilling to do: Cut spending.
[[Page H3299]]
Finally, the most appealing aspect of this amendment is that it will
be permanent. By incorporating this bias against higher taxes into the
Constitution, we ensure that future Congresses are not tempted to reach
into the wallets of the American people. We also ensure that the
efforts of this Congress to cut spending and lower taxes are not in
vain.
In sum, I strongly support House Joint Resolution 159 because if
provides critically needed protection for American taxpayers. It will
stack the deck against tax increases and for spending cuts. And, while
it won't prevent taxpayers from having to spend another spring weekend
doing their taxes, it will at least ensure that they don't have to pay
more taxes than are truly necessary.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this member rises in opposition to House
Joint Resolution 159, the so-called tax limitation amendment. Certainly
it would be more politically expedient to simply go along and vote in
support of a Constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds approval by
Congress for any tax increases. However, this Member can not in good
conscience cast such a vote.
As this member stated when speaking in favor of a balanced budget
amendment to the U.S Constitution, there is a great burden of proof to
deviate from the basic principle of our democracy--the principle of
majority rule. Unfortunately, this Member does not believe the
proponents of this amendment have met this burden.
There should be no question of this Member's continued and
enthusiastic support for a balanced budget and a constitutional
amendment requiring such. Tax increases should not routinely be
employed to achieve a balanced budget. That is why this member
supported the inclusion of a supermajority requirement in the Rules of
the 104th House which were adopted at the beginning of this Congress.
However, to go beyond that and amend the Constitution is, in this
Members opinion, an unreasonable and dangerous action.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
Amending the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes
may make for good election year politics, but adding a policy-specific
supermajority requirement to our Constitution runs contrary to the
fabric of the text and is an unwise change that should be rejected.
I speak today, Mr. Speaker, as a very strong opponent of taxes. I
believe that our fiscal problems do not result from excessive spending
and I do not favor tax increases. During my service in Congress, I have
voted against the tax increases that were adopted in 1983, 1990, and
most recently, I opposed President Clinton's tax increase in 1993. My
record in opposition to increased spending is equally strong and
unwavering.
But I think it is instructive to reflect upon the teachings of the
Founding Fathers when considering a proposition of this magnitude. Our
forefathers founded this nation over 200 years ago in tax revolt. King
George III's imposition of huge and unfair levies without the consent
of the American colonists led to their rallying cry of ``no taxation
without representation.'' The British Crown's impositions, including
heavy taxation, were among the principal causes of the American
revolution.
Within a decade, in 1787, the leaders of that revolution were writing
a new constitution to govern the relationship among the new National
Government, the States, and the people. Heavy upon their minds was the
power of the central government to tax. Yet, having the opportunity to
require supermajorities for the imposition of any tax, they did not
write such a provision into the new Constitution.
Indeed, supermajority provisions are found only rarely in our
Constitution. In the instances where they are found, there is a
particular rationale reflecting the concern of the Framers with the
need to maintain checks and balances between the branches of the
government and between the two Houses of the Congress. In no case do we
find a policy-specific supermajority requirement such as the one that
is proposed today.
Supermajority requirements are found in the Constitution in the
context of expelling a member of the House or Senate or impeaching the
President. Such requirements make obvious sense in that they protect
Representatives or Senators espousing a minority viewpoint or a
President who is disfavored by a majority of the legislative branch
from being purged from office simply because of his or her views.
A supermajority requirement is also found with respect to the
ratification of treaties by the Senate. Again, there is a process-based
rationale for this requirement. Because the House plays no role in the
treaty ratification process, and because treaties are afforded the
status of supreme law, the Framers sought to avoid a situation whereby
a President in concert with a simple majority of the Senate could
utilize the treaty process to make law while circumventing the
popularly elected House. The supermajority requirements was imposed as
a check on this power.
There is also a supermajority requirement for the promulgation of an
amendment to the Constitution. And, again, this is a process based
requirement designed to protect the Constitution itself from constant
revision.
