[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 51 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E580]
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

                                 ______


                               speech of

                         HON. GERALD D. KLECZKA

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, April 15, 1996

  Mr. KLECZKA. 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 if over to the Federal courts. The 
courts will undoubtedly spend many years and thousands of taxpayers 
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.

                          ____________________