[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2094-H2100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               REQUIRING A TWO-THIRDS VOTE TO RAISE TAXES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hulshof). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this evening to 
speak to the Members of this body about a vote that we are going to 
have tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon to amend the Constitution 
requiring a two-thirds vote of the House and the Senate to raise taxes 
or broaden the tax base.
  The exhibit to my left shows the first 1040 income tax form, which 
was first used in 1914, over 83 years ago. If you look, look down the 
form, you can see that you paid a tax of 1 percent on income over 
$20,000, 1 percent. And if you had income over $50,000, you paid an 
additional, you paid 2 percent.
  If you had income over $75,000, you paid 3 percent. If you had income 
over $100,000, you paid 4 percent. If you had income over $250,000, you 
paid 5 percent. If you had income, net income, not gross income, over 
$600,000, you paid 6 percent.
  Less than 1 out of 100 American citizens had to pay any income tax 
the first year this 1040 form was used. Today, that is not the case. 
The marginal tax rate has gone up to over 40 percent. That is an 
increase of 4,000 percent.
  If we could see the next chart, this is a chart that is through 1995, 
so it is actually about 3 years old now, but you can see back in 1955, 
the tax as a percent of income for two-income families was 27.7 
percent. By 1965, it had gone up about 2 percent to a little over 29 
percent. Ten years later, 1975, it had skyrocketed to 37 percent. And 
since that time, it has been between 37, and in 1995, it was 38.2 
percent. This year, the latest year that we have numbers on, which we 
do not have a chart for, it is right at 39 percent. So almost 40 
percent of two-earner family income is going to pay their taxes.
  What does this mean? It means that the average worker is spending 
almost 3 hours out of every working day simply to pay Uncle Sam's 
taxes. For food, clothing, necessities, they spend 2 hours and 32 
minutes. For the tax man, they spend 2 hours and 47 minutes, and for 
all other expenses, they spend 2 hours and 41 minutes. So we actually 
spend more time working to pay the tax man than we do to provide food, 
clothing and shelter for our families.
  What would a two-thirds vote mean in the real world of voting here in 
Washington, D.C.? It means in the House of Representatives it would 
take 29 votes if all Members were present and voting for a tax 
increase. It means in the Senate, it would take 67 votes instead of the 
current 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House.
  In the real world what that means is not too many tax increases would 
pass. In fact, of the last five major tax increases that we have had 
here on the House floor and over in the Senate, only one of them would 
have passed; 1982, 16 years ago, there was a Tax Equity and Fiscal 
Responsibility Act of 1982, passed the House with 52 percent. It passed 
the Senate with 52 percent. That was $214 billion in taxes would not 
have been collected. That one would have failed.
  In 1987, we had the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which was a 
$40 billion tax increase. It passed in the House with 57 percent. It 
passed in the Senate with 62 percent. A little bit closer to the two-
thirds vote, but it did not get to the two-thirds vote so it would have 
failed.
  In 1989, we did have a tax increase that would have passed muster 
under the two-thirds vote for a tax increase. Only $25 billion, but it 
did pass the House with 68 percent of the vote, just barely passing the 
two-thirds vote necessary; the Senate, 93 percent. That one for $25 
billion additional tax dollars on the American people would have become 
law.
  In 1990, we had a $137 billion tax increase. It passed the House with 
53 percent and the Senate with 55 percent, $137 billion; it would have 
failed.
  Most recently, in 1993, the big Clinton tax increase passed the House 
by two votes, 218 to 216, so that is 50.2 percent, and in the Senate it 
passed 51 to 49. That one would have failed. So the last five major tax 
increase votes we have had going back over 16 years, only one, in 1989, 
would have passed the two-thirds muster. So the tax burden on the 
American people would have been lower by a little over $800 billion.
  Supermajority would protect taxpayers from unnecessary tax increases. 
As I said earlier, the last big tax increase vote that we had, the 1993 
Clinton tax increase, would have failed.
  You may be asking yourself, this is a good idea in theory, but does 
it really work? Well, the answer is, it does really work. The States 
are using supermajority votes to require tax increases. There are 14 
States, and I have got them listed here on this chart, and they have 
various measures requiring tax increase.
  In 1992, the State of Arizona passed a State constitutional amendment 
for all tax increases that says if you want it to pass, it has to get a 
two-thirds vote in the Arizona legislature. Back in 1934, over 60 years 
ago, the State of Arkansas where our current President was Governor 
before he became President, passed a three-fourths vote requirement for 
any tax increase.

[[Page H2095]]

  California, in 1978, first on property taxes and now for all tax 
increases, a two-thirds vote. In 1992, State of Colorado, two-thirds 
vote required. In Delaware, back in 1980, a three-fifths requirement 
for tax increases. The State of Florida, since 1971, for corporate 
income tax rate increases, requires a three-fifths vote; not quite as 
significant as the two-thirds vote that we are talking about. But still 
a supermajority of 60 percent.

