[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1473-H1480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1345
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 62, TAX
LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 113 and ask for its immediate
consolidation.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 113
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 62) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States with respect to tax
limitations. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the joint resolution, modified by
the amendment specified in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, 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. Goodlatte]. The gentlewoman from Ohio
[Ms. Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley], distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules,
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of
debate only.
General Leave
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 113 is a
straightforward rule providing for consideration in the House of House
Joint Resolution 62, the tax limitation constitutional amendment.
The rule provides for 3 hours of debate, equally divided between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary, modified by the amendment specified in the
report, will be considered as the base text for the purpose of
amendment.
What that means is that the rule enacts a very important amendment
sponsored by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], a senior member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, which would simply ensure that the
tax limitation amendment would not have the unintended consequences of
making it harder to reduce taxes in the future, a very important
consideration as we move toward the dynamic scoring of major tax relief
and economic growth legislation.
The rule also provides for the consideration of an amendment if
offered by the minority leader or his designee. The amendment shall be
considered as read and shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided
and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. So under the rule, Mr. Speaker, our friends in the
minority will have two different opportunities to amend the legislation
in any way they see fit, consistent with the normal rules of the House.
Mr. Speaker, it is no coincidence that the House takes up the
consideration of a constitutional tax limitation amendment today, April
15, as millions of taxpayers file their Federal income taxes. This is
the day in which millions of hard-working Americans and their families
are all too sharply reminded that high taxes have become a cruel and
harsh fact of life in the United States of America.
What many Americans are experiencing today is middle class tax
anxiety as they feel that they are working harder than ever but falling
further behind. That is why so many constituents tell me that they fear
the next generation will not be as fortunate or as prosperous as their
generation, and why they believe their children and grandchildren will
be worse off financially than they are.
It is no wonder that so many families feel this way. The truth is for
the past 40 years or so, the size, scope, and tax burden imposed by the
Federal Government has grown year in and year out. In 1980, the average
tax burden was $2,286 per person. By 1995, that figure had more than
doubled to $4,996. Federal, State, and local taxes take more than 38
cents out of every dollar the American family earns, and that
estimation is almost as high as 50 cents in some quarters.
The Federal tax burden alone is now nearing a record one-fifth of
family income. American families deserve better and they should be able
to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on things they need
like food, clothing, shelter, perhaps a college education or even
sometimes a family vacation. They do not need to send more of their tax
dollars to Washington to be spent on a larger and larger Federal
bureaucracy.
Regrettably, the power to lay and collect taxes, which was granted to
Congress by the Founding Fathers, has been terribly abused. As
ratified, the Constitution did not allow the direct taxation of the
income of American citizens. For three-quarters of our history, three-
quarters of our history the power of the U.S. Government to tax was
carefully constrained by explicit constitutional restraints. For many
decades the Federal Government was able to function without a permanent
income tax, and it was not until 1913 when the 16th amendment to the
Constitution was ratified that Congress was given specific authority to
collect income taxes, and the Constitution's careful balance with
respect to taxes was swept away.
As recently as 1940, Federal taxes were only 6.7 percent of the gross
domestic product. Since the late 1960's, Federal taxes have approached
20 percent of GDP. Under our current system, it is simply too easy to
add to the already onerous tax burden that Congress has placed on the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, while many worthwhile arguments have been made against
this constitutional amendment, the time has now come when we must
return some fiscal discipline to the Federal Government where much of
the discipline imposed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution no
longer exists.
That is exactly what this legislation seeks to do, to make it more
difficult for Congresses in the future to raise taxes. The amendment
will force Congress to focus on options other than raising taxes as a
means of balancing the Federal budget. It does not mean, as some
opponents have claimed, that taxes cannot be raised at all somewhere
down the road. It merely requires a broader political consensus to
achieve that goal. And the requirement can be waived temporarily,
whenever a declaration of war is in effect or when the United States
faces an imminent serious threat to its national security.
While we try to make it harder to raise taxes at the Federal level,
several
[[Page H1474]]
States have already taken a step to incorporate this fiscal discipline
in their own constitutions. For example, 14 States already require a
supermajority to raise taxes in one form or another, including high-
growth States like California and Florida.
Mr. Speaker, the need for this amendment is clear. By raising the bar
on tax increases, we put the focus where it should be, on cutting
spending first. Unlike the many special interests that benefit from
Federal spending, the American taxpayers do not have a paid voice
looking out for their interests when appropriation season comes along.
It is time for Congress to play that role more effectively, and passing
this tax limitation amendment will do a lot to give the American people
the voice they deserve in the fight to control spending and to protect
family incomes.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support both
the rule and the underlying legislation. This is a balanced rule that
will enable the House to have a full and fair discussion of the merits
of this constitutional amendment, and I recommend its swift adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank my distinguished colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from
Ohio [Ms. Pryce], for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, exactly 1 year ago today I stood on the House floor in
this very same spot and spoke out against a nearly identical rule and
joint resolution. At that time I said my Republican colleagues should
be ashamed of that rule and that proposed constitutional amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I say it again today. They should be ashamed of this
proposed constitutional amendment, and they should be ashamed of
sending to the House floor another closed rule. Of 11 rules that have
been sent to the floor so far this Congress, 9 of them have been
restrictive.