Perhaps most well known is the supermajority requirement for the
override of a Presidential veto. This requirement also relates to the
concerns of the Framers about the balance of powers. During debate on
the Constitution, it was proposed by some delegates that the President
have an absolute veto over legislation that he disliked, with no
provision for an override. Other delegates felt that the Chief
Executive should play no role in the enactment of legislation and
therefore should have no ability to veto legislation. The two-thirds
override provision that found its way into the final version of our
Constitution was essentially a compromise between these two views--the
President was given the authority to negate legislation adopted by the
Congress in order to protect against the potential for rash action by
the legislative branch, but if a supermajority of legislators--after
reflecting on the President's veto--nonetheless felt that the measure
was in the national interest, they could reverse the effect of that
veto.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the proponents of the resolution that we
debate today have overlooked an even more fundamental reason why
policy-specific legislative supermajority requirements were eschewed by
the Framers. The bicameral composition of the legislative branch
itself--with House members serving relatively short terms and
apportioned by population and Senate members serving relatively long
terms and apportioned by State--was designed to retard the adoption of
unpopular or unfair legislation and, in particular, tax legislation The
record of the debates of the Framers makes clear that a chief reason
why the House was intentionally structured to keep its Members close to
the wishes of their constituencies was to deter them from recklessly
taxing those people. Equally clear is that the Senate was intended as a
more insular and--it was assumed--contemplative body that would protect
the small States from tax and other legislation that might be adopted
by the House that might disproportionately impact such small States. In
short, the bicameral legislature that we have today was fashioned--
after considerable debate--to act as a check on both excess and unfair
taxation. A supermajority provision respecting taxes was not considered
necessary because it was considered redundant of the essential
structure of the legislative branch.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, we changed the House rules to require
a supermajority to raise taxes. I supported that change in the rules
because I feel very strongly that, at this time, we should bind
ourselves to resolve the present deficit crisis with a focus on the
elimination of wasteful and unnecessary Federal spending and the
elimination of programs that have outlived their usefulness or are more
appropriately the function of the States or local governments. But the
resolution before us today proposes to change the text of our
Constitution and, in so doing, to bind future generations with respect
to the resolution of a problem that we cannot anticipate. To do so is,
in my judgment imprudent. And it is also unnecessary.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Founders had it right the first
time--each of us must stand for election every 2 years and each of us
must answer for our votes in this body. Those who vote for increased
taxation must answer to their constituencies for such action and, it
seems clear to me, that the voters continue to express a visceral
dislike of taxes and a strong willingness to turn out of office those
who lose touch with this sentiment. Senators also cannot escape the
consequences of voting to raise taxes. Indeed, the move to a popularly
elected Senate has, if anything, strengthened the responsiveness of the
legislative branch to the anti-tax ethos that is found at the core of
our Nation's founding and reflected in its central organizational
document.
Mr. Speaker, those who propose to amend our Constitution bear a heavy
burden to convince the Members of this body and the American people of
the propriety of their action. This resolution does not meet that
burden.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this proposed
amendment to the Constitution. I believe that such an amendment would
be unwise.
I am primarily concerned that this amendment will spell the end of
majority rule in this country. We will find it much harder to address
the many financial problems that we know this country will face in
coming years. Under this amendment, one-third of the Senate could block
legislation. Conceivably, one-third of the Senate could represent
States containing only 10 percent of the country's population. In
short, 10 percent of the country's voters could thwart the will of the
other 90 percent! That's not democracy.
What would be the effect of such a change in the Constitution? Well,
let us just look at some of the close votes of the past. If this
[[Page H3300]]
amendment had been part of the Constitution in years past, for example,
we wouldn't have had the votes needed to pass the legislation that
create Social Security or Medicare. If we adopt this amendment, we
would find it much harder to close corporate tax loopholes--we can't
even muster a majority of votes to eliminate them. I am also concerned
that the proposed amendment, if ratified, would produce a Federal Tax
Code that is more regressive than the one under which we live today. We
could, for example, pass a flat tax or a VAT tax under this amendment,
but we could not pass legislation that would reform the current income
tax to make it more progressive and reduce the tax burden on working
families.
Even the Republicans don't really want to live by such rules. We have
had a House rule for the last year that requires a three-fifths vote to
increase income tax rates. The Republican-controlled House has already
waived that rule four times. What are they saying by offering this
constitutional amendment--stop us before we tax again? Or are they just
offering this amendment as a political gesture that they know will
never be ratified as part of the Constitution?
Moreover, this amendment would shift a great deal of control over
Federal taxes from Congress to the courts. Under this amendment, anyone
would have standing to bring a suit in court. Do we doubt that the
courts would be inundated with cases challenging congressional tax
legislation? I doubt that this is what the Founding Fathers had in
mind.
If this amendment is ratified, it will be much more difficult to
balance the budget in future years. In order to reduce the deficit
under this amendment, Congress would have to make devastating changes
in the programs that serve the needs of the American people--programs
like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I do not think the
American people want such an outcome.
