[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2133-H2164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 407, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 407

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 111) proposing an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States with respect to tax 
     limitations. The joint resolution shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. The amendment specified in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as amended, 
     and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate on the 
     joint resolution, as amended, which shall be equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) one motion to amend, if 
     offered by the Minority Leader or his designee, which shall 
     be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all the time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 407 is a modified closed rule providing 
for the consideration of H.J. Res. 111, the tax limitation amendment, 
which seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution to require a two-thirds vote 
of Congress to pass legislation which increases taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time this Congress has considered 
such an amendment. In fact, the rule before us is virtually identical 
to the rule the House adopted last year which provided for 
consideration of the same issue. As in 1997, the rule provides for a 
generous 3 hours of general debate time, equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  In addition, the rule provides for the consideration of an amendment 
offered by the minority leader or his designee which will be debatable 
for 1 hour; and another opportunity for the minority to change the 
legislation will be available through the customary motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
  My colleagues should understand that when the House votes to adopt 
this rule, it will automatically adopt an amendment to H.J. Res. 111, 
which is specified in the Committee on Rules report.
  Specifically, the amendment will clarify that any bill, resolution or 
other legislative measure changing internal revenue laws will be 
subject to a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and that 
the vote must be a recorded vote. This is the same language that the 
Committee on the Judiciary added to last year's bill.
  Further, the amendment clarifies that any revenue increase that is a 
result of a tax cut would not be subject to the two-thirds vote. This 
is the language which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) was 
successful in adding to the tax limitation amendment last year. Its 
purpose is to ensure that the amendment does not inadvertently make it 
more difficult to reduce taxes in the future.
  Again, I would reiterate to my colleagues that both this rule and the 
underlying bill we will consider are virtually identical to what the 
House voted on April 15, 1997.
  Given the similarities, some of my colleagues may question the 
purpose of revisiting this issue. Well, what we learned in the 
Committee on Rules yesterday is that support for this measure is 
growing and no doubt will continue to grow. Sixty-eight percent of 
Americans support an amendment to the Constitution requiring a 
supermajority vote by Congress to raise taxes. Today's vote will 
provide another opportunity for Members to respond to their 
constituents and public opinion, which across party lines is clearly 
supportive of a tax limitation amendment.
  I am sure that when Members were home in their districts over the 
Easter and Passover holidays they had the opportunity to meet with 
their constituents who were either preparing their taxes or had just 
paid them. I hope those meetings remind all of us just who is paying 
the tax bills around here and how high the Government's bills have 
become in terms of what the average American family can afford. The 
Federal tax burden alone is now nearing a record one-fifth of family 
income.
  How can this Congress justify a tax rate that represents the largest 
burden Americans have been asked to bear since World War II? Combined 
with State and local taxes, Americans are saddled with the highest tax 
rate ever.
  At a time when our economy is booming, unemployment is low, and we 
are on the verge of realizing a budget surplus, this policy is simply 
unacceptable. The illogic of this situation cries for reasonable 
measures to control our government's insatiable appetite for consuming 
the taxpayers' hard-earned pay. Reasonableness is what the tax 
limitation amendment demands of this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, all the amendment before us would do is make it a little 
bit harder for Congress to raise taxes during times of peace. At the 
same time, it encourages Congress to look at other options other than 
taxes as a means of managing the Federal budget.
  I don't think any of my colleagues would claim that there is no fat 
in the Federal bureaucracy to trim. But, while the special interests 
that benefit from government spending often have a paid voice looking 
out for their interests, the average American taxpayer has to rely on 
his or her Member of Congress as a voice for controlling spending and 
protecting their paychecks.
  Considering that the average Federal tax burden per person has more 
than doubled from 1980 to 1995, I think Congress needs to do a better 
job of looking out for our constituents, the taxpayers, interests. 
Through this amendment, our constituents will have a voice that can 
compete with that of special interests.
  And we know tax limitation amendments can be effective. They have 
been tried and tested by the States with very good results. In States 
that require a supermajority vote to raise revenue, taxes have 
increased more slowly, economies have grown more rapidly, and jobs have 
been created more quickly.
  Mr. Speaker, the need for this constitutional amendment is clear. 
Congress has demonstrated that even in times of prosperity and peace it 
cannot curb its penchant to tax.
  The discipline and balance imposed by our Founding Fathers was swept 
away by the 16th amendment which gave Congress the right to directly 
tax individuals' income. As a result, the power to lay and collect 
taxes has been so abused that families are no longer saving to buy 
homes and pay for their children's education. They are saving to pay 
the government on April 15.
  It is time to restore some discipline and fairness to our system if 
we are to ever to give our citizens the economic freedom to pursue 
their dreams, whether those dreams are of homeownership, education, 
self-employment, a secure retirement, or a more prosperous future for 
their children and grandchildren.
  Given what is at stake, a higher standard of consideration and 
consensus for higher taxes is totally appropriate and should be 
demanded by the American people.