As was the case last year, Mr. Speaker, this event today is nothing
more than a political escapade. It is no coincidence that we are
considering this bill at this time on this very date. It all has been
very carefully orchestrated that we debate the vote just in time for
the 6 o'clock news, and of course today is tax day.
So if my colleagues do not believe me, just look at the letter that
was sent to the Committee on Rules by the sponsor of this
constitutional amendment. To my colleagues and to the TV audience I
say, it is show time.
Mr. Speaker, our Constitution has been amended only 27 times in the
200-plus years since our Nation's inception. And any attempt to amend
the Constitution is very serious business and should be done only when
absolutely necessary to the well-being of our country and our citizens.
It should never be used as a political tool, as I fear it is being
used today. Our Nation's Founding Fathers carefully designed and
drafted our Constitution not to meet their own personal and political
agenda but to endure and meet the needs of this great Nation for
centuries to come.
Mr. Speaker, I also find it ironic that my colleagues on the
Republican side of the aisle are contemplating imposition of a two-
thirds supermajority requirement in this proposed amendment. As we may
recall, in the beginning of the 104th Congress, the Republican Party
changed the House rules to require a three-fifths vote for any tax
increases. Mr. Speaker, guess what happened? Whenever a bill containing
a tax increase came along, they conveniently used the Committee on
Rules to waive the three-fifths requirement. They waived this rule for
Contract With America, Tax Relief Act; they waived the rule with
Medicare Preservation Act. They waived the rule on Budget
Reconciliation Act. They waived the rule on Health Insurance Reform
Act; and finally, the welfare reform conference report.
Mr. Speaker, they had so many waives we got seasick up there in the
Committee on Rules.
In short, Mr. Speaker, during the last Congress, they waived that
provision every single time that it applied. In fact, their rule change
was so unworkable and so unenforceable that they had to fix it in the
105th Congress rules package.
So if they could not make the provision work in the House rules, how
can they expect to make a tougher requirement work in the Constitution?
I certainly hope my friends on the other side of the aisle understand
that. We cannot waive or rewrite a constitutional amendment just
because it is convenient. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if they
need a lesson in basic civics. Do they not understand that, when we
require a supermajority vote for passage of a measure, we are
effectively turning control over to a small minority who can stop
legislation, even something that the majority supports?
James Madison, in The Federalist papers, wisely argued against
supermajorities, stating, and I quote: ``the fundamental principle of
free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority
that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.''
Mr. Speaker, this proposed constitutional amendment will seriously
undermine Congress' ability to pass major budgetary initiatives. It
will allow a small majority in either House to stop widely supported,
meaningful legislation containing any revenue measure. It will impede
any progress toward a balanced budget by removing from the table many
options for reaching that goal.
It could also lead to cuts in benefits in Social Security, in
Medicare. It will sharply limit Congress' ability to close tax
loopholes or to enact tax reform measures.
So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this
closed rule and this ill-advised constitutional amendment. We do not
need any gimmicks to solve the financial concerns of our Nation. If we
really want to address the needs of this country, let us get to work on
responsible legislation that truly accomplishes something.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that they would vote down this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1400
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, ``Well,'' as Ronald Reagan used to say.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest support for this excellent piece of
legislation. I really hate to stand up here and criticize the previous
speaker because he is my counterpart. He is the ranking member of the
Committee on Rules, and he sits over there looking like a cross between
Sean Connery and Santa Claus, both of whom I deeply admire, as I do
him.
I really am just hesitant to stand up here and say that my good
friend from Boston, MA, is rated by the National Taxpayers Union, along
with all of the other speakers that will oppose this rule and this bill
today, they all are rated as the biggest spenders in the Congress.
Now, think about that for a minute. All the people that are opposed
to a supermajority of raising taxes are rated as the biggest spenders
in this House. And this is not for 1 year or 2 years, this is over 20
years; for at least as long as I have been here.
So, Mr. Speaker, let me just talk about this bill. The tax limitation
amendment is designed to make it more difficult for the Federal
Government to take more money out of the pockets of our constituents.
It will require the Congress to focus on options other than raising
taxes to manage the budget.
Imagine that. We have to find a different way because it is going to
be very difficult to raise taxes. It will require this Congress to
focus on options that really mean getting this fiscal House in order,
because we all know what has happened to the budget over the last 15
years or so; it has just exploded.
The tax limitation amendment does not forelose the possibility of
raising taxes, however, but it requires a broad political consensus to
achieve that goal. As ratified in the original Constitution, it allowed
no direct taxation of incomes of our citizens.
Did my colleagues realize that? When this country was formed, this
Republic of States that we have here today, and it is a republic, there
was no income
[[Page H1475]]
tax and no provisions to allow for it. For most of our history, the
power of the Federal Government to tax was carefully constrained by
explicit constitutional limitations. It was not until early in this
century that the 16th amendment swept away the Constitution's careful
balance with respect to taxes. That was way back, I think, in 1913.
Initially, the burden grew very slowly. Federal taxes went from 5
percent of a family's income in 1934, to 19 percent in 1994, and many,
many Americans pay a lot more than 19 percent in Federal taxes.
However, when we add to that the impact of State taxes, especially in
my State, the highest taxed State in the Union, and if we want to look
at the take-home pay of the average young American in my district,
there is practically no money there to take home after all these taxes.
By some calculations, when we figure in State, county, town, city,
and village, and local taxes, the American people are paying over 40
percent of their total income in some form of taxes. If we add in the
cost of burdensome government regulations, the cost goes up
substantially, even above that, as high as 60 percent in some areas.