We all know that in coming years, Congress will have to both cut
spending and raise taxes in order to keep the deficit from exploding.
Entitlements will have to contribute their share. But this amendment
would result in paralysis and massive deficits that would cripple the
country, impose unnecessary suffering on senior citizens and the poor,
and choke off economic growth.
I find it especially disturbing that the House is considering this
amendment without adequate hearings and consideration at the committee
level first. Amending the Constitution is a major decision. Such a step
deserves careful consideration. And yet we have had--what?--one hearing
at the subcommittee level on this proposal. It hasn't even been
considered by the full Judiciary Committee.
I urge my colleagues to reject this hasty and ill-advised amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 159. This
constitutional change is unnecessary and misguided, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose it.
This initiative strikes at the very heart of our constitutional
democracy, eroding the principle of majority rule. The Constitution
requires a supermajority only in extraordinary circumstances, such as a
veto override or impeachment of a president. This resolution would give
a small minority of this House the power to block critical bills--even
responsible legislation designed to balance the federal budget--if you
contain a tax increase. If Congress can declare war by a simple
majority vote, surely we can pass a tax bill by the same margin.
I also foresee difficulties defining a tax increase. Earlier this
year, the Republican House majority passed a bill reducing the earned
income tax credit, a tax credit for our nation's working poor. That
measure effectively increased low-income Americans' taxes by reducing
their credit. However, the GOP did not consider that bill a tax
increase. It is likely we will see similar controversies. If Congress
eliminates an unjustified tax deduction, thereby resulting in a tax
bracket change for an individual or a corporation, does that constitute
a tax increase? Would it require a supermajority to right this
hypothetical wrong? The answer is uncertain as this legislation is
currently written.
The resolution's provision waiving the two-thirds requirement for
``de minimis'' tax increases is also troublesome. By failing to define
a ``de minimis'' increase, the resolution abdicates responsibility for
developing this guideline and turns it over to the federal courts. The
courts will undoubtedly spend many years and thousands of taxpayer
dollars delineating precisely what is meant by this term.
There are other technical difficulties with the measure. It does not
define the time period over which a tax increase must be estimated in
order to trigger the two-thirds requirement. Similarly, this amendment
does not address situations where bills projected to decrease tax
revenues actually increase taxes. Closing loopholes in the tax code
could also be almost impossible if these efforts were subject to a two-
thirds vote on the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would also note that the Republican-controlled House
has not even been able to live under its own rule that income tax
increases must be passed by a three-fifths vote. This rule has been
waived three times in this Congress, allowing income tax bills to pass
by a simple majority. If the GOP violates the spirit of its own rules,
what will prohibit it from circumventing a Constitutional amendment in
a similar way?
House Joint Resolution 159 is the fourth attempt by this Republican
Congress to amend the Constitution--the most ever since the post-civil
war period. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the tax
limitation amendment offered by the gentlemen from Texas. I commend
them for their hard work on this effort, but in the end, I believe this
proposal is bad public policy.
Let me make it clear that I am opposed to a tax increase on the
American people. I think the overall tax burden of the average American
family is too large, and tax relief or tax reduction is appropriate. I
believe this amendment is well intentioned, but as we all know, the
``road to Hell is paved with good intentions.''
Regrettably, this vote and the way it came about is an example of
ideology prevailing over common sense. I do not believe that higher
taxes are a panacea to our budget problems. I would support a lower tax
burden. As Ohio Senate President, I was responsible for pushing through
the largest income tax cut bill in Ohio history. This was accomplished
even though we had to contend with a Democrat-controlled House and
Democrat Governor who opposed that tax relief bill. Americans, of all
backgrounds, deserve to have more money in their pockets to spend the
best way they know. Government should not be in the business of making
decisions that working families can make for themselves. The average
family now pays more in taxes than for food, clothing, and shelter.
Let me briefly set out four reasons this proposal should not be
approved tonight. First, changes to our fundamental charter, the U.S.
Constitution, should not be undertaken lightly. The justification for
this proposed change has simply not been adequately made. When the
Constitution was first written, Congress was given the authority to
raise revenues by a simple majority vote. This amendment places new
hurdles on our jurisdiction, putting philosophy over reality.
Second, I want to remind the members that at the beginning of the
104th Congress, the House rules stipulated that new revenue provisions
needed to be approved by three-fifths majority. This rule, though, has
been waived repeatedly. Very simply, it did not work as intended, so it
was waived. However, the Constitution cannot be waived.
