[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.

                          ____________________