[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1480-H1490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 113, 
I call up the resolution (H.J. Res. 62) proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations, and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the House Joint Resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 62 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 62

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), That the following article 
     is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. A bill to increase the internal revenue shall 
     require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of 
     two-thirds of the whole number of that House, unless that 
     bill is determined at the time of adoption, in a reasonable 
     manner prescribed by law, not to increase the internal 
     revenue by more than a de minimis amount.
       ``Section 2. The Congress may waive the requirements of 
     this article when a declaration of war is in effect. The 
     Congress may also waive this article when the United States 
     is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and 
     serious threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law. Any increase in the 
     internal revenue enacted under such a waiver shall be 
     effective for not longer than two years.
       ``Section 3. Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Solomon). Pursuant to House Resolution 
113, the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, modified by 
the amendment printed in House Report 105-54 is adopted.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified, is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 62

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), That the following article 
     is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Any bill, resolution, or other legislative 
     measure changing the internal revenue laws shall require for 
     final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of 
     the Members of that House voting and present, unless that 
     bill is determined at the time of adoption, in a reasonable 
     manner prescribed by law, not to increase the internal 
     revenue by more than a de minimis amount. 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. On any vote for 
     which the concurrence of two-thirds is required under this 
     article, the yeas and nays of the members of either House 
     shall be entered on the journal of that House.
       ``Section 2. The Congress may waive the requirements of 
     this article when a declaration of war is in effect. The 
     Congress may also waive this article when the United States 
     is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and 
     serious threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law. Any increase in the 
     internal revenue enacted under such a waiver shall be 
     effective for not longer than two years.
       ``Section 3. Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] each will control 90 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and I ask unanimous consent that he 
may be permitted to yield blocks of time to other Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 62 introduced by the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Barton] requires a two-thirds vote for any bill that 
changes the internal revenue laws to increase the internal revenue by 
more than a de minimis amount. Why is this amendment needed? Simply 
put, a supermajority vote makes it more difficult for Congress to raise 
taxes. It is a mechanism by which to restrain the Government's appetite 
for reaching into people's pockets and taking their money. It is a 
mechanism to protect the American people from Government overreaching.
  The Federal Government's insatiable appetite for raising taxes is 
borne out by the facts. In 1934 Federal taxes were just 5 percent of a 
family's income. By 1994 this figure had jumped to 19 percent; almost 
one-fifth of a family's income went to pay Federal income taxes.
  The amendment will require the Congress to focus on options other 
than raising taxes to manage the Federal budget. It will force Congress 
to carefully consider how best to use current resources before 
demanding that taxpayers dig deeper into their hard-earned wages to pay 
for increased Federal spending. The amendment would not require a two-
thirds vote for every tax increase in any bill. For example, a bill 
that both lowered and increased taxes, if it were revenue neutral, 
would not be subject to the two-thirds vote.

                              {time}  1445

  In addition, the supermajority requirement would be waived when a 
declaration of war is in effect or when both Houses pass a resolution, 
which becomes law, stating that, ``The United States is engaged in 
military conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to 
national security.''
  The resolution we are considering this afternoon also includes a 
provision offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] which 
amended the committee-reported version with the adoption of the rule. 
The McCollum

[[Page H1481]]

amendment addresses a problem which may arise if, at some time in the 
future, Congress decides to move to a system of dynamic scoring for 
determining the revenue effects of legislation.
  Under current revenue estimating procedures, scoring of a capital 
gains tax cut, for example, would generally result in projected revenue 
losses and thus would not require a two-thirds vote under the 
amendment. However, if Congress moved to a system of dynamic scoring, 
as some have urged, a cut in the capital gains tax probably would 
result in some increase in revenue.
  The McCollum amendment makes clear that increases in revenue which 
result from the lowering of the effective rate of a tax are not to be 
taken into consideration in determining whether a piece of legislation 
is subject to the two-thirds vote requirement.
  During committee consideration, I offered a substitute amendment 
which was adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary making two changes 
to the underlying text. The substitute amendment requires that all 
votes taken pursuant to the amendment be taken by the yeas and nays. It 
also conforms the text of House Joint Resolution 62 to the language 
voted on by the House in 1996 by making clear that the amendment 
applies to any bill, resolution, or other legislative measure changing 
the Internal Revenue laws. Any bill changing the Internal Revenue laws 
would require a two-thirds vote, unless it was determined that the 
bill's provisions, taken together, raise revenue by less than a de 
minimis amount.
  Generally, the term ``internal revenue laws'' covers taxes found in 
the Internal Revenue Code: income taxes, estate and gift taxes, 
employment taxes, and excise taxes.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, explained the scope of the amendment in an April 7, 
1997, letter to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. He stated, and I quote, ``Internal Revenue 
laws means the current Internal Revenue Code. That is, the Federal 
individual and corporate income tax, estate and gift taxes, employment 
taxes, and excise taxes. It would also include any new tax that may be 
added to the current Internal Revenue Code or that is analogous to any 
tax in the Internal Revenue Code,'' close quote.
  The amendment would not apply to tariffs, asset sales, user fees, 
voluntary payments, or bills that do not change Internal Revenue laws, 
even if they have revenue implications.
  For purposes of determining whether a bill raises more than a de 
minimis amount of revenue, only tax provisions in the bill would be 
considered. Legislation that is roughly revenue-neutral would not be 
subject to a two-thirds vote. For example, a bill that closed a tax 
loophole would not require a two-thirds vote if it created no more than 
a de minimis increase in revenue or was accompanied by an offsetting 
tax cut. It is the intention of the sponsors that a bill would be 
considered to raise a de minimis amount of revenue if it increased tax 
revenues by no more than one-tenth of 1 percent over 5 years.
  The amendment states that a determination must be made at the time of 
the adoption of the legislation as to whether it raises the Internal 
Revenue by more than a de minimis amount. The determination shall be 
made in a reasonable manner prescribed by law. In order to implement 
the article, Congress will need to adopt legislation defining terms and 
fleshing out the necessary procedures.
  It is up to this or a future Congress to design implementing 
legislation pursuant to the provision of the amendment requiring the 
Congress to enforce and implement the amendment through legislation. 
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, which would have jurisdiction over such implementing 
legislation, suggested the following reasonable criteria in his letter 
to Chairman Hyde, and I quote again: ``Revenue would be measured over a 
period consistent with current budget windows. For example, measuring 
the net change in revenue over a 5-year period would be appropriate. 
Estimation would be made employing the usual estimating rules. As under 
the Budget Act, a committee of jurisdiction or a conference committee 
would, in consultation with the Congressional Budget Office or the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, determine the revenue effect of a bill.''
  In McCulloch versus Maryland, a case that was decided in 1819, long 
before the advent of the Federal income tax, the U.S. Supreme Court 
Chief Justice John Marshall stated, ``The power to tax involves the 
power to destroy.'' This sentiment is no less true today. The power to 
tax is the power to use the coercive mechanisms of Government to 
require citizens to surrender their property to the Government for its 
own purposes. This amendment will ensure that this enormous power is 
exercised in a careful, thoughtful, and prudent fashion for the sake of 
ourselves, our Nation, our children, and future generations of 
Americans.
  The Federal Government seems to have forgotten a fundamental fact: 
The money we spend belongs to the people. It is money that they have 
earned. It is only fitting that when we increase our demands on those 
earnings, with all the coercive effect of law, we do so only with 
careful consideration and broad agreement. Adoption of the tax 
limitation amendment will bring needed relief to the American people. I 
urge the passage of the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I begin discussing my concerns with the specific amendment, I 
would like to say a few words about my concern with the priorities of 
the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that we have not yet reached an 
accord on the budget. Today is the deadline for Congress to have 
completed action on our budget, and yet we are debating senseless 
constitutional amendments, intervening in impending cases, and we are 
passing worthless resolutions. Instead of participating in tax day 
political pagentry, I would hope that we would begin to address some of 
the serious issues facing the American public today.
  Mr. Speaker, I have some very serious concerns about the 
constitutional amendment of the week, House Joint Resolution 62, the 
proposed constitutional amendment with respect to tax limitations. My 
concerns are not objections to my colleagues' attempts to limit new 
taxes. All Members of this Congress should be constantly asking 
themselves whether our tax system is fair and appropriate. In fact, our 
Committee on Ways and Means has the responsibility of addressing these 
complex issues in great detail.
  The end of limiting new taxes, however, is not the issue here. 
Rather, it is the issue of a means which is impractical and 
counterproductive, and that is what I have concerns about.
  The terms of the amendment are unbelievably vague. About the only 
thing clear about this amendment is the fact that this amendment will 
cause great confusion. Both Democratic and Republican witnesses at the 
subcommittee hearing expressed very serious concerns about House Joint 
Resolution 62. Former Office of Management and Budget Director Jim 
Miller, a tax limitation amendment supporter, even went so far as to 
call some of the language silly and unworkable.
  The vagueness issue is further exacerbated by a change made to the 
language seemingly in response to the negative comments made by experts 
at the hearings. Our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Canady] to his credit, has made a valiant effort to correct some 
of those problems. However, I think the mission was just impossible.
  The language considered by the experts at the hearing required a two-
thirds majority to, quote, increase the Internal Revenue. We marked up 
a very different language in the committee than that which was reviewed 
by the experts. The language we considered in the Committee on the 
Judiciary and are now considering on the floor requires a two-thirds 
majority to, quote, change Internal Revenue laws if they increase the 
Internal Revenue by more than a de minimis amount. Of course, no one 
seems to have a good idea of what constitutes a, quote, Internal 
Revenue law or what exactly may be considered a de minimis amount.
  My office has contacted a number of tax lawyers, including some of 
the witnesses who testified before the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution. None