Third, the practical effect of this type of provision if it had been
in effect in the past would have prevented some of the most significant
progress we have achieved as a nation. Specifically, I am referring to
the National Highway System, our magnificent interstates that we all
voted to renew earlier this Congress. These roads have given us the
greatest transportation system in the world, and added hundreds of
billions of dollars to our economy. If this Tax Limitation Amendment
had been part of our Constitution when the Highway Act was originally
voted on by the Congress, this system would not exist today. Congress
first passed a gas tax to pay for this highway system, one of the
greatest public works projects in our history, with more than two-
thirds of House members voting for it. Yet, reauthorizing the tax would
have never happened because in 1959 it would have failed by a vote of
243 to 163, less than two-thirds.
Fourth, the procedures used here simply fail to meet the minimum
standards we should adhere to in voting on a constitutional amendment.
There have been no meaningful hearings on this proposal. In fact, the
current version was just recently drafted, behind closed doors, with no
opportunity for the public, or even most Members, to examine it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for sound, reasonable,
and practical public policy and oppose this amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this Congress--now under new management, as
my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
repeatedly emphasized--has been long on rhetoric and extremely short on
accomplishments. In the first session, we had the largest number of
recorded votes in recent memory--and the fewest number of bills passed
in recent memory. I hasten to add, Mr.
[[Page H3301]]
Speaker, that the limited accomplishments of this Congress' new
management had little to do with Presidential vetoes. It has a great
deal to do with poor quality legislation and extremist legislation that
has not found support even among the Republican majority in the other
body. It has a great deal to do with partisan posturing while ignoring
the importance of bipartisan cooperation and good government.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we are once again engaged in another exercise of
symbolism rather than substance as we consider House Joint Resolution
159/169, to require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress in
order to increase tax revenues. No one likes to pay taxes, and no one
likes to pick up the tab after lunch. But just as there is no free
lunch, taxes are the price we pay in order to participate in the
benefits of civilized society.
Today is April 15--tax day, the deadline by which all of us must file
our Federal income taxes. In order to take advantage of media interest
in taxes, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are bringing to
the floor a bill which does little to deal with the burden of taxation,
a bill which does little to deal with the issue of fairness in
taxation. Once again we are seeing this House posture rather than
perform. We are taking time today to consider an ill-conceived and ill-
drafted resolution that will go nowhere, a resolution that this House
should not even take the time to consider, a resolution that is so
flawed that it should not be adopted.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the majority on the other side of the aisle
has already had a super majority requirement, which was adopted last
year as a rule of the House. The House Rules require a three-fifth vote
for any tax increase. But have they followed their own super-majority
rule in the House? Since the adoption of the House Rule 16 months ago,
the House majority has waived the rule three times for specific
legislation. The hypocrisy is appalling, Mr. Speaker.
House Joint Resolution 159/169, which we are considering, has a
number of serious flaws. First, it is a violation of the fundamental
principle of majority rule that is a the heart of our democracy.
Adopting this amendment would make democratic decision making more
difficult. Requiring super majorities, in all but the most weighty and
most fundamental issues, simply makes it even more difficult to govern.
The paralysis we have seen in this House and between the House and the
Senate over the past year would be considerably compounded by adding
this new requirement.
Second, this amendment would erect serious new barriers to deficit
reduction. If we are to deal with our Nation's deficit we must have
both spending cuts and revenue increases in the years ahead. The
requirement of a two-thirds vote for any legislation that raises
revenues would make it difficult, if not impossible, to adopt
legislation that balances program cuts and increased payments for
government services. Under this amendment, even an increase in the fee
charged visitors to our national parks would apparently require a two-
thirds vote of the House and the Senate. A cut in the capital gains tax
rate, according to official projections would result in an increase in
tax revenues for the first few years, this it appears that a reduction
in the capital gains tax rate would therefore require a two-thirds
vote. The awkwardness of this requirement is obvious.
Third, as with so much of the legislation that we have considered in
this house over the past sixteen months, this provision will be of much
greater benefit to the wealthiest and most powerful Americans at the
expense of the rest of our people. As the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, which has expressed its strong opposition to this
resolution, stated: ``A two-thirds majority would be required to curb
special interest tax benefits, which disproportionately benefit those
at high income levels. By contrast, a simple majority vote would be
required to cut federal programs, which primarily benefit the middle
class and the poor.''