Mr. Speaker, the idea of requiring a supermajority to raise taxes is
not a brand new idea around here. There are presently 14 States that
require a supermajority to raise taxes, 14 States, according to the
Heritage Foundation. I would ask all my colleagues to get their report
and read it.
The empirical data from the States suggests that a supermajority
requirement is successful in limiting the growth of government, now
isn't that something, and enabling a more rapid pace of economic growth
and job creation. Well, is that not what we are here for, to encourage
those kind of things?
States with supermajority requirements, and listen to this, have
lower spending increases, faster economic growth, they had more jobs,
and a more tightly controlled tax burden than States without those
requirements.
Oh, I wish New York State had this. If they did, I do not think my
five children would have had to leave the State.
Mr. Speaker, at the Federal Government level there are numerous
precedents for supermajority requirements. Both the House and the
Senate routinely use supermajority voting requirements.
For over a century and a half, this House has required a two-thirds
vote to suspend the rules and pass legislation, which we are going to
be doing here today. It requires a two-thirds vote to take up a rule on
the same day that it is reported from the Committee on Rules. The House
also requires a three-fifths vote to pass bills on the Corrections
Calendar.
The other side of this building, the Senate, requires a three-fifths
vote of all Senators just to end debate. Thank goodness we do not have
that over here, though. The Senate budget procedures require that
three-fifths of the Senate must agree to waive points of order that
would violate the budget approved by the Congress.
There are instances in which the Constitution currently requires a
supermajority vote. Pick it up and read it. They are scattered all over
the Chamber here. For example, a two-thirds vote is required in the
Senate to consent to a treaty. And certainly increasing the burden of
taxation on our own citizens is a more important decision in the life
of this Nation than many of these silly treaties that we enter into.
Mr. Speaker, the Framers of the Constitution, they understood the
need for requiring supermajority votes for certain fundamental
decisions. The adoption of a supermajority provision to raise taxes on
the American people will, I think, help this Congress to give more
careful consideration against such proposals and would require a broad
consensus in order to do that. Asking for a two-thirds vote certainly
is not too much.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on
the bill itself.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
It is interesting that I do hold the constitution of the United
States in my hand, and one thing that is very often repeated and
certainly noted by the Founding Fathers and Framers of the
Constitution, and stated in the Federalist Papers, is that requiring
more than a majority of a quorum for a decision will result in minority
rule, and the fundamental principle of free government would be
reversed.
Alexander Hamilton said in 1775 that it is important that the sacred
rights of mankind are not to be rummaged, and therefore they are
written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature by the
hand of the Divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by
immortal power.
There is a sense of moral righteousness on the other side about a
two-thirds majority for increasing taxes, but it does not respond to
the very nature and responsibility of this Government to operate, to
balance the budget, to fairly operate with the funds and revenue that
we secure.
While there are several supermajority requirements referenced in the
Constitution, none pertain to the day-to-day operations of the
Government or the fiscal policy matters. Let it be clear that we are
the place of last resort for these United States. That means when there
is a hurricane in Florida, an earthquake in California, or floods in
the Midwest, we are looked to in the U.S. Government.
Something else that is concerning is that a recent Congressional
Budget Office study found that over half of the corporate subsidies the
Federal Government provides are delivered through tax expenditures.
Under this legislation, even measures that raise revenue by shutting
down opportunities for tax fraud could require a two-thirds majority
vote, undermining the ability of this House to operate the day-to-day
needs of the United States of America.
How ridiculous and frivolous, when there is tax fraud and moneys
being expended unfairly and illegally, that we would have to have this
overmajority, supermajority, in order to stop fraud on the American
people.
Also, this constitutional budget, according to the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, will make it more difficult to address the long-
term financing problems of Social Security and Medicare in order to
avoid insolvency. Therefore, in order to avoid insolvency with respect
to Medicare and Social Security, Congress must be able to use the tax
system. It is for these reasons that this proposed constitutional
amendment squarely goes to undermining the responsibility that we have.
Everything we do in this House should be borne by the beam of the
sunlight that Alexander Hamilton spoke of. The Constitution, having
been amended only 27 times, is a sacred document. In this book that I
hold, it says that the Declaration of Independence was the promise, the
Constitution is the fulfillment.
We have the responsibility to fulfill our role as representatives of
the American people, firs, to make sure that we do not overtax, but,
second, that a minority does not rule with respect to a free
government. This two-thirds constitutional amendment is wrong, wrong-
headed, wrong-directed. It does not allow us to protect the American
people as we should.
For those States who have the problems of overtaxation, my
instruction to them would be to fix it. We in the U.S. Government
should be able to fix our responsibilities by being a House that
responds to all of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule of House Joint Resolution
62, which would amend the Constitution to require that any legislation
raising taxes be subject to a two-thirds majority vote in the House and
Senate. I rise to speak against the modified closed rule passed by the
Rules Committee concerning this legislation.
I offered two amendments to the Rules Committee that were not passed.
One amendment would have safeguarded the Social Security trust fund. It
stated that any tax increase that involves Social Security would not
require a supermajority in the House in order to pass. According to the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this proposed constitutional
amendment would make it more difficult to address the long-term
financing problems of Social Security and Medicare. The center has
stated
[[Page H1476]]
that the 1996 report of the Social Security trustees, projects the
Social Security trust fund will start running deficits by 2012 and
become insolvent by 2029. In order to avoid this shortfall, Congress
must be able to use the tax system, and if not, then the Social
Security trust fund will remain in grave danger.