[[Page H1482]]

of them has a clear idea as to what will or will not be considered a, 
quote, Internal Revenue law. The committee report further fuels the 
confusion by stating that Internal Revenue laws are laws both within 
the Internal Revenue Code and outside the Internal Revenue Code. In 
other words, even the Committee on the Judiciary that reported the bill 
does not have a clear idea of what will and will not be considered a, 
quote, Internal Revenue law.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I want to tell the gentleman, when I am controlling time, I will be 
happy to yield. Last year we had a pretty good dialog back and forth, 
and we have enough time that we can do that.
  Mr. Speaker, on the gentleman's question of what will be covered, if 
the gentleman will continue to yield, I can read exactly what would be 
covered.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to yield if the gentleman 
will explain what he is reading off of.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am actually reading off my own 
staff briefing paper, but I am the sponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I will regain my time and yield to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] very briefly.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], does the gentleman profess to be 
able to tell us what a constitutional amendment means himself as 
opposed to trying to clarify the language that he professes to be able 
to pull out of his own notes? I suppose we are going to do this in a 
court of law?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, I do claim 
to be a constitutional expert.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make clear 
that that is what the gentleman is doing here, because there is no 
definition in this bill, and the problem we are raising is, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] is not going to be around every time 
this gets litigated in a court of law to be able to explain to the 
court what this constitutional amendment means.
  Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, revenue increases subject to the 
supermajority requirement include: Income taxes, and I think we all 
know what a direct income tax is; estate and gift taxes; employment 
taxes, including Social Security and Medicare; and excise taxes, such 
as Superfund, aviation, gasoline.
  Things that would not be included under the amendment would be 
tariffs, user fees, voluntary Medicare premiums, the Part B premium, 
and bills that do not change the Internal Revenue laws even if they 
have revenue implications.
  On the question of de minimis, de minimis is one-tenth of 1 percent, 
which, under the current Tax Code, would be about $300 million a year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman has indicated 
that to increase spending on Superfund would take a two-thirds 
majority, so we are attacking the environment. Also, if we label 
something a fee, it is not included. If we call it a tax, it is 
included.
  In terms of de minimis, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] has 
suggested that the one-tenth of 1 percent is de minimis. Our total 
budget, Mr. Speaker, is $1.6 trillion. One-tenth of 1 percent of $1.6 
trillion is $1.6 billion. Jokes have been made about a billion here and 
a billion there, but I certainly think that most people would think 
that $1.6 billion is more than de minimis. But of course the courts 
would have to make that decision, and, as the gentleman from North 
Carolina has pointed out, a staff memo to the chief sponsor is not what 
the Supreme Court will consider.
  Mr. Speaker, the confusion created by this constitutional amendment 
will create powers in a new bureaucracy, such as the CBO, or cede 
Congress' taxing power to the court, because someone has to answer the 
questions that we have not answered. Some faceless bureaucrat punching 
numbers will have the power to determine how Congress will consider 
bills. Will the court overturn entitlement reform or cuts in corporate 
welfare because such initiatives were passed with less than a two-
thirds vote? We should not be ceding our powers to courts or unelected 
economists.
  Who will be appointed or anointed with the power to decide the golden 
question: Will a particular bill constitute an increase in the revenue 
more than a de minimis amount? Last March in the subcommittee, we heard 
one witness saying that this power should be vested in one person who 
would have the power to control the legislative powers of Congress.
  In addition, the complex and subjective nature of economics makes it 
clear that any interpretation will be disputed, so who becomes the 
arbitrator of such disputes?
  Mr. Speaker, the American public deserves answers to these questions 
before, and not after, we have made a mess that cannot be cleaned up. 
What happens, for example, if we pass a controversial corporate tax 
loophole that we estimated would have cost $500 million, only to find 
later that we made a mistake in our estimate and it will actually cost 
$5 billion?

                              {time}  1530

  Although it would have taken a simple majority to pass the subsidy, 
it would take a two-thirds majority to correct it. For this reason, we 
should be calling this resolution the loophole protection act. In 
addition to being vague and biased in its protection of corporate 
loopholes, this amendment would be unworkable.
  There is a very good reason why supermajorities are rare in our 
Constitution. They are rare because the framers of the Constitution 
learned from their experiences and the failed Continental Congress that 
excessive supermajority requirements are not practical in an efficient 
government.
  Supermajorities are only required for a precious few actions, such as 
overriding a Presidential veto, impeachment or proposing constitutional 
amendments to the States. These are well-defined circumstances not open 
to interpretation.
  Unfortunately, there will always be numerous interpretations on the 
question of whether or not a bill will ``increase revenue more than a 
de minimis amount.''
  The fact that we have not been able to adhere to our own tax 
limitation rules should give us a fairly good idea of how problematic 
this constitutional amendment will be to the body.
  In the 104th Congress, we had a rule that required a three-fifths 
vote on bills involving Federal income tax increases. The story of the 
tax limitation rule's application in the last Congress was one of 
waiver after waiver after waiver because many bills included changes in 
the tax system that could be classified as tax increases.
  The rule was waived for the 1996 budget reconciliation report. It was 
waived for the Medicare preservation bill. It was waived for the Health 
Coverage and Availability Act.
  In recent history, no major tax changes, whether signed by a 
Democratic or Republican president, passed both houses with a two-
thirds majority vote. If we could not function with a three-fifths 
requirement that included a waiver provision, how possibly could anyone 
think we could function with a two-thirds requirement that could only 
be waived by war or by amending the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution is serious business which 
should not be conducted haphazardly. Some very tough questions have not 
come even close to being answered; and I, therefore, urge my colleagues 
to act responsibly and reject this tax day publicity pageantry and vote 
``no'' on House Joint Resolution 62.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution; 
and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time. I am pleased 
to be one of the original cosponsors of this bill.
  A little over 2 years ago, President Clinton's budget, in a footnote 
that