The Concord Coalition--the respected bipartisan organization
established four years ago by former Senators Paul Tsongas of
Massachusetts and Warren Rudman of New Hampshire ``to eliminate federal
budget deficits and build a sound economy for future generations''--has
expressed its opposition to this constitutional amendment. The Concord
Coalition, which has taken fiscal responsibility very seriously,
opposes this resolution and has announced that it will include this
vote as a key vote for its 1996 congressional scorecard.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of serious and thoughtful analyses
that have been made in connection with the legislation that we are
considering today. The Washington Post published an excellent editorial
on April 12 entitled ``Showboating on Tax Day'' which raises very
serious and thoughtful objections to the bill we are considering House
Joint Resolution 159/169. As the Post argues: ``Issues like this ought
not be raised to the constitutional level. If evaded, the amendment
would breed contempt for the Constitution. If adhered to, it would
weaken the government whose resolve it purports to strengthen.'' Mr.
Chairman, I ask that the text of this Washington Post editorial be
included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
Mr. Speaker, this House has been too long on symbolism and too short
on legislation that is meaningful to the American people. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this symbolic resolution before us today. Let us
move on to the serious and important business of the people.
Showboating on Tax Day
The House is scheduled to vote next week on a
constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds votes of both
houses to pass tax increases. It's a bad idea whose effect
would likely be not so much to limit tax increases as to
raise their political price by giving minorities the power to
hold the majority hostage. The Republicans are staging the
vote to demonstrate on tax day their devotion to lower taxes
and smaller government. They should find a better way to do
that than to turn the Constitution into a political toy.
The amendment is being advanced in the name of fiscal
responsibility, but the effect would be to make a responsible
fiscal policy harder to achieve. The budget is structurally
out of balance now. It can only become more so as the baby
boomers begin to retire; the day is not that far off. Aid to
the elderly, mainly in the form of Social Security and
Medicare, already makes up close to half the budget for other
than interest and defense.
Left to itself, the share will increase; to protect the
rest of government and keep the deficit from rising, there
will be pressure to cut the net cost of these programs. If
all the cost cutting takes the form of benefit reductions,
the standard of living of the elderly, so painfully raised in
recent years, will be adversely affected. For the sake of
social equity as well as fiscal responsibility, there will
need to be tax increases as well as benefit cuts. In the face
of a problem as fundamental as this, why, except for
misplaced ideology, make the decent solution harder to
achieve?
The amendment tries to use a change in procedure to achieve
a particular policy result. All kinds of questions of
interpretation instantly arise. The Republicans want to cut
the capital gains tax. As part of the argument in favor, they
say that at least at first it will add to revenues rather
than reduce them, because it will generate more sales of
assets. If you have cut that supposedly adds to revenues,
does that mean you need a two-thirds vote in both houses, or
will simple majorities suffice? Over what time periods do you
measure? Who does the measuring, and what if they turn out to
be wrong?
Issues like this ought not be raised to the constitutional
level. If evaded, the amendment would breed contempt for the
Constitution. If adhered to, it would weaken the government
whose resolve it purports to strengthen. If it's hard to
assemble majorities for responsible budgets, how much harder
to assemble two-thirds. This is a showy proposal meant to
make its supporters look good on tax day. What it does
instead is make them look like another bunch of pols in
search of another gimmick. The House should vote this
amendment down.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this is the day that comes each
year when the American people are reminded of the cost of their
government. And this government ain't cheap.
The Federal budget has grown to more than one-and-a-half trillion
dollars and that is a cost paid directly by working Americans. It has
become too easy to sit here in our Nation's Capital and spend other
people's money.
Other people's money--money that they earned through work and
effort--should be spent with care and only for what we absolutely must
have.
But, unfortunately, Jefferson, was right when he said that no one
spends someone else's money as carefully as he spends his own.
If the amendment before us today is approved, it will make it more
difficult for the government to spend other people's money in such a
callous way. In a word, it will make us more accountable.
Those who like to call the ones who earn the money greedy because
they want to keep more of it for their families should think again.
In my books, the greedy ones are those who sit here in Washington
demanding that the workers hand over more and more of what they earn.
Mr. Speaker, our fiscal problem has not been a lack of revenues but
too much spending of other people's money. The time has come for us to
make it more difficult to take and spend money earned by the American
worker.
Higher taxes and more spending are not signs of virtue. In fact, they
are signs of a government grown too fat. To paraphrase President
Reagan, you cannot measure compassion by the size of the Federal
budget.
I think that it is time for some compassion for the folks who have
been paying the bills around here.