I also introduced an amendment that would state that constitutional
amendment would not apply to any bill which increases taxes collected
from persons who are not U.S. citizens. There is absolutely no reason
why we would want to offer foreign multinational corporations--who take
thousands of job from this country--any special ability to block
efforts to increase tax collections against them. I guarantee you that
no other country would make it more difficult than is necessary to
collect taxes against U.S. corporations.
I urge my colleague to vote against the rule for House Joint
Resolution 62.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], a valued member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms.
Pryce] for yielding me this time.
I rise in support of this fair, modified closed rule, which provides
for consideration of House Joint Resolution 62, the tax limitation
amendment.
As most of us are aware, the House traditionally considers
constitutional amendments under a restrictive rule. I think it
appropriate that we once again are following that precedent, but I
note, especially today, we are providing the minority two opportunities
to offer differing versions. So this is a fair rule.
Tonight, millions of Americans will spend a few last hours putting
their tax returns together and then rushing them to the post office by
midnight, they hope.
While we all devote a good deal of time to filling out the tedious
and confusing forms generated by the IRS, an even more discouraging
fact is that this year the average American will spend about 3 hours of
every 8-hour work day just to make enough money to pay taxes to the
Government to get that money in the mail tonight.
Something is wrong when we pay more in total taxes than we do in
food, clothing, and housing combined. That is a fact. Something is
wrong, and today we are trying to fix it.
We have already considered two bills dealing with the Tax Code: H.R.
1226, which would make it a crime for IRS employees to snoop through
citizens' tax records, we had debate earlier on that. With the passage
of H.R. 109, we will have stated our commitment to providing real tax
relief for American families. The vote comes later on that.
The measure we are about to consider, the tax limitation amendment,
would require a two-thirds majority vote for the passage of any
legislation resulting in a tax increase. Most people understand that.
H.R. 1215 shifts the focus away from taxing and spending and toward
responsible management of our resources. With the tax burdens most
Americans face these days, we need to be sure that any future tax
increase that Congress is tempted to pass faces added scrutiny.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important measure, and, of course, I intend
to support it. I also look forward to considering real tax cuts on this
floor as soon as possible. Instead of the illusory cuts offered in the
Presidential campaigns that seem to disappear after the election, we
should work for meaningful, permanent tax relief, and we should do it
now.
We should cut the capital gains tax, we should cut the estate tax, we
should repeal the insidious Clinton tax hike on Social Security, on the
benefits of Social Security, that are being now taxed and are hitting
so many of the constituents in my district and other districts where
there are seniors so hard.
We should examine ways to end the so-called marriage penalty that
imposes a roadblock for young couples trying to start their lives
together.
April 15 could be an annual reminder of the responsibility we have as
Americans to relinquish readily some of our hard-earned resources to
preserve freedom and the opportunities of this land. But instead, April
15 is becoming a day of infamy as we unfairly and recklessly overburden
productive Americans by taking an ever larger bite of their paycheck
through an incomprehensible process to feed an ever larger, ever more
wasteful, insatiable big brother Government right here in Washington.
I think it is time to stop that, and I am anxious to get to work to
provide relief from those oppressive taxes so that next year, when we
stand here, next year's tax bite will not be quite so painful for so
many. I urge support for this rule, and I urge support for this
legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the rule for the
constitutional amendment of the day.
Mr. Speaker, we are here on tax day to consider yet another version
of the tax limitation amendment. Unfortunately, the timing of press
conferences has taken priority over responsible legislating.
At the Committee on Rules, a number of very important amendments were
offered but rejected by the Committee on Rules. These amendments would
have protected Social Security, they would have maintained our ability
to close corporate loopholes, they would have clarified language that
both Republican and Democratic hearing witnesses called problematic,
and would have addressed the issue of judicial review.
Mr. Speaker, it is extremely unfortunate that the only amendment that
was accepted was offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum],
whose self-executing amendment will ensure that a two-thirds majority
is not required to reduce capital gains taxes.
{time} 1415
In response, Mr. Speaker, we should have the opportunity to at least
vote on an amendment that will ensure that a two-thirds requirement is
not a requirement to close corporate loopholes. We should also have the
opportunity to clarify language that witnesses at hearings called
silly, impractical and a threat to the Federal Government's budget
integrity. We should have the ability to address that concern.
Mr. Speaker, because the Committee on Rules once again passed a
closed rule, the Members will be deprived of the opportunity to even
consider issues which their constituents feel are in their best
interests.
Mr. Speaker, another problem presented by the rush to hear the bill
today is the fact that the language in the proposed constitutional
amendment that we will consider today is different from the language
that was considered by experts at the subcommittee hearing. This
version provides that a two-thirds majority is required for changes in
internal revenue laws that increase revenue instead of the previous
requirement of a two-thirds majority for legislation that increases the
internal revenue. This change is monumental for the very simple fact
that no one seems to know what constitutes an internal revenue law. Is
a new fee an internal revenue law? If you call the new fee a tax, is it
covered?
Instead of waiting until we know the ramifications of the amendment,
we are rushing to vote today so that some can stand on their pedestals,
thump their chests and participate in an April 15 publicity stunt.