                              {time}  2100

  The State of Louisiana, for the last 32 years, any tax increase would 
take a two-thirds vote. The State of Mississippi, way back in 1890, 108 
years ago, requires a three-fifths vote for a tax increase. In 
Missouri, since 1996, only 2 years ago, a two-thirds vote for an 
emergency tax increase.
  The State of Nevada, since 1996, a two-thirds vote for any tax 
increase. And in Nevada, to amend their Constitution, they had to 
submit it to the people for a referendum; and the people in Nevada 
voted by referendum, I believe, over 70 percent to require a two-thirds 
vote for a tax increase.
  In Oklahoma, in 1992, a three-fourths vote, 75-percent vote, for a 
tax increase. In Oregon, in 1996, a three-fifths or 60-percent vote for 
any tax increase. South Dakota, in 1996, a two-thirds vote for any tax 
increase. And in Washington State, in 1993, a two-thirds vote.
  There are 15 other States that currently have some sort of a 
legislative initiative to require a supermajority vote. The State of 
New Jersey, where Governor Whitman has come out in favor of this, and 
the State of Illinois are two States right off the top of my head.
  So what about these States that have these requirements, does it 
work? Well, let us look at the next chart.
  There are some things that are true in every State. This is a study 
that was done on tax rates and tax revenues for the years 1980 to 1992. 
It compared the States that had some version of tax limitation, which I 
just showed my colleagues, with those that did not. And this shows the 
average change of per capita tax revenue.
  In the supermajority States, tax revenue went up 102 percent during 
the 12-year period. So tax revenues went up in States that had 
supermajority requirement. But in States that did not have it, their 
taxes went up faster by an average of, the total is 121 percent of the 
aggregate States. So that is a difference of 19 percent.
  Put another way, in States that had a supermajority requirement to 
raise taxes, their taxes were, on average, 19 percent lower than in 
those States that did not have the same requirement.
  Since the taxes were not going up quite as rapidly in the 
supermajority States, that means the gross State products, the amount 
of goods and services produced in that State, went up faster than in 
high-tax states, 43 percent versus 35 percent, or a difference of 8 
percent. So the economies of supermajority tax increase States were 
growing more rapidly than the economies of States that did not require 
supermajority for a State tax increase.
  Well, consequently, if we are not raising taxes as rapidly, the 
legislature and the governors tend to be less willing to borrow money 
also. So if we look at the debt, the State government debt in the 
supermajority States, it did go up, unfortunately, quite a bit, 271 
percent, but it did not go up as rapidly as in the States that did not 
have the supermajority requirement for tax increases. In those States, 
it went up 312 percent. That is a difference of 31 percent. Thirty-one 
percent is a huge difference in that time period of 12 years.
  And, finally, since taxes are lower and they are going up slower and 
the gross State product is expanding more rapidly and State government 
debt is increasing less rapidly, what does that mean? It means that the 
number of jobs created expands more rapidly in supermajority tax 
increase States. Twenty-six percent rate of growth in job creation in 
the supermajority States; only 21 percent in the non-supermajority 
States. That is a difference of 5 percent.
  So if we look at the statistics, and this is a comprehensive study, 
it was done over a 12-year time period. From 1980 to 1992, it compared 
in the aggregate those States that had some version of supermajority 
tax increase vote in their legislatures than States that did not. Taxes 
went up more slowly in supermajority States. Taxes were lower in 
supermajority States. Consequently, their economies grew more rapidly 
and more jobs were created.
  So we have proven in the 14 States that have served as a national 
laboratory for supermajority requirement for tax increases that it 
works. That is why on April 17, 1998, a group called the American 
Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which is a bipartisan group of 
State legislatures of all 50 States, Republicans and Democrats, that 
meet to debate State issues and to compare their State initiatives to 
other State initiatives, the American Legislative Exchange Council, 
which represents all 50 State legislatures and has over 3,000 
legislators as members, again Republican and Democrat, they endorsed 
the Tax Limitation Amendment that we are going to be voting on 
tomorrow.
  I would like to read their letter. It is dated April 17, 1998. It is 
to Congressman Joe Barton, that is me, U.S. House of Representatives, 
Washington, D.C. 20515.

       Dear Congressman Barton. The 3,000 State legislators who 
     are members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the 
     Nation's largest bipartisan membership organization of State 
     legislators, would like to voice their support of a Federal 
     amendment requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote in each 
     Chamber of Congress to pass any bill that would increase 
     taxes.
       The Federal tax burden is at a record high. This year, the 
     average American family will spend more than 38 percent on 
     their income on Federal, State, and local taxes, more than 
     they will spend on food, clothing, shelter, and medical 
     expenses combined. And we pointed that out earlier.
       Tax increases fuel excessive government spending and 
     smother economic growth and job creation. Thus, any increase 
     in the tax burden should require a broad consensus. Taking 
     money from hard-working Americans should not be an easy task 
     for the tax-and-spend politicians. A supermajority 
     requirement would make tax hikes more difficult and shift the 
     debate from tax increases to spending cuts.
       Fourteen States already require a supermajority to raise 
     taxes. These States have demonstrated faster economic growth, 
     higher employment growth, and experience slower tax and 
     spending increases than the States without a supermajority 
     requirement. A supermajority amendment would constrain tax-
     and-spend policies that squash economic opportunity for 
     American families.
       Congress has a momentous opportunity to provide a brighter, 
     more prosperous future for this great Nation. The States have 
     shown the benefits of a supermajority requirement. Now is the 
     time to apply this experience to the Federal Government.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bobby Hogue,
        Speaker from Arkansas, National Chairman for the American 
                                     Legislative Exchange Council.

  This is an extremely positive endorsement and shows again that it 
works at the State level, it will work at the Federal level. We have 
got a bipartisan consensus for this legislation, this 
constitutional amendment.

