[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 42 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S2965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        TAX LIMITATION AMENDMENT

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join 19 of my 
colleagues as a cosponsor of the tax limitation amendment, a proposed 
amendment to the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote of the House 
and Senate to raise taxes.
  I stand here as an elected representative of the State of Oregon. A 
State that last year added a three-fifths vote of its legislatures as 
an amendment to its State constitution in order to raise taxes.
  This requirement stipulates that when Government seeks to raise 
taxes, to increase what it takes out of its citizens pocketbooks, there 
ought to be more than a narrow agreement--and, indeed there ought to be 
a broad consensus.
  Oregonians believe that before there is to be an increase in taxes, 
there has to be a firm belief by a supermajority of its elected 
representatives that this is necessary. That is why we amended the 
State constitution to require just such a supermajority in 
1996. Further, a two-thirds vote requirement fits with the spirit of 
the Federal Constitution. Supermajority voting requirements are found 
throughout the Constitution. Some people say to me, ``Well, you don't 
need a supermajority voting requirement. We rule by majority in this 
country.'' But the truth is our Founding Fathers knew there were times 
when it had to be otherwise. That is why in articles I, II, V, VII, 
VIII, IX, and XXV there are supermajority voting requirements. These 
are applied to things like motions to consent to a treaty, to override 
a Presidential veto, or to vote in the case of a Presidential 
disability.

  Further, the 16th amendment, which provided for the Federal income 
tax, had to be approved by a vote of two-thirds of Congress and three-
fourths of the States. It is logical that an amendment to extend this 
tax burden would require a supermajority vote.
  Our Founding Fathers saw reason to check the simple majorities used 
in deciding issues in a democracy. In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, 
Madison, and Jay all cautioned that simple majorities can lead to mob 
rule.
  Indeed, our Founding Fathers were particularly sensitive to 
protecting our citizens from unjust taxation. Indeed, our break from 
Great Britain stems from a fight over unjust taxation.
  Ours is a nation born out of a tax rebellion. And the spirit of that 
rebellion still beats in the heart of Americans.
  Now some may say we don't need this amendment because the people can 
simply vote against lawmakers who keep increasing taxes.
  In the Federalist Papers--Federalist 51--however, James Madison said: 
``A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary control on the 
government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of 
auxiliary precautions.'' And that's what this proposed amendment is: an 
auxiliary precaution against overtaxation.
  I believe it is imperative, now that the balanced budget amendment 
has been defeated, that any action to increase taxes require a 
supermajority of both Houses. In my opinion, without this two-thirds 
rule, politicians too easily fall back on tax increases in order to 
balance the budget.
  Really, there are just three options for balancing the budget: You 
can cut discretionary spending, cut entitlement spending, or you can 
raise taxes.
  As for No. 1--there simply isn't enough discretionary funding to cut, 
in order to balance the budget.
  As for No. 2--entitlement costs are spiraling out of control and each 
year the Clinton administration shows that it is unwilling even to 
educate the American people as to the hard choices that lie ahead.
  This leaves No. 3--raising taxes--as the last option. And that option 
is the one I would like to see made more difficult to undertake. Yet at 
the moment it only takes a simple majority--50 plus 1 in the Senate--to 
raise taxes.
  Indeed, the 1993 Clinton tax bill, the single largest tax increase in 
the Nation's history, passed by this slim margin of 50 Senators, plus 
the Vice President acting as President of the Senate.
  As I have said, many States have already passed similar legislation 
to make it harder to take more in taxes out of the citizen's 
pocketbook. This legislation works on the State level. It is needed at 
the Federal level. And this fact is unmistakable.
  In most of those States where a supermajority is required to raise 
taxes, taxes as a proportion of personal income have declined. In those 
States without the supermajority, taxes as a proportion of personal 
income have risen.
  I think most Americans believe they are already paying too much in 
Federal income taxes. What some call tax day--April 15--is next week.
  Let me take a moment and put things in perspective for you--how taxes 
have risen over the last few decades.
  What we call tax freedom day--the day that the money you earn starts 
going into your own pocket and not the Government's, has changed. In 
1950 it was April 3.
  This year it will be sometime in mid-May.
  In fact, today the average family pays more in taxes each year than 
it does in food, shelter, clothing and medical care combined.
  Add up the taxes--local, State, and Federal--for most it takes half 
of what people make. Can't we in Government discharge our legitimate 
public obligations on such a percentage? I think we can, I think we 
should, and we must.
  I want to see our Government balance its budget. But I also want to 
see this trend of increasing taxation come to an end. I believe that 
this tax limitation amendment is the surest way to do that.
  And I urge my colleagues to support the tax limitation amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________