Changes in this resolution should be made, but instead of making these
changes, we are allowing the processes to fall prey to political
pageantry. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. McCollum], who authored the amendment that is
included in the base legislation.
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time, and I rise to support this rule today and the self-executing-
amendment provision that is in the rule.
First, let me say that as one Member of this body I strongly believe
we should be changing the tax laws of this country. We should go to
either a flatter rate income tax or we should go to a sales tax. We
need major reform. That is not what is about this bill and this rule
today.
Personally, I also believe that in the interim we should not be
taxing at all
[[Page H1477]]
capital gains or estate taxes should be eliminated. I think we frankly
do not need a tax on dividends. A double taxation on dividends is bad
or interest that is earned, but that is not what this legislation is
about today. What we are about today is a rule that will allow us to
vote in a few hours to amend the Constitution of the United States to
say that in the future there shall be no tax increase, no revenue
increase to the U.S. Treasury without a two-thirds, supermajority vote
of this body and the other body.
I think that is entirely appropriate. Fourteen States have adopted
such provisions. We had some discussion in the Committee on Rules
yesterday about my State of Florida. I want to clarify for the
gentleman from Massachusetts, who asked a question about it, that my
State has adopted in 1994 an initiative which applies to all taxes,
including the sales tax, the two-thirds requirement. That may not have
been apparent in the publications that were before the committee
yesterday, but that in fact is the law now in the State of Florida.
But my concern today particularly is making sure that what we are
going to vote on when we vote on our amendment is correct, is what we
want to have. There was a provision, interpretation at least, of the
provisions of the underlying amendment that could have been confused to
state in some way or be interpreted in some way as saying if we vote
for a capital gains tax reduction, which might increase revenues to the
Treasury and in real terms surely it would, at least many of us believe
it would, we would have to have a two-thirds vote to do that because
the underlying proposal says you have got to have a two-thirds vote of
the bodies of Congress in order to increase revenues.
So I proposed, and the Committee on Rules has engrafted upon this
today when we have the rules vote, the language that reads as follows:
``For the purposes of determining any increase in the internal revenue
under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from
the lowering of an effective rate of any tax.''
I remember a few years ago we passed a luxury tax, an excise tax on
yachts. Everybody thought that was going to raise some money for the
Treasury of the United States. Instead we put yacht making companies
out of business. It lowered the revenues. Not only did we not have an
excise tax, but we did not have the income taxes from the people who
were making those big yachts anymore. Then when we came along and
removed that excise tax, that luxury tax, the revenues of the United
States were raised, not because we had more excise taxes but because we
at least had businesses again selling yachts, creating taxable
transactions and yielding income taxes that were coming to the U.S.
Government.
There are any number of possible ways where you could reduce the
taxes on Americans throughout this country and actually increase
revenues. So I think it is very important what the Committee on Rules
has done, and I wanted every Member to understand that the self-
executing provision in this rule is a significant improvement, an
important improvement albeit a technical one, to the underlying
constitutional amendment proposed.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the adoption of the rule and the
amendment incorporated therein today. I additionally of course urge the
adoption of the constitutional amendment that would require a two-
thirds vote of both bodies before we could pass any increase in taxes
on the American public in the future.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman who just left the microphone for correcting my
statement at the Committee on Rules, but I was reading from the
majority's report that stated, ``For example, in Florida, the
supermajority requirement only applies to corporate income taxes.
Exempt from the requirement is the sales tax on the purchase of
goods.'' That is in the majority's report.
Mr. McCOLLUM. If the gentleman will yield, he is absolutely right.
That report is erroneous in that regard. It applies to the sales taxes,
as I understand, in Florida. There are a few technical exceptions, but
all basic taxes, including if we ever had an income tax, which we do
not have. I thank the gentleman for making that point.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding time for the purposes of debate on the rule
for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is on the floor today because it is April 15,
and there are some Members of this body who want to try to take
political advantage of the fact that people are feeling like they paid
too much taxes. That is perhaps a worthy political objective. But we
have to debate whether this bill is a reasonable substantive objective.
It is on that point that I rise.
I would say to the Speaker that I would rise here today in opposition
to a constitutional amendment that required a two-thirds vote on any
issue, whether it was a taxing issue or any other issue that we might
be considering, because it is my position, and I believe it is
supported by historical fact, that a two-thirds vote is counter-
democratic. It is counter the very essence of our democracy, which says
that it is the majority which should rule in this country.
I want to call my colleagues' attention to two quotations from our
Founding Fathers. First, Alexander Hamilton, who said, ``The
fundamental maxim of a Republican government requires that the sense of
the majority shall prevail.''
And then James Madison, who said:
It has been said that more than a majority ought to have
been required for a quorum and in particular cases, if not in
all, more than a majority for a decision. 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 be
no longer the majority that would rule. The power would be
transferred to the minority.
That is what this constitutional amendment is about. It does not have
to do with taxes. It has to do with the balance of individuals related
to each other and the power of individual Members of this House of
Representatives as they relate to each other.