  Another group that has endorsed the Tax Limitation Amendment is the 
Associated Builders and Contractors, a national organization of 
builders and contractors from around the United States, again a 
bipartisan group. It is not a Republican group. It is not a Democratic 
group.
  It says,
       Dear Representative Barton: On April 15, the House of 
     Representatives will consider H.J. Res. 111.
       Actually, we are going to consider it on April 22, because 
     we were not in session on April 15.
       This is legislation requiring a two-thirds supermajority of 
     both Houses of Congress to pass any new tax or tax increases. 
     On behalf of the Associated Builders and Contractors and its 
     more than 21,000 member firms, I urge you to vote yes on H.J. 
     Res. 111, the Tax Limitation Amendment to the Constitution.

  It goes on to talk about their strong advocacy for the family and 
fiscal responsibility. This is signed by Charlotte W. Herbert, who is 
the Vice President of Government Affairs. It is dated March 20, 1998.
  We have an endorsement from the National Association of 
Manufacturers. This is dated February 24, 1998.
       On behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, 
     nearly 14,000 members, over 10,000 of which are small 
     manufacturers employing fewer than 500 employees, I commend 
     your leadership in bringing the Tax Limitation Amendment to a 
     vote on the House floor this April. It is hard to imagine a 
     more appropriate time to bring this important legislation to 
     the attention of the American taxpayers.
       I am enclosing a resolution adopted by the board of 
     directors which concludes that the

[[Page H2096]]

     existing Federal tax system is beyond repair and should be 
     replaced by a simple, low-rate system that eliminates 
     multiple taxation. Just as importantly, underlined, this 
     resolution concludes that procedures such as a supermajority 
     voting requirement should be adopted to make revision both 
     difficult and infrequent.
       The National Association of Manufacturers is therefore 
     pleased to support the Tax Limitation Amendment, which would 
     require a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate to levy any 
     new tax or increase the rate or base of any existing tax. 
     This amendment would force the Congress to focus on spending 
     reductions rather than tax increases in order to balance the 
     Federal budget. Such a result is completely consistent with 
     the National Association of Manufacturers' long-standing 
     position that, while it is critically important to eliminate 
     the Federal budget deficit, this should be done by 
     restraining the growth of Federal spending, not increasing 
     taxes.
       We applaud your effort to make the Tax Limitation Amendment 
     a reality and are impressed by the bipartisan support you 
     have garnered for it. The National Association of 
     Manufacturers looks forward to working with you and your 
     colleagues and staff to pass this important legislation.

  This is from Paul Huard, who is the Senior Vice President for Policy 
and Communications for the National Association of Manufacturers, and 
it was dated February 24, 1998, in a letter to me.
  We have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, dated February 20, 1998. This 
letter of endorsement is from Bruce Josten, who is the Executive Vice 
President of Government Affairs.

       Dear Congressman Barton: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
     world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 
     billion businesses and organizations of every size, sector, 
     and region, wishes to voice its support for the Tax 
     Limitation Amendment.
       The two-thirds supermajority requirement to raise taxes in 
     your amendment would keep the pressure on limiting government 
     spending in order to maintain a balanced budget. Turning to 
     tax increases first when the budget deficit returns, as they 
     will sooner or later, is poor economic policy. The Tax 
     Limitation Amendment would shift the burden of keeping a 
     balanced Federal budget from the taxpayer to the big 
     government spender.
       We are looking forward to working with you on passing this 
     legislation. Bruce Josten.

  I could go on and on. We have got over 30 national organizations that 
have endorsed the Tax Limitation Amendment, groups that I have already 
mentioned, the U.S. Chamber, National Association of Manufacturers, 
American Builders and Contractors, the American Legislative Exchange 
Council.
  We also have groups like Christian Coalition, Family Research 
Council, Americans for Tax Reform, Senior Coalition 60 Plus. So we have 
family groups, business groups, tax limitation groups, all kinds of 
groups across a broad political and public policy spectrum.
  I see that one of my chief cosponsors is here, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), who led the fight in Arizona several years ago 
to pass tax limitation at the State level. He, along with the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 
and myself are the four chief sponsors of this amendment, two 
Republicans and two Democrats.
  I will yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me 
make a few remarks and then perhaps we can engage in a dialogue back 
and forth and make some of these points in a way that will drive them 
home, hopefully, to our colleagues who get to cast a historic vote 
tomorrow.
  I raise the issue for my constituents on this question as really 
presenting one direct question: Should Congress be more responsible 
about spending the hard-earned tax dollars taken from the citizens of 
this great country? Simple as that. Should the Congress be more 
responsible about how to spend that money?
  Now, we heard my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) talk 
about this being a Tax Limitation Amendment. It is an amendment 
designed to make it a little bit more difficult to raise taxes on the 
American people. And then I stand up, as one of the other chief 
sponsors of this and say, it really is about spending. Well, let me 
draw the link.
  The problem is, when it is easy to raise taxes, as it has been in 
this country for too long, then we can be too casual about how we spend 
that money. This measure is designed to achieve a very important goal 
and that goal is to make us, the Members of Congress, be more 
responsible about the way we spend your money.