The American taxpayer deserves a system that makes it at least as
easy to cut spending as it is to raise taxes and this amendment will do
that. It levels the field so that the easy answer is no longer to stick
it to the taxpayer one more time.
If taxes grow more slowly and spending must be cut so that the
government lives with
[[Page H3302]]
its means, that is a virtue. It may help to curb the vice of spending
more and more of other people's money.
I urge my colleagues to support the American Taxpayer and support the
\2/3\ majority rue for tax increases.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in
supporting this supermajority tax increase amendment. A year ago, my
freshmen colleagues and I led a fight in the first round of an effort
to bring taxation under control. Since coming to Congress a little over
a year ago, I have seen first hand how difficult it is to cut Federal
spending. One of the best disincentives we can use is to make raising
taxes that much more difficult. The American people are no longer
willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Congress. Our tax and spend
addiction has taken over efforts for credible discussions about deficit
reduction. As a grandmother of six young children, I only have to think
of their future tax rates to realize what will happen if we do not get
Federal spending under control. We have no moral right to depend on tax
increases in the future to fund the Federal spending today.
Requiring a two-thirds supermajority for a tax increase is part of
sound economic growth. States with supermajority requirements saw their
economies grow 43 percent between 1980 and 1992. States without such
requirements lagged behind at 35 percent. Taxes also grow more slowly
in States with a supermajority requirement. In the State of Washington,
we have such a supermajority and it has done much to increase the level
of accountability between the taxpayers and their elected officials. It
allows hard working Americans to invest their dollars in the economy
whether it be through a home purchase, a college education, or simply
providing a better life for their families.
I ask my colleagues today to join with me in supporting this two-
thirds supermajority tax legislation. We can do no less for our
children and grandchildren.
Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of House Joint Resolution 159 and urge my colleagues to approve this
common sense and responsible measure.
The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that it is simply too easy to raise taxes.
Currently, it is easier to increase taxes than it is to cut them. In
1993, President Clinton and the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted
the largest tax increase in the history of our great Nation by a 50-
percent-plus-one vote. And that is exactly how it happened. They passed
the largest increase in the history of the United States by a one-vote
margin.
Democrats placed this burden squarely on the backs of the American
people. Those tax increases took real money out of the pockets of real
American families.
In 1995, Republicans worked to reverse the largest tax increase in
the history of our Nation. Last fall, we passed and sent to the
President a measure that would have included tax reductions to offset
the economic burden placed on every American by the 1993 tax increases.
Unfortunately, the President vetoed that relief and in order to
override the veto and pass tax cuts the Congress needed to achieve a
two-thirds majority. It is simply too easy in this country to take more
money out of the pockets of the citizens. Simple majority for a tax
increase--and two-thirds majority for tax cut. This must stop. This
Republican Congress will no longer allow elected officials to take the
easy way out.
During the past 30 years there have been 16 major votes to increase
taxes. Of those 16, only 8 would have passed if the two-thirds majority
requirement had been in place. Since 1980, the taxpayers would have
saved $666 billion had the tax limitation amendment been in effect.
Around the country States have also been forced to reform their
spending, and budgeting priorities because of deficit-spending. The
most successful method used by States has been some type of tax
limitation. One-third of all Americans live in a State with tax
limitation in their constitutions. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government
has learned a number of lessons from the States, and this is no
exception. States that have enacted a tax limitation have experienced
expanded economies, reduced spending and a better way of life for its
citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle will at the very least listen to their constituents. The American
people support tax limitation. Seventy percent of the American public
support amending the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote to raise
taxes.
The power of the Federal Government to tax is an enormous
responsibility. If used unwisely this power will lead to a lower
standard of living for all Americans. With enactment of this amendment,
no longer will tax increases become the preferred method of dealing
with our Nation's finances. Ultimately, this measure will foster good
government by forcing us to reevaluate commitments and prioritize
spending. I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 159.
Mr. McDERMOTT, Mr. Speaker, in the words of Seattle Time's columnist
Terry Tang, today's debate is best summed up as ``A Republican Floor
Show Only a Cynic Could Love.''
The proposed constitutional amendment is so gravely flawed it should
not be debated on the floor of the House of Representatives. Instead of
working to finish passages of this year's budget, or work on serious
legislation, the Republican leadership has decided to waste valuable
legislative time debating a bill they know will never pass.