[[Page H1483]]

was often mentioned by Ross Perot, said the young people born that year 
would pay average lifetime tax rates of 82 percent.
  Paul Tsongas a well-respected member of the other party who served 
for 10 years in the House and Senate, wrote a column about this and he 
called it an incredible 82 percent; and he said that we were in danger 
of turning the young people into indentured servants for the 
Government, and he predicted that in a very few years we would have a 
war between the generations.
  Already today the average person pays almost half of his or her 
income in taxes and in paying the cost of regulations. Very few people 
really realize how much they are paying. But when you add up sales 
taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, Social Security taxes, 
it is a tremendous sum; income taxes become a small part of the whole 
burden.
  Unfortunately, for too many people, too many people believe that if 
the Government sends them back a small refund, it is doing them some 
kind of a favor.
  As many people have pointed out, today it takes two incomes to do 
what one did just a few years ago. Today one spouse basically works to 
support the Government, while the other spouse works to support the 
family.
  Mr. Speaker, the people of this country can spend their own money 
better than than the bureaucrats can spend it for them. The easiest 
thing in the world to do, Mr. Speaker, is to spend other people's 
money. We need to make it harder for Government to take so much money 
from the people.
  The Government at all levels, but particularly at the Federal level, 
is becoming increasingly arrogant and coercive. We need to take this 
coercive society that we have created today and turn it into a great 
and free society once again.
  We can do this if we leave to the people the power, the freedom to 
have more control over their own money. We need to require a two-thirds 
majority vote to pass a tax increase. Very few people in this country 
think that taxes are too low.
  Those who want to see the 82 percent tax rate predicted in President 
Clinton's budget just 2 years ago should vote against this legislation. 
Those who want to hold down taxes should vote for this resolution.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding time to me for the purpose of debating the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of discussion today about the fact 
or the alleged fact that the supporters of this bill are trying to do 
the public taxpayers a favor. I want to take issue with that. I want to 
do it in two different ways.
  First of all, I want to say to my colleagues, and individuals who may 
be listening to this argument also, that in 1952 corporate income taxes 
contributed 32 percent of the Federal revenue. By 1992, corporate 
income taxes contributed a total of 9 percent of the total Federal 
revenue.
  During that period of time when corporate income taxes were becoming 
a smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller part of the Federal 
budget, many, many loopholes were put into our tax laws that provide 
substantial corporate tax benefits to corporations. Now, if this 
amendment passes, if this constitutional amendment passes, those 
loopholes that are currently in the law will require a two-thirds 
majority of this House to be removed from the law.
  So if there is any individual taxpayer in America, any person in 
America who thinks that this bill is about protecting individual 
taxpayers, they had better think again. What it is really about is 
protecting corporate tax interests who have already seen their 
percentage of the Federal revenues decreased over the last 40 years 
from 32 percent of our revenues down to 9 percent.
  Who was it that picked up the burden of that corporate tax reduction? 
It was individuals. So anybody who is suffering under the impression 
that this is for the benefit of individual taxpayers, dissuade yourself 
of that notion. It is just simply not the case.
  The second point I want to make on this has to do with the 
constitutional framework in which we operate, the concept of majority 
rule. Every 10 years we are required by law to take a census of the 
number of people in this country, and by constitutional law, to 
redistrict the entire Congress of the United States for election 
purposes.
  The reason for that redistribution, and in that process some States 
that have gained population gain representatives, some States that have 
lost population over the last 10 years lose representatives, but the 
reason we go through that process is to assure that every single person 
in the United States has equal representation in this House of 
Representatives. Every single district in America is supposed to 
represent approximately the same number of people. The reason we do 
that is because we believe in the whole concept of majority rule.
  Every single Member of this body who comes in here representing equal 
constituencies, on almost every single item with the exception of four 
or five things that were delineated in the original Constitution of the 
United States, has an equal vote.
  Mr. Speaker, what these cavalier gentlemen would like to do is to 
upset that balance, to say to the American people that their vote is 
less important unless they are in the minority or majority, depending 
on which side they happen to be on. Any time we require something other 
than a majority vote in this House, we are diminishing the value of 
somebody's vote out there in the public.
  I want to dissuade all of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and the 
American people, that this is not about taxation. This is about the 
equal representation that all of us fought so hard for and that our 
ancestors fought so hard to protect, the whole theory of democratic 
rule.
  My colleagues on the other side are going to get up and tell us we 
are trying to protect the American people. What they are doing is 
protecting their corporate interests. We have seen it over the last 40 
years, a reduction in the amount corporations contribute to support the 
Government, and what they are doing is diminishing the right of every 
single individual voter in this country by saying, oh, no, your vote is 
not as important as somebody else's vote in this body.
  I have risen on the floor of this House to oppose every single 
constitutional amendment that they have proposed. They keep saying that 
they are conservatives. What is conservatism but to uphold the 
Constitution of our United States?
  This new conservative majority has proposed 118 constitutional 
amendments in the last 2 years. This new conservative majority brought 
four constitutional amendments to the floor of the House last year. 
That is an average of four times more than any Congress in the last 10 
years.
  They would have us believe that this is about upholding some 
constitutional conservative principle. Defending the Constitution as it 
is written is the conservative notion, Mr. Speaker. I think we should 
reject this amendment and stand up for the power of individual citizens 
in this country.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this taxpayer 
protection amendment. Early in this century, Congress passed a 
constitutional amendment to make it easier for the Federal Government 
to tax people. The 16th amendment authorizes a direct Federal income 
tax.
  Now as we near the end of the 21st century we have some significant 
experience with heavy Federal taxation. I think one inescapable 
conclusion we must draw from our Nation's experience is that the 
Federal Government does not find it difficult to raise taxes. Rather, 
it finds it all too easy. We need to pass structural constitutional 
protections for the American taxpayers, to make it harder to raise 
taxes.