                              {time}  2115

  Because if we say that going on to the future, on into the next 
century, on into the horizons that lie ahead in America that we are not 
going to pass additional tax increases with a simple majority vote, 50 
percent of the Members of this body plus 1, we are going to have to 
have a supermajority, we are making it that much harder, just a little 
more difficult to raise the taxes on the American people.
  I will tell my colleague, I, John Shadegg, would like to see it much 
more difficult to raise taxes on the American people. I do not think we 
can get that far down the road, but with this measure, we can make it a 
little bit more difficult. I believe that is vitally important. I think 
it is very timely that this measure is before us right after tax day, 
but right after a fair amount of publicity in which the American media 
has reminded the American people recently that taxes in America today 
are at the highest level they ever have been in our history.
  I think about my generation, the baby boom generation, peers of mine 
in their mid-forties, early fifties. They are paying more in taxes 
today in America than ever in the history of our Nation. I think about 
the generation behind us who are coming up, the Generation X'ers. They 
are just beginning their working careers. They are paying more in taxes 
today than ever in their lives.
  Taxes as a proportion of our total economy are taking up more than 
they ever have at any point in time. That is really a composite of two 
figures. Federal taxes are at their highest level since 1945, a war 
year at the end of World War II, when they were about one-tenth of 1 
percentage point higher than they are now.
  But if you combine that almost record high Federal tax level with 
higher State and local taxes, because State and local taxes today are 
dramatically higher than they were in 1945, we are taxing the American 
people at a rate higher than we ever had.
  I would like to be here tonight talking about tax relief for the 
American people, and hopefully in the next few weeks we will be able to 
do that, but this measure is not about tax relief. It is about ensuring 
that before this Congress reaches into the pockets of hard-working 
American men and women one more time and takes out of their wallets 
like this one yet a few more hard-earned American dollars and says, no, 
we need this money for the government, we need this so that we in 
Congress can spend it on programs that we think are wise, and the 
American taxpayer who earned this dollar does not get to make that 
decision because the government is going to take it from them, before 
we do that yet one more time and ratchet up the tax level yet one more 
time, we ought to make it a little bit harder. We ought to make it a 
little bit harder to take those hard-earned dollars from American 
taxpayers.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), pointed out that 
14 States have enacted tax limitation amendments. Arizona, as my 
colleague pointed out, is one of those States. In 1992 we passed a tax 
limitation amendment in Arizona, and we required under that measure a 
two-thirds majority to raise State taxes in Arizona. I am very proud 
because I helped lead that effort in Arizona. It has had a tremendously 
beneficial effect on the Arizona economy.
  Before we passed that, Arizona had gone through a series of tax 
increases. Year after year after year, the Arizona legislature had done 
what politicians all too often do when there is a constant demand for 
more money. They had passed tax increase after tax increase after tax 
increase. As a result of that, the Arizona economy had grown very 
sluggish.
  Since passing this measure in Arizona, which, by the way, passed by a 
vote of 72 percent of the people of Arizona voting on the measure 
approved the adoption of this Constitutional amendment, our economy has 
sped up dramatically.

[[Page H2097]]