Why should we give more power to one group of people who support a
proposition than we give to other people? That is fundamentally out of
kilter with the majority rules concept, and I submit that while we are
engaging in this pageantry for tax day, we ought to be engaging in some
preservation, we ought to be paying attention to the constitutional
framework in which this proposed constitutional amendment is playing
itself out and protecting the concept of majority rule, which is so
near and dear to our constitutional principles in this country.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Lewis], the deputy minority whip.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, once again Republicans are ready to sacrifice our
Constitution at the altar of partisan politics. It seems that every day
the leadership of this body comes up with some new stunt to prove they
do not like taxes. Today they want to destroy the Constitution. They
want to destroy majority rule. Majority rule is central to our
Constitution. It is the foundation of our democracy. It is our core
belief. And so it has stood for over 200 years. This amendment would
allow minority rule. A minority of the Congress would decide when we
can and cannot raise taxes.
Mr. Speaker, if this amendment were allowed to our Constitution, do
my colleagues have so little faith in majority rule? It is my hope and
my prayer, my sincere hope, that enough Members of this body would have
the courage to do what is right and vote against this ill-conceived,
ill-constructed and ill-advised amendment.
If we adopt this amendment, our Constitution will suffer. We will
suffer. This amendment could force us to cut Medicare, this amendment
could force us to cut Social Security, even if a majority of the
Members opposed these cuts, because under this amendment, the majority
does not rule.
But we are not here because this is a well-written, well-reasoned
amendment. This amendment is not even a
[[Page H1478]]
good idea. We are here because today is tax day. We all know why we are
here. Today is tax day. It is time to score political points no matter
what the cost. It is unfortunate that the leadership of this House can
come up with nothing better to do than debate this amendment.
This amendment is a waste of time. Where is the Republican agenda?
Where is the Republican budget? Show me the budget.
Mr. Speaker, today is not only the day that taxes are due, it is also
the day the budget is due. The American taxpayers have paid their
taxes. The returns are in the mail. Where is the Republican budget? The
President has a budget. The Blue Dogs have a budget. It seems that the
only people without a budget are the Republicans. The House leadership
has no budget.
Mr. Speaker, let me make it plain and crystal clear. It is time to
stop grandstanding and time to get to work. Nobody, but nobody, likes
paying taxes. I do not like paying taxes. But this is not a reason to
support a flawed constitutional amendment. Instead we should pass a
budget and we should pass it here and now.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to respect our Founding Fathers.
Respect the Constitution. Respect democracy and this body. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'', ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on this
amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
{time} 1430
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule
and in strong opposition to amending the Constitution to eviscerate
majority rule and to favor the wealthy and the powerful over working
families.
As my colleagues know, the first bill I ever introduced as a Member
of the Congress was the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 1991, so I
welcome a debate on the best way to cut taxes. But today we cannot even
have that debate. Today we are having a mock debate because only one
party has tax cuts on the table, the Democrats.
We have heard so much talk from the Republicans about cutting, we
could think that they had a tax cut proposal. The fact is that they do
not. In fact, the Republican tax package might be called the Hale-Bopp
tax cut because it seems that my Republican colleagues are waiting for
the tax cut to drop from the heavens. But tax cuts and budgets do not
fall from the sky, they take work to produce, and it is time that my
colleagues from across the aisle come back to Earth and get down to
business.
Today, April 15, has dual significance. It is the tax filing deadline
for American families, but it is also the deadline for Republicans to
submit their budget. As Americans all across the country live up to
their responsibilities and to meet their deadline by filing their
taxes, Republicans are ignoring their responsibility by ignoring their
deadline to present a budget, and that is why this Congress has been
dubbed the do-nothing Congress.
If Republicans are honest about wanting to cut taxes, there is only
one way to do that, and that is to present a budget. But only the
Democrats have a budget on the table, and in this budget President
Clinton has proposed middle-class tax relief including tax cuts to pay
for college, tax cuts to buy a first home, and tax deduction for
adoption. It is a plan that would help those who need it most.
But most important, all of these tax cuts are paid for within a
balanced budget, and that is the real reason why Republicans cannot and
will not produce a budget. The truth of the matter is that the tax cuts
they propose cannot be paid for in a balanced budget without making
deep and dangerous cuts in Medicare and education and in the
environment, and we all know that the American people rejected that
tradeoff in the last Congress.
Mr. Speaker, that means it is time to go back to the drawing board,
come up with a tax plan that we can pay for and produce a balanced
budget. The President has done so. It is time for Republicans to stop
waiting for that Hale-Bopp tax cut, and I can assure my colleagues that
a tax cut in the balanced budget will not be delivered on the tail of a
comet.
So roll up those sleeves and get down to work. Then maybe this
Congress can be known as the Congress that delivered tax relief to
American families instead of the do-nothing Congress.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the last few speakers as the
hard-working American taxpayers labor about a third of the year just to
pay their taxes, they stay up late, rolling up their sleeves, burning
the midnight oil over their tax returns, or worse, paying accountants
and lawyers thousands and thousands of dollars for the very privilege
of paying their taxes, it is our duty, it is our responsibility, to
stop, to put on the brakes of this annual travesty. This is the perfect
day to provide this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, with that I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Barton], the author of this legislation.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, article 5 of the Constitution of
the United States gives the House of Representatives the right to
propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States if two-
thirds of the Members present voting vote in the affirmative. So we are
here today to propose such an amendment requiring a two-thirds vote to
increase income taxes or any other tax in the Internal Revenue Code of
this country.
I want to speak briefly about the process which has brought us to
this day and then if I have time, talk a little bit about the policy.