Today's vote is nothing more than a cynical publicity stunt to pander
for political votes. Today's vote to amend the Constitution to require
a two-thirds vote to raise taxes is a perfect example of Republican
legislation which has nothing to do with governing and everything to do
with bumper-sticker politics.
While these sound-bite tactics play well in campaign ads, they fail
the test of serious legislation. When will the Republican Party learn
that there is more to legislating than trying to add a campaign slogan
to the Constitution?
When the Republicans took control of the House in January 1995, one
of the first things they did was pass a House rule requiring a three-
fifth's vote to pass any legislation that included an increase in
income tax rates. The Republicans touted the passage of this rule as a
sign of their commitment to not raise taxes on Americans and balance
the budget through spending cuts alone.
Have the Republicans lived up to their lofty promise not to raise
taxes on Americans? The answer is an emphatic ``No.'' On four separate
occasions, the Republican leadership brought bills to the House floor
for a vote which included increases in income tax rates on working
Americans.
How do we know for sure that at least four Republican bills included
tax increases?
Simply because they already have voted to waive their new rule four
times in order to ensure passage of their legislation by a simply
majority vote, and not the three-fifth's majority vote that their own
House rule required.
Let me make this clear--the Republicans have ignored their own rule,
they have voted on and passed four separate pieces of legislation which
increased income tax rates on the American people, in direct
contradiction to their widely publicized promise not to raise taxes.
The Republicans have clearly not been able to live according to the
terms of the House rule they adopted for themselves at the start of
this Congress.
The Republicans now want all of their minions to march down to the
House floor today and ram an amendment through the House without ever
taking the time to study what such an amendment might actually mean to
the American people.
If the American people, and my colleagues across the aisle were to
take the time to actually think about this bill, people would clearly
see that such an amendment would have significant consequences on our
country's future.
Passage of this amendment to the Constitution is nothing more than
giving Speaker Gingrich another tool to undermine the working men and
women of America.
This amendment is structured to protect corporate welfare in the Tax
Code, reduce spending on education and the environment, weaken Medicare
and Medicaid and threaten the future of Social Security.
The latest budget proposals put forth by the President and the
Republican leadership include provisions which would close corporate
tax loopholes in the Tax Code to help reduce the deficit. Yet, the
Republican leadership, with this amendment, is signaling to corporate
American that they are in the clear from here on out because this
amendment would make it almost impossible to close any tax loopholes
for deficit reduction.
Why? Because the requirement for a two-thirds majority would not only
apply to measures to raise taxes, but also to measures to cut
unproductive tax expenditures that grant subsidies to select
industries.
The amendment was drafted this way, despite the fact that a recent
CBO study found that over half the corporate subsidies the Federal
Government provides are through the Tax Code. Closing tax loopholes is
often hard enough by a majority vote requirement--to constitutionally
require a two-thirds vote of Congress to do so would be impossible.
The Republican party evidently would rather balance the budget on the
backs of working men and women than require corporate America to
contribute its fair share to deficit reduction.
It shouldn't be surprising to anyone to learn that this amendment is
biased against average families and the poor.
Most Government programs that benefit working Americans, like Social
Security, school loans, unemployment insurance and food stamps, to name
a few, come from the spending side of the budget.
[[Page H3303]]
In contrast, wealthy individuals and corporations tend to receive
benefits through the Tax Code. Because this amendment makes raising
revenue for deficit reduction through the Tax Code very difficult, the
wealthy and powerful are more easily able to preserve their Federal
Government benefits.
Most distressing is that this amendment makes clear that the
Republicans have no commitment to preserving Medicare or Social
Security for future generations.
This amendment would prevent Congress from asking beneficiaries of
these programs who have high incomes to pay for more of the Government
benefits they receive.
The Medicare bill which the Republicans passed, would have increased
the Medicare part B premiums for beneficiaries. Under today's
amendment, it would not be allowed without a two-thirds vote.
Whether raising premiums is necessary or not, Congress needs the
flexibility to be able to take actions such as increasing premiums or
means testing Social Security benefits if a majority of Representatives
think it is necessary for the continued financial integrity of these
programs.
Amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. It is
disconcerting to know that bills we will be voting on later this
evening on the suspension calendar will have undergone substantially
more scrutiny than this proposed amendment.
Today's amendment has never had a hearing before either the
Constitution Subcommittee or the full Judiciary Committee. This
legislation has not been marked up nor has a report on this bill been
filed.
Trying to amend the Constitution of the United States with a
Republican Party campaign slogan is irrefutable evidence of how little
respect the Republicans have for our Constitution.