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a 
question?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Have there been any attempts to raise taxes in 
the State legislature since this amendment was adopted into the Arizona 
Constitution?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Not only have there been no attempts to raise taxes in 
the Arizona legislature since this measure was adopted, at least no 
broad-based tax increases, and because we wrote the Arizona measure in 
a very comprehensive fashion, no increase in fees or user fees, but in 
point of fact the legislature has gone the other way and they have 
actually cut taxes, helping to stimulate that economy. As a result of 
that stimulated economy, we are getting more revenues in than we did 
before.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Does it take a two-thirds vote of the Arizona 
legislature to cut taxes?
  Mr. SHADEGG. It does not take a two-thirds vote at the Arizona 
legislature to cut taxes. It takes a two-thirds vote of the Arizona 
legislature to raise taxes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Under our amendment which we have right here 
before us, would it take a two-thirds vote to cut taxes in Congress?
  Mr. SHADEGG. It certainly would not. As the gentleman well knows, you 
can make the argument, and our colleague in the United States Senate 
who is carrying this makes the argument that it actually does take in 
the U.S. Senate a two-thirds majority to cut taxes. Because of the 
debate rules they have and the rules on cutting off debate, you really, 
as a practical matter, to be able to pass a tax relief measure over 
there, would have to have a two-thirds majority.
  But under this tax limitation amendment, you would never have to have 
a two-thirds majority here in the House to enact tax relief. You would 
have to have a two-thirds majority to enact a tax increase yet one more 
time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. So we can cut taxes by a simple majority vote, 
but we would have to have a two-thirds vote to raise taxes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. That is exactly right. The gentleman mentioned earlier 
broad public support for this. I want to talk about a poll recently 
conducted by Americans for Hope, Growth, and Opportunity, a nationwide 
poll taken on this issue within the last few weeks. In that poll, there 
are some surprising numbers.
  First of all, the overall number says that the vast majority of 
Americans, Republican or Democrat, Independent, you name it, favor this 
idea. And 68 percent of all Americans, regardless of their party 
registration or their party leanings or affiliation, favor the adoption 
of a tax limitation constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds 
majority rather than a simple majority of this body and of the United 
States Senate in order to raise taxes yet one more time.
  You might find it not too surprising that within that number, 75 
percent, three out of every four Republicans also favor this idea. I 
suppose we as Republicans can take claim for the fact that we are the 
antitax party, and that makes some sense that we would favor by a 
fairly high number, a number higher than the total, the option of the 
tax limitation amendment. But I am very encouraged and find it most 
significant that when you poll Democrats, it turns out that 63 percent, 
a very dramatic majority.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Almost a two-thirds majority vote.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Almost a two-thirds majority of all Democrats across 
America in a nationwide poll, just short of two-thirds of all Democrats 
in this country, favor the adoption in America today, hopefully by this 
vote tomorrow, of a supermajority requirement to raise taxes. I 
certainly hope that that is a figure that is not lost upon our 
colleagues; that they will recognize that the time has come to pass 
this.
  When we have now government taking the highest proportion of the 
gross domestic product in taxes that it has ever taken in our Nation's 
history, it seems to me very clear that the signal being sent by 
Republicans and by Democrats is that it is time to enact a 
constitutional tax limitation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. What would happen tomorrow on the House floor if 
three-fourths of the Republicans present and voting voted for tax 
limitation and 63 percent of the Democrats present and voting voted for 
tax limitation? Would that be enough to pass this constitutional 
amendment and send it to the Senate for a vote?
  Mr. SHADEGG. What would happen is we would be sending a tremendous 
signal across this country that we are through reaching into the 
pockets, at least willy-nilly reaching into the pockets of the American 
taxpayers. Because if three-fourths of the Republican Members 
paralleled the support in the society, three-fourths of all the 
Republicans voted for this amendment tomorrow, and if 63 percent of all 
Democrats, as you posed in your question, just like 63 percent of all 
Democrats across America, voted for this Constitutional amendment 
tomorrow, it would pass and pass with a very, very wide margin, sending 
a bullet shot across this wall to the United States Senate and to the 
President saying this is an important piece of legislation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would be a great idea, and it is legal if 
people were to fax, e-mail, write, call, send by Pony Express, by any 
means of communication to their elected Congressman or Congresswoman, 
be they Republican or Democrat, that they are for this amendment.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Absolutely.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is allowed under this Constitution.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If 75 percent of the Republicans out there 
listening today or tonight and 63 percent of the Democrats out there 
listening tonight would pick up the phone, crank up the fax machine, 
get on the Internet and send an e-mail, we could wake this Congress up 
and pass this tomorrow with a resounding vote.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I assume you are going to vote for it tomorrow.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I most certainly am going to vote for it with great 
pride.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is one vote. I am going to vote for it. 
That is two votes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. We are on our way.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. We need 290 more votes if all Members are 
present and voting.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I think it is clearly doable and would be a great signal 
for this country.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. We may have three votes. The Speaker in the 
chair, I think he is a vote for it also.
  Mr. SHADEGG. He just gave me a thumbs up. We have got three votes. We 
are on a roll. This could be almost a telethon. We are talking about 
building a vote for a tax limitation amendment.
  The gentleman from Texas mentioned earlier the effect of this, but I 
want to repeat that particular sentiment in some of those statistics. 
Well, 14 States have adopted in their own Constitutions a tax 
limitation amendment. Some studies have been done on those States that 
have had tax limitation for a number of years. What those studies show 
is that government and government spending grow at a slower pace in 
those States than in States without tax limitation.
  Interestingly, in case you say, ``Well, so what, we have slowed the 
growth of Congress, I am not so concerned about that, Congressman, I am 
interested in my job,'' the flip side of that, in tax limitation 
States, States that have adopted a tax limitation amendment at the 
State level, the private economy and the number of jobs, the employment 
rate grows faster than in non-tax limitation States.
  I know it is hard sometimes for the audience, for our colleagues out 
there listening, to absorb statistics, but I am going to read through 
them very importantly in a slow fashion so that people can get them.
  In tax limitation States taxes grow more slowly than in non-tax 
limitation States, and spending grows more slowly. As a matter of fact, 
in tax limitation States over a 12-year period taxes increased by 102 
percent. So tax limitation States, there it is, there are the figures, 
spending has grown by 102 percent.
  But in non-tax limitation States in that same 12-year period, 
spending has gone up by 112 percent, a dramatic increase. By contrast, 
if you look at the economies of those States, in tax limitation States, 
the economies, including employment, the economies grew by 43

[[Page H2098]]