We had this same vote last year on tax day, April 15, and we got 243
Members of the House to vote in the affirmative if that was 37 votes
short of the vote necessary to get the two-thirds vote. The Speaker of
the House at the time, Speaker Gingrich, said that as long as he was
Speaker we would have the same vote every April 15, tax day, until we
actually pass the amendment and send it to the Senate. So that is why
we are here today on April 15.
In order to take advantage of the regular process, we went to the
committee of jurisdiction for constitutional amendments, the Committee
on the Judiciary, and asked them to hold hearings on this important
amendment. The distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee
on the Constitution, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], did so.
We had a hearing on the merits, the pros and the cons of the amendment,
and I would point out that at that hearing Members were invited to
attend, and not one Member of the minority party took advantage of the
opportunity to attend and speak in the negative, although we did have
several Members speak in the affirmative.
We then went to the full committee where again every member of the
Committee on the Judiciary had an opportunity to offer amendments,
offer substitutes, offer alternatives. A number were offered. The
amendment was slightly modified and reported out on a 18 to 10 vote,
which is only one vote short of having a two-thirds vote in the full
committee. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] offered an
amendment on the effective rate issue. He offered and withdrew it. We
worked on that issue until we had it refined to the point that the
Committee on Ways and Means and myself and the other cosponsors were
very supportive. He took that amendment to the Committee on Rules, and
yesterday the Committee on Rules voted to put it into the
constitutional amendment.
The rule that is before us makes in order an alternative by the
minority, the minority leader, Mr. Gephardt of Missouri, if he wishes
to offer such. It also makes in order a motion to recommit with
instructions.
So if we want to talk about the process, the process has been
imminently fair, reasonable and according to regular order. It is a
modified closed rule because it is a constitutional amendment.
Now let me talk a little bit about the policy. Several Members in the
opposition have spoken about violating the Constitution, that somehow
it is unfair to amend the Constitution, that we have a two-thirds vote
requirement for a tax increase. I would point out that
[[Page H1479]]
in article I, section 9 of the original Constitution there is a direct
prohibition against any direct taxes, zero tolerance, and I want to
read article I, section 9: ``No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall
be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein
before directed to be taken.''
We had zero, we had 100 percent prohibition against income taxes in
the original Constitution. But on February 13, 1913, the amendment XVI
to the Constitution said we could have an income tax. So in 1915 we had
an income tax for the first time. It was 1 percent, 1 percent of
income. Today that 1 percent has moved up to an average of 19 percent,
the marginal rate has moved from 1 percent to 40 percent, so the
marginal rate is 4,000 times more than the marginal rate was in 1915.
The reason we need a two-thirds vote for a tax increase, for an
income tax increase, is because the ability to restrain taxes has been
abolished by the 16th amendment, and I would point out again that in
the original Constitution there was a direct prohibition against any
direct tax. That has been repealed so we at least need to raise the bar
above a simple majority vote to the two-thirds.
Now let me speak about this majority vote if I can very quickly, and
again in the original Constitution there is nowhere in here that says
votes have to be only by majority. In fact, there are seven specific
instances in the Constitution that you have to have a supermajority, in
most cases a two-thirds supermajority to ratify treaties, to expel a
Member, to impeach a Federal judge or to amend the Constitution.
So everything we are doing today on the floor on this amendment is
totally constitutional, it is totally regular order, and it is totally
in the spirit that the original Founding Fathers would have had us. I
have no doubt that if Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were here they
would vote for the constitutional amendment.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
We have heard some very good arguments on both sides of this issue
here this past hour, and under this fair rule the House will have ample
opportunity to debate the merits of the tax limitation amendment in
much greater depth. Any and all minority amendments can be in included
in the substitute and again in the motion to recommit.
I would urge my colleagues to consider the tax limitation is working
in the States which have adopted supermajority requirements. States
have grown more slowly, spending has not increased as fast, economies
have expanded faster, and the job base has grown more quickly. The
Federal Government and our national economy could surely use the same
benefits.
We have the opportunity today to adopt a fiscal tool that will help
counter what many of my colleagues and I believe is a natural bias in
favor of bigger government and higher taxes. Let us not miss this
opportunity to strike a blow for fairness for hard-working families.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Florida, Mr. Goss, said moments
ago, there is something wrong when the average worker spends more time
working to pay his total tax bill than to provide food, clothing, and
shelter for his family, something terribly wrong, and this bill is not
even asking or seeking any kind of repeal. That will come later. We are
just making it harder, a little harder, to make it any worse on the
hard-working American taxpayer.
I urge adoption of this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place extraneous materials in
the Record following my remarks on this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Goodlatte]. Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The material referred to is as follows:
Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment
The Charge: The Democrats may claim that the \3/5\ vote
requirement for a tax increase as a House rule has not
worked, has caused problems, was waived frequently in the
104th, and that is a reason why the Tax Limitation
Constitutional Amendment (requiring a \2/3\ vote) should be
opposed.
This is flatly wrong. The \3/5\th Tax rule is enforceable
and has worked.
At the beginning of the 104th Congress, when the GOP took
control of the House, we adopted a House rule requiring a \3/
5\ vote for passage of any income tax rate increase and
prohibiting consideration of any retroactive tax increase.
While the rule was waived several times during the 104th
Congress, these waivers were primarily necessary to prevent
dilatory tactics by the Democrats. They consistently tried to
use the \3/5\th rule to prevent the consideration of
unrelated legislation. For example, the Democrats tried to
claim that the three-fifths rule applied to the Medicare
Preservation Act because in some instances Medicare premiums
may have been increased for some individuals. The
Parliamentarian ruled that this was clearly not the intended
object of this rule. This clearly is not an income tax rate
increase. Three of the six times the rule was waived in the
104th Congress was to prevent such dilatory motions.