                              {time}  1115

  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support both 
the rule and the underlying legislation. This is a balanced rule that 
will enable the

[[Page H2134]]

House to have a full and fair discussion of the merits of this 
constitutional amendment, and I urge its swift adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my dear friend 
from Ohio, the Honorable Justice Pryce, for yielding me the customary 
half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues say they want to amend 
the Constitution to require a supermajority vote for tax increases. Mr. 
Speaker, just 2 years ago the Republicans changed the House rules to 
require a three-fifths vote for tax increases every time the bill came 
up. But every time that bill came up with that amendment in it, they 
waived their requirement. That is right, Mr. Speaker, once again my 
Republican colleagues are proposing amending the Constitution with the 
requirement that they ignored, not once, not twice, but five times just 
in the last Congress.
  They waived the three-fifths rule on the Contract with America Tax 
Relief Act. They waived the three-fifths rule on the Medicare 
Preservation Act of 1994. They waived the three-fifths rule on the 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1996. They waived the three-fifths rule on 
Health Insurance Reform. And they waived the three-fifths rule on the 
Welfare Reform Conference Report.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, they waived the rule every time that it 
applied. But today they want to attach it to the United States 
Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution, as you know it, as I know it, 
is a very serious business and should never be used as a political 
tool. Our Constitution has only been amended 27 times in the last 210 
years since it was ratified.
  Today's proposed amendment will require a supermajority to pass 
revenue-raising legislation. Mr. Speaker, we should make sure that any 
law we impose on the American people has as much support as possible. 
But the problem with a supermajority is it effectively turns control 
over to a small minority who can stop legislation, even legislation 
that the majority supports. In other words, Mr. Speaker, one-third plus 
one of either the House or Senate could effectively hold up the entire 
country.
  This has been a bad idea, not last year, 2 years ago, 10 years ago, 
it has been a bad idea for a very, very long time. In fact, James 
Madison in the Federalist Papers said that under a supermajority the 
fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would no 
longer be the majority party that would rule. The power would be 
transferred to the minority.
  Since this amendment requires 290 votes to pass the House, this bill 
looks a lot more like showboating than legislating. Mr. Speaker, the 
American people deserve a lot better than that.
  This amendment will cripple our government's ability to act during a 
national crisis. It will make it impossible to pass the McCain 
bipartisan tobacco bill. It will lock in every corporate welfare and 
tax break for the very rich at the expense of the middle and lower 
class families.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, this amendment has an extreme loophole. My 
Republican colleagues can still increase taxes on the working families 
as long as they also decrease the taxes on the very rich.
  An editorial in Monday's Washington Post warns that the effects of 
this amendment would be to add to future deficits while disturbing the 
balance of powers and undercutting the democratic process by enshrining 
minority rule.
  This amendment is poorly thought out. It will empower the minority, 
which is not the way our government is supposed to work. And it will 
probably hurt middle and low income families while helping the rich.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and oppose the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), one of the authors of this 
legislation.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as I begin to speak, the Pages are 
putting an example of the first 1040 form up for those Members in the 