percent, whereas by contrast, in States without tax limitation the 
economies have grown by only 35 percent.
  So the bottom line is, tax limitation slows the growth of government 
and promotes the growth of the private sector. For people across 
America who want jobs, the bottom line is the adoption of a tax 
limitation amendment, in every single one of those States where it has 
been adopted, has encouraged the number of jobs that are growing. If 
you say you have a young son or daughter about ready to enter the job 
market, tax limitation amendment in your State has enhanced their 
chance of finding a job in the productive market.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I actually have a young son and young daughter 
who are about to enter the job market. My daughter Allison wants to be 
a teacher. She graduated in December from Texas A&M. My son Brad is 
graduating from Stanford School of Business in June. They are both 
looking for jobs. So I have a son and a daughter who want a job, and 
they will find a job more likely in a supermajority State to raise 
taxes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. If that is true at the State level, why do we not make 
America a supermajority Nation for future tax increases? Why not take 
that principle which has worked at the State level and adopt it at the 
Federal level, so that we promote further economic growth across this 
Nation because we make it slightly harder for the U.S. Congress to 
raise taxes yet one more time.
  We force the Members of this Congress, you and I and the gentleman in 
the Speaker's chair who has joined us in voting tomorrow for this, make 
it a little bit more important that we look a little bit more carefully 
at how we spend the dollars.
  It is worth noting, many people across America are very, very upset 
at the General Accounting Office audit which came out just a few days 
ago showing that our government is wasting massive amounts of dollars. 
Indeed, those numbers show that in some instances we cannot trace where 
the money has gone. We cannot find equipment that was supposed to have 
been purchased. We are literally kind of allowing money to slip through 
the hands of the Federal Government and not even get real value added.
  That should offend every American taxpayer. That should be, I hope, 
the driving force which puts this amendment over the top tomorrow. 
Because if we make it just a little harder to raise taxes, we will have 
to be just a little bit more careful, hopefully a lot more careful 
about how we spend those hard-earned dollars that we take out of the 
pockets of the American people.
  I compliment the gentleman. I am happy to chat with him about other 
beneficial aspects of this amendment. I do think that it is important 
to emphasize over and over again, 75 percent of Republicans favor it, 
63 percent of Democrats across America favor it.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. And that is all in the last month. I mean that 
is not like 10 years ago or 20 years ago. That is a poll, a national 
poll taken within the last month.
  Mr. SHADEGG. That is absolutely correct. Now we just need to make 
sure that those Americans who feel like communicating their sentiments, 
hopefully 75 percent of all Republicans across the country, 63 percent 
of all Democrats across the country, will call and let their Member of 
Congress know that they think that it would be a good idea to vote for 
tax limitation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. And it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that 
the gentleman has been on a number of national radio and television 
shows about this and has debated some opponents of it from time to 
time, as I have. Have you ever had one of the opponents say that we 
should not do this because it would not work?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Well, I have had a number of people engage in debate. In 
Arizona we debated this measure. The opponents of it predicted dire 
consequences. They said that this was an irresponsible measure, that we 
should never have a supermajority requirement, that we had always just 
had a simple majority.
  They even go so far, and you may have heard this in debate yourself, 
as to say it is un-American to require anything other than a simple 
majority. And yet the Founding Fathers when they drafted our 
Constitution inserted a number of supermajority requirements, and when 
you combine the supermajority requirements that are already in our 
Constitution, such as to ratify a treaty, with others that have been 
added----
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Or to convict a President of impeachment 
proceedings.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Or to convict a President in impeachment proceedings. If 
you add those supermajority provisions or requirements that were in our 
original Constitution with those that have been added to the 
Constitution by amendment, there are today already in our Constitution 
10 different provisions which require not a simple majority, not 50 
percent plus one, but a supermajority. And if it is appropriate in 
those circumstances, you and I are here tonight arguing that it should 
be appropriate in this one where we actually reach into people's 
pockets and take the productive efforts of their labor out of their 
pockets and give them to someone else to spend.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, I have engaged in a number of debates, and 
most of the opponents are opposed to this for the very reason that it 
would work. They say quite emphatically that it would make it very 
difficult to raise taxes, therefore they are opposed to it. And I say 
exactly, that is the point. Let us make it more difficult than it is 
today.
  I think that in an economy that is generating $7 trillion worth of 
goods and services with almost 300 million Americans, with over 80 
million Americans working, paying a tax burden, if you combine State 
and local taxes it is approaching 40 percent of their gross income, 
that there should be a national consensus. There should be Republicans 
and Democrats who say we have to have a supermajority vote to raise 
taxes.
  I would like to point out again that the group that most represents 
the State legislatures on a bipartisan basis, the American Legislative 
Council, has endorsed a tax limitation amendment. I am not going to 
read that letter again because I did earlier, but I think that is proof 
positive that this is not a gimmick, it is not a Republican election 
year ploy, it is common sense, good public policy.
  We have got a number of Governors that have endorsed this. Governor 
Whitman in New Jersey has endorsed it. Governor Wilson in California, 
our largest State in the Union in terms of population, has endorsed it. 
We also pointed out earlier there are 15 States that are considering 
adding a supermajority requirement to their State constitutions to go 
along with the 14 States that already have it.
  So tomorrow, beginning approximately 12:30, we will have a vote on 
the rule. That should take about an hour. It is an open rule. The 
minority party, if they wish, will have the right to offer a 
substitute. They will also have a right to offer a motion to recommit. 
The rule debate should take about an hour, and then we will have three 
hours of debate equally divided, an hour and a half for the proponents, 
an hour and a half for the opponents, and the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Shadegg) and I are going to be on the floor helping to manage the 
time for those that are in favor of this. And then the debate should 
conclude around 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, and we may vote 
immediately or we may hold the vote until a little after 5 o'clock.
  Since this is a constitutional amendment, I think everybody knows 
that it takes a two-thirds vote of those present and voting to pass. So 
last year when we had the vote on April 15, we had 233 votes, which was 
a majority, a substantial majority. But that day we needed I believe 
279 votes, so we failed by 40 or 50 votes since we did not quite have 
the two-thirds.
  So tomorrow hopefully we will get well over 75 percent of the 
Republicans. I will predict that we get that. The key question is if we 
can get the 63 percent of the Democrats who have said in a national 
poll that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) here alluded to, if 
they will support this amendment.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points 
that I think are important and I will be emphasizing tomorrow in the 
debate, but in case anyone is out there listening tonight and not able 
to listen to the debate, one of them is an intellectual point that 
addresses a concern that