The other three times the rule was waived in the 104th
Congress was when Congress was trying to close a perceived
tax loophole in an effort to balance the budget. This also
was never an income tax rate increase.
Furthermore, Republicans during the 105th Congress amended
this rule to make it crystal clear that it only applies to
income tax rate increases and to limit opportunities for this
rule to be abused as it was by the Democrats during the 104th
Congress.
The rule now specifically cites the sections of the
Internal Revenue Code to which applies, namely subsection
(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 11(b) or 55(b). These
sections cover tax rates on married individuals, heads of
households, unmarried individuals, married individuals filing
separate returns, estates, trusts, corporations and the
tentative minimum tax.
These changes not only clarify the application of the rule
but also provide enough flexibility for Congress to cut
taxes, close loopholes, and reform the tax code.
The tax limitation amendment also provides for this clarity
and flexibility with its de minimis exception.
____
Description of Modifications to Cl. 5(c) and (d) of House Rule 21--
Relating to Tax Increases Made by H. Res. 5--Adopting Rules of the
House for the 105th Congress on January 7, 1997
Clarifying Definition of Income Tax Rate Increase: The
section clarifies the definition of ``income tax rate
increases'' for the purposes of clauses 5 (c) and (d) of
House Rule XXI which require a three-fifths vote on any
amendment or bill containing such an increase, and prohibits
the consideration of any amendment or bill containing a
retroactive income tax rate increase, respectively. A
``federal income tax rate increase'' is any amendment to
subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1 (the
individual income tax rates), to subsection (b) of section 11
(the corporate income tax rates), or to subsection (b) of
section 55 (the alternative minimum tax rates) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which (1) imposes a new
percentage as a rate of tax and (2) thereby increases the
amount of tax imposed by any such section.
Thus, paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule XXI clause 5 would
apply only to specific amendments to the explicitly stated
income tax rate percentages of Internal Revenue Code sections
1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 11(b) and 55(b). The rules are
not intended to apply to provisions in a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report merely because
those provisions increase revenues or effective tax rates.
Rather, the rules are intended to be an impediment to
attempts to increase the existing income tax rates. The rules
would not apply, for example, to modifications to tax rate
brackets (including those contained in the specified
subsections), filing status, deductions, exclusions,
exemptions, credits, or similar aspects of the Federal income
tax system and mere extensions of an expiring or expired
income tax provision. In addition, to be subject to the rule,
the amendment to Internal Revenue Code section 1(a), 1(b),
1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 11(b) or 55(b) must increase the amount of
tax imposed by the section. Accordingly, a modification to
the income tax rate percentages in those sections that
results in a reduction in the amount of tax imposed would not
be subject to the rule.
____
Text of Clauses 5(c) and (d) of House Rule 21--Tax Increases As
Modified on January 1, 1997 by H. Res. 5--Adopting Rules of the House
for the 105th Congress
Cl. 5(c) of House Rule 21--Requiring a \3/5\ Vote on a
Federal Income Tax Rate Increase:
(c) No bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference
report carrying a Federal income tax rate increase shall be
considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a
vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ``Federal income
tax rate increase'' means any amendment to subsection (a),
(b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1, or to section 11(b) or
55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that imposes a
new percentage as a rate of tax and thereby increases the
amount of tax imposed by any such section.
Cl. 5(d) of House Rule 21--Prohibiting Consideration of
Retroactive Tax Increases:
(d) It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a
retroactive Federal income tax rate increase. For purposes of
the preceding sentence--
(1) the term ``Federal income tax rate increase'' means any
amendment to subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section
1, or to section 11(b) or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue
[[Page H1480]]
Code of 1986, that imposes a new percentage as a rate of tax
and thereby increases the amount of tax imposed by any such
section; and
(2) a Federal income tax rate increase is retroactive if it
applies to a period beginning prior to the enactment of the
provision.
History of Congressional Consideration of Budget Resolutions Under
Democratic Majority
Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
provides that Congress shall complete action on a concurrent
resolution on the budget on or before April 15 of each year.
The following table represents the dates of House and final
congressional passage of concurrent resolutions on the
budget:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Congressional Passage of Budget House Passage of Budget
Resolution Resolution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 29, 1995............................ May 18, 1995.
May 12, 1994............................. March 8, 1994.
April 1, 1993............................ March 15, 1993.
May 21, 1992............................. March 5, 1992.
May 22, 1991............................. April 17, 1991.
October 9, 1990.......................... May 1, 1990.
May 18, 1989............................. May 4, 1989.
June 6, 1988............................. March 23, 1988.
June 24, 1987............................ April 9, 1987.
June 27, 1986............................ May 15, 1986.
August 1, 1985........................... May 23, 1985.
October 1, 1984.......................... April 5, 1984.
June 23, 1983............................ March 23, 1983.
June 23, 1982............................ June 10, 1982.
May 21, 1981............................. May 7, 1981.
June 21, 1980............................ May 7, 1980.
May 23, 1979............................. May 14, 1979.
May 17, 1978............................. May 10, 1978.
May 17, 1977............................. May 5, 1977.
April 29, 1976........................... April 29, 1976.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. 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 resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________