                              {time}  1515

  Most of what goes on in this town involves taking and spending other 
people's money. Political power determines how much money is taken away 
from people who earn it, and political power determines to whom that 
money

[[Page H1484]]

is given. People who have to spend most of their time earning a living 
for themselves and to support their families do not have very much time 
or very much say over how the taxing and spending goes on in this town. 
And they get ripped off time and time again.
  For example, just look at the so-called market access program under 
which money is taken away from taxpayers and given to corporate trade 
associations to advertise their products overseas. Sure, it is a 
ripoff, a $100-million-a-year ripoff. But the big corporations that 
benefit from it have real incentives to lobby here in Washington to 
keep the transfers going and the money coming from the taxpayers, and 
the taxpayers get hit.
  In recent years to pay for programs like this, the Federal Government 
has raised taxes on the gasoline people buy. It has raised taxes on 
working seniors. It has raised taxes on small businesses. The 
Government's share of the average American family income has gone up, 
when it was born, from around 5 percent, now it is 25 percent. That is 
a 500-percent increase just during my lifetime. We all know the Federal 
Government has not gotten 500 percent better. The Government taxes 
people to pay for the entertainment of rich elites in the NEA. The 
Government taxes people to build roads through national forests for 
private lumber companies. The Government taxes people in order to 
subsidize the profits of various utility companies.
  Those who argue that we cannot have structural protections in the 
Constitution requiring a supermajority here ignore other similar 
protections: the requirement that a bill pass through two different 
Houses of Congress, for example; the power of the President to veto 
legislation; it takes two-thirds to override a Presidential veto; the 
constitutional limitations restricting Federal power to specifically 
enumerated areas. All of these are valuable protections against 
congressional abuse.
  Oppressive increases in Federal taxation have got to stop. We cannot 
keep increasing the frequency with which Congress goes back to the well 
and raises taxes over and over again. It is too easy for the Government 
to raise taxes on hard-working American people. I urge passage of this 
protection for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark].
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I could not begin to match the eloquence of the previous 
speakers on this side who would suggest to the American public that 
they are at grave risk of having their Constitution damaged by a 
capricious majority who would today--in kind of a television stunt that 
is hardly worthy of a second rate talk show host--try and convince the 
American people that they are doing something to save them money or to 
save the Government. It is again a sham. There is much that we could be 
doing in this body that is important, and obviously we are not.
  But it is important to note what might have happened had this kind of 
a silly constitutional amendment been agreed upon earlier. Social 
Security would now be bankrupt. It would not have been saved in the 
1984 legislation which did not receive a two-thirds vote. As the 
Republicans have repeatedly tried to raise the taxes on the senior 
citizens for Medicare in their own rule which required two-thirds last 
year, they had to waive the rule to increase the premiums on Medicare 
beneficiaries. That was a Republican move.
  The health coverage availability and affordability bill would have 
imposed additional taxes on withdrawals from medical savings accounts, 
an equally silly idea, but again the Republicans had to waive their own 
rule. The Republicans could not operate, they do not know how to 
operate the House with a two-thirds rule they have in here now. If they 
had to read the Constitution without moving their lips, I suspect they 
would be in real trouble. The House waived or ignored the two-thirds 
rule each time it would have applied.
  This resolution is far more restrictive and it is a bad idea through 
and through. It is a gimmick. It is showboating. It denigrates the 
Constitution. We were all sent here to make tough choices, some 
unpopular. Occasionally it is necessary to raise revenues in this 
country. We would no longer have airport traffic control. Our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure would disappear. The Medicare Social 
Security Program would no longer be able to be kept viable. All of 
these would be the outgrowth of this cockamamie idea that has come up 
and would be much better if we would just pledge allegiance a few more 
times today in honor of those good citizens who do pay their taxes, 
which happens to be mostly the lower middle income folks, I might add, 
and not the rich folks who can take advantage of the many loopholes 
that we have built into the system.
  I urge my colleagues to ignore this, to vote no, to pretend that it 
did not happen, to go back home and say that there are important things 
that this Congress could do but they are not being presented to us by 
the Republican majority.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in this 2-minute period about the tax 
issue directly. I notice that my distinguished colleagues on the other 
side do everything but talk about the direct issue, which is taxes. In 
the 4 years of the Clinton administration, including this fiscal year 
1997, Federal revenues have gone up an average of $88 billion a year, 
$88 billion. The high year was $104 billion; the low year, the year 
that we are currently in, it is estimated to be $52 billion. So that is 
an average of $88 billion increase in Federal revenues during the 
Clinton administration.
  If we go back to the Bush administration, the average was $65 
billion, the high year being, and the low year being $23 billion. If we 
go back to the last 10 years, to include the last 2 years of the Reagan 
administration, we still have an average increase, including the 
Clinton years, the Bush years and the last 2 years of President Reagan, 
$65 billion a year. We do not have a problem of Federal revenues going 
up. We have a problem limiting the revenues going up in terms of tax 
increases and limiting the ability to increase spending.
  I would point out again, in the original Constitution there was a 
zero; there was zero income tax, 100 percent prohibition against any 
direct tax, Article I, Section 9. The 16th amendment to the 
Constitution, 1913, changed that. We need to go back, maybe not 100 
percent prohibition as the Founding Fathers, but a two-thirds vote 
requirement would make it more difficult to raise taxes. I would point 
out, if we would have had a two-thirds requirement on the books, 4 of 
the last 5 major tax increases totaling $666 billion would not have 
occurred. I would hope that we can talk about the substance of the 
amendment and what it would do, which would make it more difficult to 
raise taxes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair 
concerning the amount of time remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Solomon). The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Canady] has 49\3/4\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Scott] has 67\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Barton] has 26 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise here today in support of House Joint Resolution 
62, the tax limitation amendment. As a private citizen in Nevada, I led 
an effort to amend our State constitution with this very same language. 
I am proud to say that after passing overwhelmingly in 2 consecutive 
elections, and may I say both with over 70 percent support of the 
voters, that initiative, the Gibbons tax restraint initiative, as it 
became known, has become law in Nevada, a policy that says, we need to 
put a leash on runaway spending and tax increases. The Federal 
Government needs to be put on a fat-free diet by making it more 
difficult to raise taxes, we shift the focus of the balanced budget 
debate to where it needs to be, on the spending.
  Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. States with similar 
supermajority requirements for tax increases experience greater 
economic

[[Page H1485]]

growth, lower taxes, and reduced growth in spending.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice 
the somewhat pained look on the face of my friend from Florida, when 
the Chair told him he had 49 minutes remaining. Time goes quickly when 
you are having fun, I would have to say to the enthusiastic advocate of 
this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, we should note that today is the day when under the law 
of the country, the Republican majority should be giving us their 
budget. We have no budget. They do not want to present the budget, and 
what we have today is a diversion, a proposal that is not taken 
seriously by all but a handful on the other side, that no one thinks is 
going to go anywhere, and it is an effort to divert people's attention 
from the fact that they have failed their legislative responsibility to 
bring forward a budget.
  The problem is not for them that it is too easy to raise taxes. It is 
that for all of their rhetoric, it is too hard to cut spending. The 
gentleman from Texas, the author of the amendment, said if this 
amendment had been in effect we would have $666 billion less in 
revenue. Well, I assume when those who advocate this amendment would 
show us how they could cut $666 billion a year out of spending. But 
they will not; they will not even try.
  What we have is the emptiest rhetoric imaginable, all of this breast 
beating about cutting spending but not a nickel cut. Where is their 
budget?
  If, in fact, they believe that we have overtaxed and that the remedy 
is to reduce spending, why have they failed their statutory 
responsibility to bring forward a budget?
  What happened was a few years ago, a year and a half ago, 1995, the 
Republican majority found out that there is a great inconsistency 
between their talk about reducing spending in general and their 
interest in reelection in particular. The public did not like it when 
they shutdown the Government. They are not prepared to live up to the 
rhetoric. They are not prepared in fact to propose those spending 
reductions.
  So we sit around here waiting, I guess, for heaven-sent spending 
reductions. We go pass the time when we are supposed to do the budget, 
and they talk about a tax limitation amendment.
  There are a couple of problems with the amendment on its own terms. 
In the first place, with this amendment, we have to be very careful 
because every time we turn around it is a new form.
  The fact is, it is very difficult to put into the Constitution 
legislation of this sort. Defining taxes for this purpose is difficult. 
Last week they got through the Committee on the Judiciary a version of 
this that they did not notice until we pointed it out to them 
apparently would have required a two-thirds vote to cut the capital 
gains tax. Because under their view, cutting the capital gains tax 
increases revenue, and their amendment was worded so we would have 
needed a two-thirds vote to cut the capital gains tax.
  We pointed that out to them so we have a new version of the amendment 
which takes care of that. But there are other problems.
  There are Members who have argued that one thing we should do to 
balance the budget is to cut back on the Consumer Price Index and what 
it triggers. I am not in favor of that as a whole; some Members are. 
But I understand this: The Consumer Price Index controls tax brackets. 
The Consumer Price Index determines tax bracketing. If we were to 
reduce the Consumer Price Index, as the Boskin Commission recommended, 
we would be increasing tax revenues because we would be changing the 
bracketing in a way that brought in more revenue. So if this 
constitutional amendment were part of the Constitution, it would then 
take two-thirds to reduce the CPI.
  Now, if we had another version of this coming up they would probably 
change it to do that. The problem is, we cannot put into the 
Constitution this sort of procedure. But there is a more profound 
problem. This bespeaks a majority that does not trust the American 
public. This bespeaks Members who do not think they can get a majority.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the CPI is not part of the Internal 
Revenue Code so it would not take a two-thirds vote. In fact, it would 
not even take a vote. We could do that by executive order or by 
regulation of the Department of Labor.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to have 
the advocate that says you need a two-thirds vote of the Congress to 
raise taxes say he wishes it could be done instead by Executive order, 
because understand, first of all, that changing the CPI the way the 
Boskin Commission said would increase taxes.