[[Page H2099]]

some people have about, well, is it appropriate to insert a 
supermajority requirement in the Constitution, and the other is just a 
practical argument.
  You know, I do not know if we have a large chart of this, but I have 
a small chart that I can hold up here and hopefully we can focus on. In 
1950 the Federal tax bite was $1 out of every $50. So in 1950, when I 
was a young boy growing up in Arizona, if my dad earned a hundred 
dollars, the Federal Government got two of those dollars. He had to 
send $2 in for every $100 he earned.
  By 1996 that figure had changed rather dramatically. By 1996 it had 
become not $1 in taxes to the Federal Government out of every $50 
earned but $1 in taxes out of every $4 earned. So today, 1996, or at 
least in 1996 and it has gotten worse since then, if you earned $100, 
you did not send in $2 you sent in $25, one fourth, to the Federal 
Government alone.
  That is a staggering increase in the tax burden on the American 
people, and I think it explains why it is appropriate to take the 
vehicle of amending the Constitution and amend it at this particular 
time.
  We have already talked about the fact that Federal taxes are at their 
highest level that they have ever been in American history and placing 
a huge burden on the American people. But I now want to turn to kind of 
a practical side of this issue, and I actually like to quote often the 
quote which hopefully the camera can focus on at the front of the room. 
John Randolph, the author of this quote, was a Member of this body, 
United States House of Representatives, early in our Nation's history. 
He served in the United States House and then ultimately was elected to 
the United States Senate and served in the United States Senate.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I think he was a member of the Constitutional 
Convention also.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I think that is exactly right.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am not certain, but I believe that is correct.
  Mr. SHADEGG. John Randolph said, as that quote reads, and I want 
people to read it with me and think about it, but he said at one point, 
talking about government and about the power of the Congress, that ``It 
has been said that one of the most delicious of privileges is that of 
spending other people's money.''
  One of the most delicious of privileges is that of spending other 
people's money. What he was talking about is the power of government 
through taxation to take other people's money, and then for this 
Congress and Members of it to enjoy the privilege of spending it.
  Well, I reflected on that quote back when I discovered it in the 
debate in Arizona over a tax limitation amendment, and about the point 
he was making. And the sad truth is that the privilege of taking other 
people's money through taxation and then being able as a government to 
spend it I believe has become abused.
  I want to talk a little bit about a practical experience I had which 
led me to support the tax limitation amendment in Arizona and leads me 
to fight passionately for the adoption of the tax limitation amendment 
at the national level. For years in Arizona I worked in connection with 
the Arizona legislature. I was not a member of the legislature but I 
worked for the Arizona attorney general's office.
  And members of the Arizona legislature would call me over to their 
office, and this happened hundreds of times in my career at the Arizona 
attorney general's office, and a member of the legislature would call 
me over to his or her office, and they would either have a letter from 
a constituent or they would have a constituent sitting there in the 
room. And the letter or the constituent would be making the case that 
there was a very serious problem, even sometimes a heart-rending 
problem, a sad problem, a tragic problem, somebody doing without, 
somebody suffering, somebody in need.
  And the legislator member of the Arizona legislature with whom I 
would be talking would say, ``Look, my constituent has identified this 
very serious problem, people in need. Can we solve this problem? Could 
we pass a bill and appropriate some money to fix this problem? Could we 
create a program to fix this problem? Could we take the resources of 
government to solve this very tragic problem?''
  And the conversation occurred hundreds of times in my career at the 
attorney general's office, and of course the answer always was that we 
could, of course, pass such legislation, we could make an 
appropriation, we could create a program, we could spend money. What 
occurred to me is that in those conversations there was always one 
person missing.
  There was always the constituent who wanted the program. And it was 
invariably a worthy program, something that you know almost all 
Americans and all Arizonans would say, ``There really is a need there. 
We need to take care of that.'' And there was a legislator, a member of 
that legislative body, like we here in the Congress, with the power to 
write a bill and make an appropriation and create a program and spend 
the money to solve the problem.
  But the person missing in those discussions, and they were missing in 
every single discussion I ever watched, was the taxpayer, the 
individual who would have to foot the bill to solve that problem, who 
would have to pay the tax bill to pay for that appropriation. The 
taxpayer, the man or woman, the young boy or girl starting their first 
job at a McDonalds or a Burger King who would have to have wages taken 
out, taxes taken out of their wages to pay for that program, they were 
never in the room. They were not a part of the conversation. There was 
always an empty chair where that person could not speak up and say, 
``Yes, this is a serious problem. Yes, maybe we ought to think about 
it, but we have to consider where is that money going to come from.''
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I can actually put a face to that 
anonymous person. Two weeks ago I went to Waco, Texas where my mother 
lives. She is a retired widow on Social Security, and she has some 
teacher retirement, and because her only income comes from three 
sources, Social Security, teacher retirement and some IRA dividend 
income from an IRA that she and my father had saved on when he was 
alive, she does not have any withholding taken out, and it is a 
relatively modest fixed income.
  So last year I had done her taxes after my father passed away, and 
she did not have to pay any taxes. So this year I was not too worried 
when she said, ``Are you going to come do my taxes?'' I thought, 
``Well, it is not a big deal. She will not owe any tax, so I can just 
go ahead and do it.''
  So I finally went over there a week before the filing deadline and we 
sat down, and she had had to take a slightly larger dividend from her 
IRA because she is over 70 years of age and the law requires that you 
begin to disburse this particular type of a Keogh account.
  So first time I went through and made the calculation. I said, 
``Well, mom, it looks like this year you're going to have to pay a 
little bit in tax,'' and it was like $200 or $300, and she said, 
``That's no problem.''
  Then I went back through again and I said, ``I just want to double 
check the numbers,'' and I checked the Social Security number, and I 
checked the teacher retirement number, and then I checked the IRA 
number, and lo and behold, I had added incorrectly or missed something. 
So I said ``Well, mom, I'm going to have to recalculate this tax,'' and 
when I did it was well over $1,000.
  And she said, ``Well, I don't have enough money to pay that.'' So she 
got real excited and called the bank and she wanted to know how much 
money was in her account and whether she had enough money to pay the 
tax or she was going to have to take some money out of a savings 
account, this IRA account, or what. And it turned out after looking at 
her checkbook and looking at what her expenses the rest of the month 
were, we decided that she would be able to write a check, because you 
cannot tell the IRS, you know, ``We will send it next week.'' You know, 
just you have got to send the money when you calculate your tax return.
  So my mother, who is a widow on a fixed income, had to pay well over 
$1,000 in income taxes this year, and that does not come out of 
nowhere. I mean, that shows very clearly the need to make it much more 
difficult than it is today to raise taxes, because there