Chamber to look at.
  This was a 1040 form in 1914. It was one page long. It is a little 
difficult to read, but if we will look here, citizens were taxed 1 
percent on net income over $3,000, 1 percent. Less than 1 percent of 
the American people had to pay any income tax the first time it was 
collected in 1914.
  If we go on down and look at these numbers again, it is very 
difficult to see from the Chamber, but if we had over $20,000 of net 
income, we paid an additional 1 percent. If we had over $50,000, we 
paid 2 percent. And it goes down. Then if we had over $500,000 of net 
income back in 1914, we paid the horrendous rate of 6 percent. That was 
the first income tax collected on the American taxpayers by the Federal 
Government back in 1914.
  Since that time, the marginal rate has not stayed at 1 percent. It is 
now over 40 percent. That is an increase of 4,000 percent. The time has 
come to do something about that. The time has come to support the rule 
that the gentlewoman from Ohio is on the floor, representing a majority 
of the Members of the Committee on Rules, to make in order the rule for 
the debate of the tax limitation constitutional amendment.
  This rule makes in order the bill that we voted on last year, the 
constitutional amendment that we voted on last year. It also makes in 
order a Democratic substitute, if they wish to offer a substitute, and 
a motion to recommit. So it is a very fair rule.
  The amendment that was reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary 
last year, and we did not have a hearing in the Committee on the 
Judiciary this year but we reported the same bill to the Committee on 
Rules, would require a two-thirds vote of the House and the Senate to 
raise taxes.
  It explicitly states that if we want to lower the capital gains tax 
rate, we can do that with the simple majority vote. If we want to 
change to a national sales tax, if we want to change to a flat tax, as 
long as the overall revenue effect is de minimis, and that is a very 
fancy Latin word that means ``very little'', we can do that with a 
majority vote.
  We may be asking, as my good friend from Massachusetts said in his 
opposition just a second ago or a few minutes ago, is this a gimmick? 
The answer is no, it is not a gimmick. If we could have, not that chart 
but the one right underneath here, you see this has been tried in 14 
States. It is either in the State constitutions in 14 States or it is 
in the State law in 14 States, some of them as far back as 1890.
  In the year 1890, 100 years ago, the State of Mississippi said, if we 
are going to have a tax increase, it takes a three-fifths vote. The 
other 13 States that have it, some of them are as high as three-
fourths. Since 1934, the State of Arkansas, where our President was the 
former governor. Most of them are two-thirds, which is in the 
amendment.
  These 14 States, a number of studies have been done over the years, 
and there are four things that are true in those 14 States. Their taxes 
are lower than in States that do not have a supermajority requirement. 
Their taxes go up slower than in those States that do not have a 
supermajority tax increase requirement. Therefore, their economy grows 
faster. Believe it or not, it means that more jobs are created, about 
43 percent in States that have the supermajority requirement, more jobs 
are created than in those States that do not.
  When we get to the debate later this afternoon on the amendment, keep 
a few things in mind. The opponents that are against this are not 
against it because they do not think it will work. They are against it 
because they know it will work. They know that it will take a consensus 
of the country and a consensus of the Congress, not just the 
Republicans, not just the Democrats, but a bipartisan majority, 
supermajority to require a tax increase.
  If I could see the last chart, there are going to be some other poll 
numbers reported later in the debate. This is a poll that was taken 
last year. And the poll that was taken last year, 64 percent of people 
identified with the Democratic Party said they were for a two-thirds 
vote to raise taxes. Sixty-eight percent of Federal employees