                              {time}  1530

  It would increase the rate of taxation on people because of what it 
would do with the brackets.
  The gentleman from Texas, not surprisingly, said I do not want to do 
that; let the President do that by executive order. So on the one hand 
he wants it to be a two-thirds vote, and on the other hand he wants the 
President to do it by Executive order.
  He may not have read the most recent version of his amendment, 
because it does not say the Internal Revenue Code. It quite 
specifically, as we were told in the Committee on the Judiciary, does 
not say the Internal Revenue Code, it says the internal revenue of the 
United States, small ``i'' small ``r''. So when the gentleman says this 
does not affect the Internal Revenue Code, that is wrong.
  Finally, the CPI does directly affect the brackets. If we reduce the 
CPI, then we reduce the indexation of brackets and the result is higher 
revenues.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to yield to 
the gentleman from Texas if he wants to appeal to the President to get 
him out of this one again.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, that 
did not state my preference. I simply said what the amendment would 
cover and would not cover.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me 
be clear. The gentleman did not mean, and I apologize to the gentleman, 
I will not in the future confuse what he says with what he believes, if 
that is what I am supposed to interpret. It did seem to me like he was 
saying we will let the President do that one.
  In fact, however, the point is still valid. This amendment does not 
deal with the Internal Revenue Code, big ``I'', big ``R'', big ``C''. 
It says the generic, the internal revenue of the United States. And 
cutting the CPI would increase the internal revenue of the United 
States, and it would clearly require a two-thirds vote.
  The point is it should not require a two-thirds vote. Democracy 
should be allowed to function. Today there is not a majority in this 
country for raising taxes. There might be a majority for reducing 
taxes.
  Suppose 10 years from now there is a different majority. Suppose 10 
years from now people have changed their views? We have had economic 
growth; they want to deal more fully with certain things. They, in 
fact, decide they have to get that debt down and they would be willing 
to vote a tax increase dedicated to reducing the national debt.
  That ought to be a decision that the majority of the American people 
could take if they want to, and this is one more obstacle that we are 
trying to put in the way, those who support this, in the path of a 
majority.
  The majority today ought to do what it thinks is right. If it wants 
to reduce taxes, it should reduce taxes. If it wants to keep them the 
same, it should keep them the same. If it wants to cut spending, it 
should cut spending, although the majority apparently does not want to 
do that, because that would require a budget that requires tough 
political discussions, and they want to avoid those.
  But what we should not do is to say, because we have a majority 
today, we will change the basic rules so that 10 years from now, if a 
new majority said things have been pretty good economically and we 
could afford a tax increase

[[Page H1486]]

to reduce the deficit, we should not require that to take two-thirds.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Riley].
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
American taxpayer and in support of the tax limitation amendment.
  To put it simply, taxes on Americans are too high. The average 
American taxpayer works until May 7 to earn enough income to pay an 
entire year's tax. When we factor in local and State taxes, U.S. 
taxpayers will spend more time working for the Government than for 
their own families. Clearly, taxes are out of control.
  Mr. Speaker, the tax limitation amendment will provide Congress with 
the needed discipline to once and for all hold the line on taxes.
  Today we have heard from the naysayers and the doomsdayers who fear 
that the sky will fall if the tax limitation amendment is passed. They 
are rightfully concerned. This is because so many in Washington still 
lack the courage to make the tough decisions, the tough decisions that 
today will create a better America for tomorrow.
  The tax limitation amendment will indeed make it tougher for Congress 
to raise taxes, and that is exactly why I support it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Hall].
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint 
Resolution 62, the tax limitation amendment.
  Today is a day that a lot of hard-working Americans, honest and 
decent people, have come to view with a sense of despair, hopelessness, 
and some even fear. It is not a sense of selfishness but rather a sense 
of disenfranchisement with the process which causes so many millions of 
Americans to believe that Government spending and taxes are out of 
control.
  If we had had this amendment back 3 years ago, we would not have had 
the largest tax increase in the history of this country. If we had had 
this in 1986, when we had Chairman Rostenkowski and President Reagan 
pushing for a tax bill, for a new tax reform act, we would not have had 
this. That is the worst thing, in my opinion, that has hit this 
Congress since I have been up here.
  Today we have an obligation to our constituents to let them know that 
we are listening to what they say and that we are willing to take some 
responsibility by endorsing a very concrete step toward slowing the 
rate of growth in spending and moving closer always toward the goal of 
what we have all been seeking, what the President says he wants, what 
the House and Senate say they want, and that is a balanced budget.
  Today we are asked to vote for or against the tax limitation 
amendment, House Joint Resolution 62. This proposal would amend the 
Constitution so as to require a two-thirds supermajority vote in both 
Chambers of Congress as a prerequisite for passage of any legislation 
which would raise taxes by more than a de minimis amount.
  This resolution covers income taxes, estate and gift taxes, payroll 
taxes, and excise taxes. It does not cover tariffs, user fees, 
voluntary premiums, and other items which are not part of the internal 
revenue laws. Currently, just such a rule is in place in the House to 
make certain that we all go on record when a tax increase is proposed. 
However, this rule does not apply to the U.S. Senate; it only applies 
this term to the House.
  We are just asking to bring some discipline into the process. We are 
asking to make it a little bit harder to tax the American people. This 
is a day to make it a little bit harder to tax the American people, the 
day when they are parting with their money, 40 percent, upper or lower, 
depending on their bracket or their area, of all the money they have 
made all of last year.
  The many good people in my district, the 4th Congressional District, 
have been unified and very clear in communicating to me their desire to 
see Congress balance the budget. The tax limitation amendment would 
simply challenge Congress to balance the budget without gouging hard-
working individuals with regular tax increases.
  Contrary to some arguments made by pro-spending opponents of this 
resolution, the tax limitation amendment does not hamper efforts to 
close so-called loopholes, because tax increases below a small amount 
are not subject to the two-thirds requirement.
  Those of us who are working toward fundamental tax reform will not be 
impeded either, because so long as the end result does not increase the 
tax burden, tax reform bills will not be subjected to the supermajority 
requirement.
  The tax limitation amendment makes good sense. It restores discipline 
on a system which has spun out of control. Our constituents are 
overburdened now by a system which has for years left the doors wide 
open for tax increases to be slipped in as riders to all kinds of 
legislation. We have to reverse our course and restore a sound business 
approach to the Government by passing the tax limitation amendment, 
thereby committing ourselves to going on record so that our 
constituents can see us vote either yes or no when their pocketbooks 
are at stake.
  I am proud to be the lead Democrat on this bill, along with the 
gentleman from Mississippi, Gene Taylor, and I urge all my colleagues 
to deliver some relief to the overtaxed and disenfranchised 
constituents today by voting the passage of the tax limitation 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, we have people from all walks of life who support this. 
We have the American Conservative Union, the Americans For Tax Reform. 
We talk about senior citizens. The Senior Coalition, United Seniors 
Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Tax Limitation 
Committee, and I could go on and on. People want us to bring some 
discipline to this House and discipline to the taxation that takes away 
the money that they work so hard for.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Sessions], the distinguished gentleman from the Fifth 
District and one of the whips in this effort to pass the amendment 
today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support not only the 
gentleman from Texas, Joe Barton, but also the previous speaker, the 
gentleman from the Fourth District of Texas, the Honorable Ralph Hall.
  As the Congressman from the Fifth District of Texas, I can tell my 
colleagues that these gentlemen understand and know not only what 
freedom is but also how to go about it.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats across the country ran on the 
promise to lower taxes for all Americans. The tax limitation amendment 
is important because it protects the American people from excessive 
taxes. It restores accountability to elected officials and forces 
Congress to prioritize how they spend the American people's money.
  Future generations deserve lower taxes. Responsible leaders in the 
Federal Government that only spends money on those things that are 
within its constitutional mandate are critical to the success of not 
only today but our future.
  If we believe that all Americans deserve to keep more of their hard-
earned dollars while paying less in taxes, then the tax limitation 
amendment is a positive change. If we want to promote prudent financial 
responsibility and a stronger, healthier economy by cutting off the 
supply of taxpayer dollars to Washington's spending machine, then the 
tax limitation amendment is the right thing to do.
  If we also believe that the Federal Government should have more power 
and control over people's lives and resources, then the tax limitation 
amendment makes our life more difficult. If we believe that the 
American people deserve more government interference while they 
continue to pay close to 40 percent of their earnings to the Federal 
Government, then the tax limitation amendment is not a welcome change. 
Tax increases are not the answer to any problem. A balanced budget, a 
trimmed-back Federal Government, a healthy economy, and meaningful tax 
reform are important.
  Seventy percent of taxpayers support a supermajority requirement for 
Congress to raise taxes. I think it is time that we as Republicans and 
Democrats listen to America, listen to the taxpayer, and listen to 
those who put us in