[[Page H2100]]

are a lot of Nell Bartons in this country. In my mother's case, she was 
fortunate that she had enough money this year to pay her Federal income 
tax without having to borrow from me or to go into her savings account.

                              {time}  1945

  There are a lot of people come April 15 that are in real tough shape, 
and we need to protect those people by passing this constitutional 
amendment.
  Mr. SHADEGG. There is no doubt about it. As the gentleman well knows, 
whenever you come to the floor and propose a constitutional amendment, 
one of the reticences, one of the resistance factors you face, is that 
people say we should not tamper with the Constitution lightly. We 
really ought to think about these issues gravely and seriously, about 
whether it is appropriate to amend the Constitution. We ought to 
consider the consequences of our conduct.
  Is a constitutional amendment really necessary? If this was such a 
great idea, how come the Founding Fathers did not do it?
  I know, because you have carried this amendment on this floor many 
times in the past, you face that argument where people say, no, if it 
was necessary the Founding Fathers would have put a tax limitation 
amendment in the original Constitution. They would not have said you 
could raise taxes with a simple majority. They would have said you 
could raise them only with a supermajority, so you must be wrong. We do 
not need this. This is a radical idea and bad idea.
  When I tell the story, if I could just make this point, about that 
empty chair of the taxpayer who is not there in the conversation, I 
want to make the point that when we enact new programs, we never talk 
to the taxpayer, and the role of government is so dramatically 
different than it was at the founding of this country.
  The first and most important difference is that we did not have an 
income tax. I think all students of American government know we did not 
have an income tax. We could not even have contemplated passing the 
kind of taxes and tax burden.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. It was unconstitutional.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Until we amended the Constitution with the 16th 
amendment. So we did not even contemplate reaching into people's 
pockets time and time and time again with ever-increasing income taxes 
to pass that money on to some government program to solve a problem.
  But there are dozens of other differences in the role of the Federal 
Government today. I firmly believe that the Enumerated Powers Doctrine 
says that this Congress can only do a certain limited number of things. 
There are actually only 18 enumerated powers in the U.S. Constitution. 
Yet this Congress does a whole lot of things that it is not supposed to 
do under that doctrine.
  The 10th amendment says you are not supposed to do any of those 
things, but rather those authorities belong to the States and to the 
people. Yet the 10th amendment and the Enumerated Powers Doctrine have 
almost been completely read out of the Constitution.
  While I regret that, those are the facts. That means that it is 
appropriate to amend the Constitution and to say wait; before you raise 
taxes yet one more time, we are going to make the bar a little higher. 
We are going to say instead of doing it with a simple majority and 
stealing that money from the American people yet one more time at a 
higher rate than today, when it is as high as it has ever been in our 
Nation's history, you cannot do it with a simple majority. You have to 
have a broad consensus represented by a two-thirds majority.
  That is why I think this amendment at this point in time is 
appropriate and is not inconsistent with what the Founding Fathers 
intended.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. As the gentleman from Arizona has pointed out, 
when the Constitution was ratified by three-fourths of States in 1787 
through 1789, it was unconstitutional to have any kind of a head tax or 
income tax.
  That situation changed in the early 1900s. The constitutional 
amendment making income tax constitutional, the 16th amendment, passed, 
as the gentleman has pointed out. Since that time, the average marginal 
tax rate at the Federal level has gone from 1 to over 40 percent. So we 
do need to pass a constitutional amendment making it more difficult to 
raise taxes.
  Again, it does not take college level algebra to understand this 
amendment. Two-thirds is a bigger fraction than one-half. Therefore, it 
would be more difficult to get two-thirds vote to raise taxes in the 
House and the Senate than the current one-half plus one.
  Mr. SHADEGG. If the gentleman will yield quickly on that point, there 
are a lot of people who are my constituents who say Congressman, why 
just two-thirds? I would rather it was three-fourths or five-sevenths. 
They want it to be as high a fraction as possible. I think this is a 
reasonable figure, and we need to strive very hard to get support for 
it and encourage our colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I did a town meeting in Arlington, Texas, last 
week, and one of my constituents said we ought to make it by unanimous 
consent, 100 percent, which would be very difficult, indeed.
  So we need to wrap this special order up. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for his strong leadership. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews), our Democrat chief sponsors, could not be here this evening, 
but they are quite supportive. We should require a national consensus 
to raise taxes, and we should require a two-thirds vote.
  Hopefully, the people that were polled in the poll that the gentleman 
alluded to will call their Congressmen and Congresswomen, and tomorrow 
we will get a bipartisan vote that ends up the requisite two-thirds to 
pass this and send it to the other body. I look forward to a big vote 
tomorrow.

                          ____________________