For any Member to vote for legislation which has undergone so little
scrutiny, let alone a constitutional amendment which will affect the
lives of every American would be a serious mistake.
For this House to vote on such a flawed amendment is a disgrace to
the institution and an insult to the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
Is there a Member intending to offer the amendment made in order
under the rule? If not, pursuant to House Resolution 395, the previous
question is ordered.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
motion to recommit offered by mr. stenholm
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint
resolution?
Mr. STENHOLM. I certainly am, in its current form.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Stenholm moves to recommit House Joint Resolution 159
to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions that the
Committee conduct hearings and a necessary study on the joint
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the debate tonight has been a good debate.
Members on both sides have made very good and relevant points. However,
I believe it has now been clearly demonstrated that much more work
remains before this amendment should be sent to the other body. If I
have learned anything over the many years that we spent in bipartisan
work on the passage of the balanced budget constitutional amendment, it
is a tremendous respect for every significant single word that goes
into the Constitution of the United States.
The constitutional amendment bipartisanly worked on over the years
underwent a great deal of scrutiny both in the public arena and in
committee hearings. The amendment evolved and improved because of that
scrutiny. We have seen an alarming abuse of the committee review
process during this entire Congress, but never so blatantly as with
this constitutional amendment.
For people who revere the history of this Nation, the aborted
democratic procedures of the past year and a half make a mockery of the
title deliberative body. To bring a constitutional amendment to the
floor of the House without having it undergo the scrutiny of the
Committee on the Judiciary I think in itself is ample reason that this
House tonight should refer this amendment back to the committee so that
it may be what it should have done before tonight, and that is conduct
hearings on this amendment, on these words, on this what has been
spoken tonight, and a necessary study of the joint resolution, and then
bring it forward again for consideration of this House if the majority
so wills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Florida wish to be
recognized in opposition to the motion to recommit?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I do wish to be recognized in opposition to
the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out it is
erroneous to claim the House Committee on the Judiciary has not
considered this issue. The Committee on the Judiciary has considered
the issue. Hearings have been held on this issue.
Let me review some of the history that has occurred during this
Congress. In the first session of this Congress the Committee on the
Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held hearings on House Joint
Resolution 1, the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. Those
hearings were conducted on January 9 and January 10. House Joint
Resolution 1, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on January
11, 1995, included a three-fifths majority voting requirement to
increase tax revenues. During floor consideration of House Joint
Resolution 1, on January 25 and 26, 1995, the full House voted on the
Barton balanced budget proposal, which would have required a three-
fifths majority of the entire House and Senate to increase tax revenue
and would have allowed a simple majority to waive the requirement in
time of war or in the face of serious military threat. Although the
Barton proposal received 253 votes, an amendment without the
supermajority tax limitation provision was ultimately adopted by the
House by a vote of 300 to 132.
I would like to continue with my explanation. On March 6 of this
year, the Subcommittee on the Constitution again held hearings on a
supermajority tax limitation provision. It is true that the hearing was
held on a proposal that did not have language identical to this
language. But that hearing considered a broad range of issues related
to a supermajority requirement in connection with taxes.
Now, the issue before the House tonight is this: Are the American
people undertaxed or not? The opponents of this bill believe that the
American people are undertaxed and the debate began with an assertion
comparing our tax rate in this country and the tax burden in this
country to the tax burden in other countries around the world. The
clear implication was that the opponents of this bill believe that the
American people are undertaxed. I do not think that the American people
agree with that, and as Americans all over the country are racing to
the post office to deposit their tax returns in the U.S. Mail, I think
most of them are saying that they are not undertaxed. Indeed, I believe
that they are overtaxed. All the polls show that. That is consistent.
It crosses party lines.
So, the issue here that is before the House tonight is whether we are
going to take steps to restrain the taxing authority of this
Government. I understand that a principled case can be made against
that. But that is the issue before us.
Now, if you believe that the American people are undertaxed, I would
suggest that you vote against the motion to recommit and that you vote
against this proposed amendment. But if you believe that the tax burden
on the American people should be restrained, then I would suggest that
you vote against the motion to recommit and in favor of this proposed
amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
[[Page H3304]]
The question is on the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 177, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 117]
YEAS--243
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greene
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--177
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Campbell
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Thomas
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Becerra
Chapman
Fields (LA)
Flake
Ford
McDade
Rose
Schroeder
Thornton
Towns
Wilson
Yates
{time} 2331
So, two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the joint
resolution was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________