[[Page H2135]]

that were polled said they were for a two-thirds requirement to raise 
their Federal taxes. Seventy-one percent of union members said that 
they were for a two-thirds requirement to raise their taxes, and 73 
percent overall of all Americans.
  So this is not a conservative issue. This is not a Republican issue. 
This is an American issue. The latest number poll, that is this year, 
75 percent of all Americans are for the supermajority requirement. So 
vote for the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. 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, capital gains taxes, withholding taxes, 
income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, highway taxes, aviation taxes, 
fuel taxes, property taxes, manufacturing taxes, education taxes, 
cigarette taxes, liquor taxes, ticket taxes, corporation taxes, old 
taxes, new taxes, flat taxes, fast flat taxes, surtaxes, taxes on 
taxes, and a retroactive tax to tax us if we miss something the 
government needed.
  I understand all the philosophical debates that are being brought up 
here today, but I support the rule and support the bill for the 
following reasons: I think a Nation that overtaxes their people, kills 
hope and rewards their enemies, and part of the enemy is the Congress 
who can raise our taxes too easily. Just look at the Constitution, if 
it makes any difference. We have enacted a macroeconomic trade 
agreement with great bearings on tax revenue with a one simple majority 
vote when the Constitution called for a two-thirds requirement. We are 
out of sync.
  In addition, we have a tax code that rewards dependency, penalizes 
achievement, subsidizes illegitimacy, kills investment, kills jobs. If 
we work hard, we send a lot of money to government. If we do not work, 
government sends us a check. Beam me up here. I mean it. Beam me up.
  If we go to a tax court, we are guilty in the eyes of the court and 
we have got to prove ourselves innocent. That is unbelievable to me, 
and I do not see anybody talking about this.
  I wanted to thank the Republicans for including my burden-of-proof 
provision in the IRS reform bill. Without it, there is nothing of 
significant protection for our taxpayers.
  Look, is it any wonder the American people are taxed off? They are 
fed up. They are fed up with a system that kills families, destroys 
families, and treats people like second-class citizens.
  This may not be the exact answer. I do not know if this will become 
law. Probably not. But I want to support it. Any measure that makes it 
tougher to tax the American people is absolutely 100 percent on target 
with me.
  I would like to just remind everybody that all of these taxes that we 
do pay, the American people are now beginning to question how we are 
employing them and using them. I think it is fitting for the Congress 
of the United States to make it more difficult to raise these taxes.
  The American people are taxed off. And I think Congress should 
recognize it before there are other great changes here.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my good 
friend and colleague from the great State of Ohio.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding this 
time to me.
  I regret I cannot support this amendment to the Constitution, and I 
would like to take a moment to explain why.
  If we make it more difficult to increase taxes but we do not make it 
any more difficult to spend money, what we will create is a bias in 
favor of increasing spending and simply borrowing the money. That is 
even worse than increasing spending and increasing taxes to pay for it, 
because when we increase spending and increase taxes to pay for it, at 
least we are being honest and asking the very people who benefit from 
the spending to ante up and pay the cost and suffer the pain of the tax 
increase. But when we spend their money and make our children pay for 
it, which is what we do when we borrow, we get the political gain but 
we make the next generation--who do not yet have the right to vote--pay 
for it.
  The size of the United States debt is very, very large. It is $5.7 
trillion. As a percentage of the GNP it is the highest it has been 
since the end of World War II, and what we do in this amendment today 
is make it far more likely that that debt will increase. What we should 
do and what I would support is a two-thirds requirement to increase 
borrowing also. Then we would have a two-thirds requirement for either 
increasing taxes or increasing borrowing; and we would not bias the 
system in favor of borrowing.
  Without that change, I cannot support this amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no remaining speakers. I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing let me reiterate that this rule is identical 
to the rule the House adopted last year by voice vote on the same 
issue. It gives ample opportunity for all sides to be heard on the tax 
limitation amendment, and it gives the minority two separate 
opportunities to change the underlying legislation.
  Let me also remind my colleagues that the tax limitation amendment 
has the support of 68 percent of all Americans, and it is not hard to 
understand why. Today nearly 40 percent of the average American 
family's income goes toward taxes. It is reasonable in the minds of 
those Americans to put a small bump in the road that will slow down the 
people who want to take even more of their hard-earned money.
  Today's vote will not end debate on this matter but instead it will 
start the debate down across all 50 States, down to the local level 
where the people will determine whether amending the Constitution is in 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to let reasonableness and the will 
of the people prevail by voting ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the 
tax limitation amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 407, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) 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 joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 407, the joint 
resolution is considered read for amendment.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 111 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 111

       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. Pursuant to House Resolution 407 the 
amendment printed in House Report 105-488 is adopted.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 111, as amended by the amendment

[[Page H2136]]

printed in House Report 105-488, is as follows:

       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 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. Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will 
control 1\1/2\ hours.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 111 requires a two-thirds vote in 
both the House and Senate for any bill that changes the internal 
revenue laws by more than a de minimis amount. The resolution allows 
Congress to waive the supermajority requirement to pass a tax increase 
during a period of declared war between the United States and another 
country, or when the Congress and the President enact a resolution 
stating that the United States is engaged in a military conflict which 
threatens national security. Tax legislation enacted under this waiver 
can be enforced for no longer than 2 years after its enactment.
  H.J. Res. 111 provides a simple mechanism to curb wasteful and 
abusive government spending by restraining the government's 
unquenchable appetite for taking the American people's money. The more 
the government has, the more it spends. The tax limitation amendment 
will ensure that when the government needs money it will not simply 
look to the American people to foot the bill.
  A constitutional amendment is the only way we can assure the American 
people that Congress will only take from their pocketbooks that which 
is truly needed. This constitutional amendment will force Congress to 
focus on options other than raising taxes to manage the Federal budget. 
It will also 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.
  Furthermore, if Congress has less to spend on programs, it will be 
forced to act responsibly and choose what is truly important to the 
American people, and it will be forced to make sure government programs 
are run as effectively and efficiently as possible. Simply put, the 
harder it is for Congress to tax the American people, the harder it 
will be for Congress to spend their hard-earned money. Government will 
spend less when the American people give it less.
  Mr. Speaker, tax limitation requirements have been proven to work. In 
the 14 States that have adopted supermajority requirements for tax 
increases, taxes grew at a rate about 10 percent less than States 
without tax limitation requirements. Between 1980 and 1992, in States 
with a supermajority requirement economic growth was 43 percent, 
compared to 35 percent in States without such a requirement. Employment 
growth was 26 percent, compared to 21 percent in States without such a 
requirement.
  The need for this amendment is clear. The tax burden on our citizenry 
is out of control. In 1934 Federal taxes were 5 percent of the average 
family's income. Today that figure is nearly 25 percent. Overall taxes 
consume nearly 40 percent of an average family's income. That is more 
than food, housing and clothing combined.
  To support this huge level of taxation we have developed a cumbersome 
Tax Code that causes needless confusion and delay. In 1914 the Internal 
Revenue Code contained 11,400 words. Our current code contains over 7 
million words. American taxpayers spend over $200 billion and 5.4 
billion hours a year just to comply with Federal taxes. Sixty percent 
of taxpayers must hire a professional just to sort through their own 
return.
  Just think how small, simple and fair our Tax Code would be if we 
would have had a supermajority requirement when the taxes that created 
this monster were enacted. In fact, four of the last five major tax 
increases, including the 1993 increase, the largest tax increase in 
American history, four out of five would not have passed if the tax 
limitation amendment had been in effect when they were enacted.

                              {time}  1145

  This would have saved the American people hundreds of billions of 
dollars. That is money the American people could have used to invest, 
pay for retirement, or for their children's education. It is simply too 
easy for Congress to tax the American people too much and too often by 
a Tax Code that is too complicated.
  Our Constitution contains a Bill of Rights designed to preserve 
freedom by restricting government intrusion into the lives of the 
people. But the power to tax is the power to reach the lives of the 
people in a very direct way, controlling what and how much the people 
can do with their own resources. Taxes affect how you invest your 
money, how you spend it, where you live, and many other aspects of 
everyday life.
  The power to tax has been abused by the government, using it as a 
club to drive the government's will into the lives of the people at the 
expense of freedom and opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply returns control of the American 
taxpayer's pocketbook to where it belongs, the American taxpayer. While 
this Congress has shown discipline and restrained increases in spending 
leading to the first balanced budget in three decades, it is simply too 
easy for Congress to spend the people's money.
  As long as Congress can continue to raise taxes every time it wants 
to spend more money, we will never have true tax relief; we will never 
have true debt reduction.
  The Constitution entrusts Congress with the power of the purse. 
Unfortunately, Congress time and time again, has taken that to mean it 
can pay for its own bloating simply by pulling the American people's 
already tight purse strings. This amendment reminds Congress it is not 
the government's money; it is the people's money.
  I believe in good and effective government, but more money does not 
mean better government. Better government means doing more with less of 
the American people's money. Requiring a two-thirds vote in both Houses 
to raise taxes will force Congress to do more with smaller and more 
efficient government.
  I have great confidence in the American people. Americans have shown 
they are the most ingenuous, creative, and hard-working people in the 
world. The government should not punish those very traits that have 
made the United States the most effective and productive Nation in 
history.
  Working hard to make more money for your family is rewarded by tax 
after tax after tax. There is the income tax, the marriage tax, the 
death tax, the Social Security tax, the sales tax; you name it, 
government can find a way to tax it.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, this amendment says no more. The American people 
have had enough. Our tax system is out of control, unfair, and abusive. 
The least we can do is take action to prevent it from becoming more so. 
It is time for Washington to stop asking American families to shoulder 
the financial burden brought by bloated