[[Page H1487]]

office. Let us do the right thing. I am in support of the tax 
limitation amendment.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], a valued member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I had not planned on coming over here, because I am working on 
another matter known well to the Speaker, but I felt obliged to be 
here.
  Let us first admit what has gotten us into this mess: Excessive 
spending for the past 25 to 30 years. If more prudence had been 
practiced in those days, folks, we would not be here talking about 
this. That cow, however, is out of the barn, so now we have to play the 
hand that is dealt us.
  I am not one in favor of rushing to the Constitution each time the 
whim strikes me, but we live in an era today, Mr. Speaker, when 
activities occur regularly that would astound our Founding Fathers.
  I was talking to one of my constituents about 3 weeks ago, and she 
told me how much taxes she must pay on or before today. This woman is 
not impoverished, but she is by no measuring stick wealthy. She would 
be lower middle. The amount she told me almost knocked me off my chair.
  As imperfect as it is, my friends, there is no doubt that the United 
States of America is the greatest country in the world, but oftentimes 
I wonder if other countries impose such hardships upon savings, upon 
investing, upon hard work as America does.
  Capital gains and estate tax. Let us call the estate tax what it is, 
the death tax. They are probably the two most lucid illustrations I 
could offer. The estate tax ought to be abolished. Forget about 
reducing it or increasing the threshold, it should be abolished. It 
generates relatively little revenue when compared to total tax 
collections.
  Tax day and the IRS are synonymous. I look across this great hall and 
see my friend from Ohio, who is probably the most outspoken critic of 
the IRS. And I am not saying that all IRS agents and employees are no 
good; I am not saying that at all. I am certain there are many who are 
good Federal employees. But I am equally certain, Mr. Speaker, that 
there is much heavy-handed activity, there is much yanking taxpayers 
around, there is much intimidation that flows from the IRS to taxpayers 
who are then placed in vulnerable positions. Such activity is 
intolerable and inexcusable and should not be allowed to be practiced.

                              {time}  1545

  Finally, the more difficult we can make it to increase taxes, the 
better all America will be served.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say, happy tax day, America.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today is a day that is 
dreaded by all Americans for one reason or another. Today, April 15, is 
commonly known as tax day but in deference to my friend who just spoke 
a moment ago, as he said, happy tax day, I think a more appropriate 
description of this initiative would be happy gimmick day. All that is 
missing would be to have that individual who used to stand in the well 
of the House with a TV Guide in his hand and an ice bucket on his arm 
talking about term limits after having served for 18 years, that 12 is 
good enough for the rest of us, and then we ought to talk about the 
balanced budget amendment, how everybody on that side was thankful that 
it was defeated. And then we talked about the line-item veto and they 
are once again in good shape because a Federal judge turned down that 
initiative.
  This is about another gimmick, Mr. Speaker. That is what this 
initiative is proposed for today. It is to call attention to the 
failure of the majority to administer the House. We should be speaking 
about balancing the budget today, and that is where our time should be 
more appropriately spent.
  We went through this exercise exactly 1 year ago today, because, 
thank goodness, rational minds prevailed and the resolution fell 37 
votes short of the majority required to change the Constitution. Every 
time we do not like something around this institution during the last 4 
or 6 years, we suggest that we ought to alter the Constitution for 
short-term political gain.
  Instead of holding this publicity stunt today, Mr. Speaker, we ought 
to be working on balancing the budget. This resolution is not going to 
help individual taxpayers. But a balanced budget would help all of us 
today. If we want to help taxpayers, we should be enacting legislation 
like an expanded individual retirement account. But instead we are 
debating an amendment to the Constitution. It ought to be done with 
these discussions in a serious manner.
  This proposal that we are offering today would offer a change in 
revenue if it is determined at the time of adoption in a reasonable 
manner prescribed by law, not to increase internal revenue by more than 
a de minimis amount. This resolution does nothing but compound our 
current budget stalemate and debate.
  Twenty years ago I was standing in a classroom teaching American 
history to high school students and to college students. I value the 
Constitution. I tried to pass that on to my students. The Constitution 
requires a two-thirds majority vote in the House in only three 
instances: overriding a President's veto, submission of a 
constitutional amendment to the States, and expelling a Member from the 
House. These instances differ substantially from the issue before us 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my colleagues today as we begin this 
debate, this proposal is about the next election. It is not about 
balancing the budget. This proposal is how we once again can speak to 
the concerns and qualms of wealthy Americans at the expense of middle 
and lower income people. Time and again we have had opportunities to 
address this balanced budget necessity, but instead we come up with 
superfluous issues like the one that is proposed today.
  The Founding Fathers examined what majority rule meant. Why should 
one-third of the Members of this institution determine the fate of an 
initiative that is as important to the future of this country as this 
one? Why should one-third of the Members of this institution be allowed 
to veto the long-term interests of this Nation?
  I hear Members come to this well on that side and talk about the 
conservative virtues that made this Nation strong. And in the same 
breath, we have a constitutional amendment proposed here to address 
every political concern that they have.
  Our time would be better served today speaking to balancing the 
budget. Jefferson's most prized student, James Madison, reviewed the 
question of what constituted a majority in a legislative body. They 
concluded, based upon the bad experience of the Articles of 
Confederation where 9 votes were required of the 13 to raise revenue, 
that it was a bad idea.
  This proposal is about demagoguery, it is about dividing this 
Congress, but it goes to the main issue, the core issue, of any 
legislative body, and that is the right of the majority, the simple 
majority, to set responsibilities every single day. And by any 
objective standard, this proposal fails that measurement. We should be 
spending our time today focusing on balancing the budget and not upon 
these kind of superficial initiatives.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard quite a bit of dissemination about what 
the amendment may or may not cover. Let me actually read the relevant 
part of the amendment, section 1. Any bill, resolution or other 
legislative measure changing the internal revenue laws, and I want to 
emphasize, changing the internal revenue laws, shall require for final 
adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members of 
that House present and voting unless that bill is determined at the 
time of adoption and in a reasonable manner prescribed by law not to 
increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount. For 
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. On any vote for which the 
concurrence of two-thirds is required under this article, the yeas and 
nays of the Members of either House shall be entered on the journal of 
that House.
  So in plain English, it takes a two-thirds vote to raise Federal 
income

