[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E697-E698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 15, 1997

  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to House 
Joint Resolution 62 as it was considered on the floor of the House of 
Representatives earlier this week. Although the House considered 
related legislation, House Joint Resolution 159, during the 104th 
Congress, the differences between these two measures is substantial. 
House Joint Resolution 159 would have required a supermajority in 
Congress to approve any bill which would raise Federal revenue. This 
year, however, the House leadership decided to include an exception to 
this rule. While I agree there may have been a need to provide for 
exemptions to the supermajority requirement, I believe the leadership 
should have excluded measures which would close tax loopholes or 
eliminate corporate welfare provisions from the Internal Revenue Code. 
Unfortunately, House Joint Resolution 62 did not address either of 
these possibilities.
  Instead, the resolution was specifically altered to allow for a 
change in the Tax Code which would overwhelmingly benefit the 
wealthiest 1 percent of families in the United States. The night before 
this measure was

[[Page E698]]

considered on the floor, Members of the House leadership drafted 
language which would, in effect, exempt legislation designed to modify 
capital gains tax rates.
  As a result, House Joint Resolution 62 would have made it more 
difficult for Congress to cut out corporate welfare, while making it 
easier to enact tax programs that would disproportionately benefit the 
wealthiest Americans. When House Joint Resolution 159 was considered 
during the 104th Congress, it did not contain this glaring inequity, 
and I was able to support it. However, this is clearly not the same 
initiative we considered a year ago.
  I believe it is crucial that Members of Congress commit themselves to 
eliminating the budget deficit and crafting a fair and equitable Tax 
Code. Certainly, an income tax hike is no way to accomplish these 
goals. House Joint Resolution 62, as it was first drafted, was a well-
intentioned initiative, designed to protect the American public from 
such an increase. However, in the end, it became a disfunctional, 
inequitable measure which could have obstructed our path toward these 
objectives. I am pleased the House defeated this measure, and I urge my 
colleagues to turn their attention to eliminating unwarranted revenue 
subsidies and putting our Nation's financial house in order.

                          ____________________