[[Page H2137]]

budgets and wasteful spending. Once and for all, it is time for 
Washington to get off the American people's backs and out of their 
pocketbooks.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member from 
the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me time.
  Before I begin discussing our concerns about the amendment, I would 
like to say a few words about my concerns about the priorities of the 
House.
  Consideration of this amendment represents an annual tax day press 
event. Although we fail to do much of substance in the 105th Congress, 
here we are in front of the cameras debating an impractical tax 
limitation amendment. I would hope we would begin to debate some of the 
serious issues before us, like the tobacco settlement, saving Social 
Security, health care, juvenile justice. But those issues are nowhere 
to be seen because we have taken polls, and on an annual April 15th 
situation, we are debating the same constitutional amendment that was 
defeated last year around April 15th. So let us put it in perspective: 
We are not legislating; we are just posturing for political advantage.
  But I would have serious concerns about the constitutional amendment, 
H.J. Res. 111, the proposed constitutional amendment, with respect to 
tax limitation. The terms of the amendment are unbelievably vague. The 
only thing clear about the amendment is the fact that the amendment 
will cause great confusion.
  When we had a hearing on the resolution before it was defeated last 
year, both Democratic and Republican witnesses expressed very serious 
concerns about H.J. Res. 111. Former Office of Management and Budget 
Director Jim Miller, tax limitation amendment supporter, went so far as 
to call some of the language silly and unworkable.
  The language considered by experts at the hearing requiring a two-
thirds majority vote to increase the Internal Revenue was the language 
we heard last time. We marked up a different bill in the committee than 
that which was reviewed by the experts, and the language that is now 
before us on the floor requires a two-thirds majority to change the 
Internal Revenue laws, resulting in an increase in the Internal Revenue 
by more than a de minimis amount.
  Of course, no one seems to have the slightest idea what a change in 
the Internal Revenue laws to increase the general revenue by more than 
a de minimis amount, nobody knows exactly what that means, and it is 
our intention, therefore, apparently to leave this very significant 
interpretive question to the whims and wishes of the courts, or to some 
bureaucratic person.
  The confusion created by the constitutional amendment will create 
powers in a new bureaucracy. For example, who are we going to anoint 
with the power to decide the golden question? Will a particular bill 
constitute an increase in revenue, or will it increase revenue by more 
than a de minimis amount?
  We heard testimony that this power would be investigated in a 
bureaucrat with unprecedented powers to control the legislative power, 
because once that decision is made, that could require a two-thirds, 
rather than a simple majority vote.
  Who becomes the golden decider of that particular question? The 
American public deserves answers to these questions before, not after, 
we have made a mess that cannot be cleaned up. What happens if we pass, 
for example, a controversial corporate tax loophole that we estimated 
would cost $500 million, but later discover it is costing $500 billion? 
Although it took only a simple majority to pass the corporate tax 
loophole, it will take two-thirds in both the House and the Senate to 
correct it.
  For this reason, we ought to be calling the resolution the Corporate 
Loophole Protection Act.