[[Page H1488]]

taxes. Right now there is $5.7 trillion of personal income in this 
country, of which about $2.6 trillion is considered to be taxable. If 
we came to the floor of the House and tried to raise the Federal income 
tax rate 1 percent, that would be between $26 billion and $57 billion a 
year. It would take a two-thirds vote to do that, in plain simple 
English, a two-thirds vote to raise personal income taxes even 1 
percent. So let there be no mistake. That is what we are trying to do, 
make it more difficult to raise income taxes.
  Members do not have to take some Congressman's word for this that it 
might work. They do not have to take a professor's word that it might 
work. We have 14 States that have this in their State constitution or 
in their State laws. There are 4 States that have passed it since last 
year, Missouri, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota have passed a 
supermajority requirement, in most cases a two-thirds supermajority 
requirement, since last year, and the total is 14 States, including the 
largest State, the great State of California, which has had this on the 
books since 1978. In those States that have it, in these 14 States, 
there are certain facts that are true in every State.
  What are those facts? In States that have a supermajority for a tax 
increase, taxes go up. We are not saying you would not prohibit any tax 
increase, but they go up more slowly: 102 percent in tax limitation 
States versus 112 percent in States that do not have any kind of tax 
limitations. That is a 10 percent difference. Ten percent at the 
Federal level would be over $100 billion a year.
  In the States that have tax limitation, consequently State spending 
goes up slower, 132 percent versus 141 percent. That is a 9 percent 
difference. And because the State spending is going up more slowly, the 
State economies, the private sector economies, grow faster, 43 percent 
versus 35 percent. And because the economies are growing faster in 
those States, employment is growing faster, 26 percent versus 21 
percent, or a 5 percent difference.
  Again, in plain English, tax limitation works. Supermajority 
requirements for tax limitation actually works. If it works in these 
States, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South 
Dakota, and Washington, it will also work in Washington, DC, at the 
Federal level.
  Again, we are not trying to make it impossible to raise income taxes; 
we are just trying to make it more difficult. When the time comes to 
vote on this, just keep in mind a 1 percent increase in personal income 
tax is going to result in $26 billion to $57 billion a year increase in 
Federal revenue, and as I pointed out earlier, Federal revenues have 
gone up an average of $88 billion a year the last 4 years.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we have withholding taxes, income taxes, 
sales taxes, excise taxes, liquor taxes, ticket taxes. We even created 
a surtax once. We taxed tax years ago. We coined recently a retroactive 
tax. We taxed before the tax really would start so the tax did not look 
as bad as when it started.
  Mr. Speaker, how many ways can Congress raise taxes? I would say if 
Congress was as creative in creating jobs, we would not have any 
problem with taxes and any problem with revenue. We would have no 
deficit.
  The truth of the matter is today is tax day. The American people are 
taxed off. We are not talking about the old taxes, and the possible new 
taxes. What about the hidden taxes that seem to creep up on us? But I 
just take a look at the whole scheme. Here is the way it is in America.
  If you work hard, you get hit on the head and you pay a lot of taxes. 
If you do not work, the Government sends you a check. Beam me up. 
Congress debates today corporation taxes, and more corporation taxes. 
My God, they can move to Mexico and pay no taxes. Why stay here the way 
it is?
  We should be incentivizing and strategizing with the Tax Code, a Tax 
Code that is so cumbersome you need three accountants and two attorneys 
and, by God, if you get audited they will all run for the hills and say 
they did not tell you those things. You know it and I know it. Our Tax 
Code kills jobs; kills, in fact, investment; rewards dependence; 
penalizes achievement, and in many cases treats the taxpayer like a 
second-class citizen. In fact, in a civil tax court, and the 
Republicans should have dealt with the issue, a taxpayer carries the 
burden of proof this day against an accusation made by the Government, 
if you want to talk about Constitution.
  I think if the American people had a voice in this debate, you know 
what they would say? Tax this, Congress. They are fed up. I think this 
is a simple measure. It deals with income. I am not one to vote for 
constitutional amendments. But quite frankly, how many ways can we tax 
people? And the American people are sitting back waiting for someone in 
the Congress to do something.
  I want to give credit to the Republicans. They are trying. But let me 
say this. There is an awful lot more that could be done. I suggest 
changing our Tax Code, rewarding work, not nonwork, giving people more 
of their income, by cutting income taxes and creating a consumption 
tax, get everybody in America participating, even those deadbeats that 
avoid the payment of income taxes, folks.
  But I think there is one element that is left out of this debate, and 
I think it is the taxpayer. I think they just have a train coming at 
them, they are on the track and they are looking not just for some 
relief, they are looking for some justice.
  I support this constitutional amendment. I applaud the efforts of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and those who have brought it 
forward. I doubt if it will become law. You know that and I know that. 
But if we make some common sense here, we would reward work. The 
American people are taxed off and rightfully so.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt].

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  The Framers of the Constitution were very practical people, and most 
held profound beliefs about democracy, but their goal was above all to 
design a system of government that would work. They recognized that 
certain key questions such as treaty ratification, conviction and 
impeachment trials or expulsion of a Member of Congress demand more 
than the customary majority. But with respect to the normal operation 
of government, they provided in all cases for a simple majority vote. 
They made no exception for taxation. Pause and reflect for a moment: 
They made no exception even for declarations of war. Mr. Speaker, what 
they rightly feared was that a supermajority requirement would give 
minorities a veto over the political process.
  As Madison wrote in The Federalist papers, ``It would be no longer 
the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the 
minority. An interested minority might take advantage of it to screen 
themselves from equitable sacrifices to the common wheel, or, in 
particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.''
  Madison could have been describing the very amendment before us 
today. It would give a veto over revenue bills to a minority of Members 
of either House. It would enable Members of Congress representing one-
third of the population or Senators chosen by one-tenth of the 
population to block revenue measures supported by the vast majority of 
Americans. It would give these minorities enormous leverage in an 
emergency to extract concessions in exchange for their support.
  The proposed amendment pays lip service to this concern by allowing 
the two-thirds requirement to be waived in the event of war, yet it 
would probably be easier to obtain a two-thirds vote to raise taxes 
during wartime than in my other perilous circumstances. The bill makes 
no provision at all for hurricanes, floods, terrorist attacks or other 
localized disasters, let alone a severe economic crisis or a breakdown 
in the financial system itself. Furthermore, it would make it virtually 
impossible to eliminate corporate subsidies and other loopholes in the 
tax system. Corporate welfare would be difficult to reform.

