[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.

                          ____________________