[[Page H1489]]

  The proponents of this amendment seem willing to accept these 
consequences, for they rejected a series of amendments in committee 
which would have addressed at least some of these concerns. They also 
seem determined to repeat past mistakes.
  I was not a Member of this House when the current majority took 
control in 1995, but I know the House adopted a rule at that time 
requiring a three-fifths majority to raise taxes. Unfortunately, having 
created this rule, the majority found it impossible to govern in 
accordance with it, and it was repeatedly waived or ignored.
  Today the majority invites us to graft this failed rule with two-
thirds vote onto the Constitution of the United States where it cannot 
be waived and it cannot be ignored, and this is an invitation that we 
should and must decline.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for the 
time, and I welcome the gentleman from Massachusetts to this body. In 
the spirit of bipartisanship, I think it is great for us to be able to 
debate these issues and to take a look at some different perspectives.
  I appreciated the citation of a quotation from James Madison, who 
perhaps more than any one individual is responsible for the 
Constitution of the United States. I would also try to put at ease the 
mind of my good friend from Ohio who rose in support of this amendment 
who said he was not that fond of voting for constitutional amendments. 
He was somewhat reluctant. Certainly our friends in opposition to this 
amendment will readily note the veracity of article V of the 
Constitution, which gives us as the people of the United States the 
ability from time to time to amend this Constitution.
  Indeed I would only take issue with one observation of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts when he quoted James Madison, and that would be 
this: that when James Madison penned those words at the outset of this 
Nation, he did not have to deal with the 16th amendment to the 
Constitution that led to the direct taxation of personal income. Indeed 
those who would wrap themselves in the Constitution and talk glowingly 
about preserving the integrity of this document have to deal with that 
essential fact. For if it were such a great and good idea, if it were 
the intent of the founders to directly tax income, then they would have 
included that in the body of the Constitution or in those first few 
amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
  No, Mr. Speaker, the wisdom of our Founders comes from the fact that 
they realized from time to time because governments are constituted of 
men who attempt to make laws that there would be abuse, there would be 
abuse of the electorate, there would be abuse of the citizenry.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts used the term extortion when he 
talked about minorities. No, Mr. Speaker, the extortion has taken place 
when this Government has stuck its hands into the collective wallets of 
hard-working American taxpayers and always, always, and again always 
ratcheted up their taxes, taking more and more to the point now where 
the average American family spends more in taxes than on food, shelter, 
and clothing combined, when the average American family who in 1948 
sent only 3 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal Government, 
at a time last year sent almost one-quarter of its income.
  No, the wisdom is found in article V of the Constitution, which gives 
us the right, indeed the responsibility, to move against those 
procedures in government which have proved troublesome, to say the 
least, more than bothersome, which had proven to be real problems for 
real Americans. That is the wisdom of our Founders found in article V 
and in the wake of the 16th amendment to the Constitution, which 
allowed for the direct taxation of income, which allowed for Washington 
to reach into pockets of average hard-working Americans.
  We must find a counterbalance, and the wisdom is found in this 
amendment that would require a supermajority, as occurs now in my home 
State of Arizona, to restrain the rate of growth of government because, 
as history has shown us, the easiest thing in the world to do is raise 
taxes. The toughest thing in the world to do is to teach this 
Government to live within its limits to allow the American people to 
hold onto more of their hard-earned money and send less of it to 
Washington.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that I wholeheartedly endorse 
this amendment to the Constitution, and I rise in strong support, and I 
fervently hope for its adoption in this body today.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this constitutional amendment. Everything is in the eyes of the 
beholder, but it is very hard for me to understand how one looks at a 
very serious situation like this and then sets a rule of demand, two-
thirds vote to do something on this floor about taxes in a democracy 
that is usually the majority rules, and it has kept us pretty well in 
good shape for the last 200 years.
  But I would like to say a few words. I noticed the gentleman from 
Ohio, one of the strongest advocates of this constitutional amendment 
still said it would not pass. He knew why. Exactly a year ago today we 
had this same constitutional amendment before us, and we have done 
nothing about it until this year when it is rolled out again as another 
public relations type situation.
  But there are some serious things that are involved in this 
amendment. This constitutional amendment can add to the deficit. 
Normally, when revenue raisers and spending provisions are matched to 
ensure that a piece of legislation is paid for when it is passed, they 
do not match exactly, and they rather yield some slight differences and 
are used to reduce the deficit. Reading this legislation, it seems to 
me that this could no longer happen.
  So this amendment precludes a people or authors of the bills that 
they want to adjust their spending upward so to avoid that they will 
adjust their spending upward to avoid a majority, a supermajority 
requirement. Obviously this makes no sense.
  This amendment, and what I am trying to say is this amendment would 
require a supermajority to close down egregious tax shelters, to take 
corporate subsidies that are antiquated, not used anymore or are 
abused, and take those and say, ``You can't eliminate these, you can't 
eliminate tax shelters unless in fact you were doing that to pay for 
somebody else's tax shelter, not to reduce the deficit.'' This 
absolutely once again makes no sense.
  Let us go into another everyday kind of housekeeping type of thing 
that we do around this Congress, and that is authorization. We have 
reauthorization bills before us this year that we certainly hope we can 
pass, Superfund, very important to the environment. Let us do the 
Superfund legislation; as I read this legislation, would take a 
supermajority.
  ISTEA. We finally have something to be happy about. We are going to 
address the whole situation of transportation in this country. We look 
at this, and if my colleagues read the legislation as I am reading it, 
it looks to me like we would have to have a supermajority do, 
reauthorize, the ISTEA bill.
  This whole situation says to me we are in an area that is 
controversial enough, but let us not kill good legislation before we 
even write it. And while we are talking about every day and rules of 
the House, let us talk about rules that were passed in the last 
Congress that in fact said we had to have a supermajority to do this 
very thing as a rule of the House. What happened? The majority could 
not abide by it. They had to waive it time after time after time.
  So I am saying it is OK if my colleagues want to waive a rule; they 
are in the majority. On the other hand, if we pass a constitutional 
amendment that demands a supermajority, we cannot waive a 
constitutional amendment.
  So I stand here fully understanding that this is tax day and that we 
have to address these issues.
  In 1986 we reformed the Tax Code. We did some good things. We took 6 
million people off the Tax Code. We made it simpler. We reduced the 
margin. We did some bad things. We authored a minimum tax. Oh, my 
heavens, to wrestle with that was impossible. Passive loss rules; they 
were much too complicated.

[[Page H1490]]

  It is time that we do tax reform again. We should do tax reform, we 
should not attack those working for the IRS. Today they are working the 
last couple of weeks, and they will continue to work for us to collect 
our taxes to run this country. We need tax reform, we need 
simplification, but let us do it in the right way. These ploys are 
overused, overdone, and we should absolutely not pass this amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Solomon). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of today, further consideration of House Joint Resolution 62 will 
be postponed until after disposition of the two motions to suspend the 
rules on which proceedings were postponed earlier today.

                          ____________________