  Furthermore, there are those who support the legislation saying it 
will control spending. There is nothing in the legislation to control 
spending. Spending will continue with a simple majority vote. 
Unfortunately, paying for the spending will require a two-thirds vote. 
That is obviously a prescription for disaster.
  In addition to being vague and biased in its protection of corporate 
loopholes, this amendment would be unworkable. There are very good 
reasons why supermajorities are rare in our Constitution, and that is 
because they have learned from experiences of the failed Continental 
Congress that excessive supermajority requirements are not practical 
for an efficient government.
  We only require supermajorities for things like overriding a 
Presidential veto, impeachment or proposing constitutional amendments. 
These are well-defined circumstances, not open to interpretation.
  But, unfortunately, there will always be numerous views on whether or 
not a bill increases the revenue by more than a de minimis amount. 
Incredibly, the supermajority prescribed in this resolution would be a 
much stronger requirement than the supermajorities required for 
impeachment, treaty ratification or veto overrides, because it requires 
a two-thirds vote of the Membership of the House; not just those 
present and voting.
  In fact, we have not been able to adhere to our own tax limitation 
rules. That would give us a fairly good idea of what would happen under 
this constitutional amendment. In the 104th Congress we had a rule that 
required a three-fifths vote on bills requiring Federal income tax 
increases.
  The story of the tax limitations rules provides us with what would 
happen, because there was waiver after waiver after waiver, because 
many major bills included changes in the tax system that increased 
taxes.
  The rule was waived for the 1996 budget reconciliation conference 
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 into law by a Democrat or Republican 
President, have passed both Houses by two-thirds majority.
  If we could not function with a three-fifths majority, how could we 
possibly function with a two-thirds requirement, that can only be 
waived in cases of war or amending the Constitution?
  Amending the Constitution is very serious business, and should not be 
conducted haphazardly. Some very tough questions are not even close to 
being answered. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to act responsibly and 
reject this tax day publicity stunt, and vote no on H.J. Res. 111.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Joint Resolution 111.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), I would like to include for the record a letter 
from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the House 
Committee on Ways and Means, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), 
the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The letter referred to follows:
                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 1997.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hyde: I understand that the Judiciary 
     Committee is scheduled to consider H.J. Res. 62. Section 1 of 
     the resolution would generally require a supermajority vote 
     for any bill that amends the internal revenue laws 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. In 
     relevant respects, this language in H.J. Res. 62 is 
     substantially identical to the language of H.J. Res. 169, as 
     considered by the full House last year. That language was 
     carefully crafted by myself and Mr. Barton and the other 
     sponsors of the legislation. Moreover, Mr. Barton and I 
     entered into a colloquy on the House floor, describing how we 
     interpreted the language of the resolution.
       First of all, the Constitutional amendment would not apply 
     to tax legislation that is a

[[Page H2138]]

     net tax cut or that is revenue neutral overall. Thus, the 
     supermajority requirement would not have applied to the 
     ``Balanced Budget Act of 1995'' or the ``Contract with 
     America Tax Relief Act'' since those bills provided a net tax 
     cut. Similarly, it would also not apply to legislation that 
     replaces one tax system with another as long as that 
     replacement is revenue neutral. For example, if we were 
     successful in replacing the current income tax with a broad-
     based consumption tax, that legislation would be subject only 
     to a simple majority vote provided that the replacement tax 
     raised the same amount or less revenue than the current tax.
       Second, the Constitutional amendment excepts from the \2/3\ 
     requirement tax legislation that raises no more than a ``de 
     minimis'' amount of revenue. The amendment states that 
     Congress may ``reasonably provide'' how this exception is 
     applied. Details may be very important, but they do not 
     belong in the Constitution. Instead, Congress would adopt 
     legislation that implements the Constitutional amendment by 
     defining terms and fleshing out procedures.
       It is up to this or a future Congress to design this 
     ``implementing legislation.'' However, it is my understanding 
     and intent that such legislation will have the following 
     characteristics:
       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 revenue 
     estimating rules. As under the Budget Act, a committee of 
     jurisdiction or conference committee would, in consultation 
     with the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee 
     on Taxation, determine the revenue effect of a bill.
       A bill would be considered to raise a ``de minimis'' amount 
     of revenue if it increased Federal tax revenues by no more 
     than 0.1 percent over 5 years.
       For purposes of determining whether a bill raises more than 
     a ``de minimis'' amount of revenue, only tax provisions 
     (i.e., provisions modifying the internal revenue laws) in the 
     bill would be considered. Other provisions that increase 
     Federal revenues or receipts (such as asset sales, tariffs, 
     user fees, etc.) would not be taken into account in 
     determining the revenue raised by the bill.
       ``Internal revenue laws'' means the current Internal 
     Revenue Code (i.e., 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. It does 
     not, however, include tariffs.
       Accordingly, a supermajority vote would not have been 
     required for H.R. 831, which increased and extended the 
     health insurance deduction for the self-employed; H.R. 2778, 
     which provided tax relief to our troops in Bosnia; H.R. 3103, 
     the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 
     1996;'' and H.R. 3448, the ``Small Business Job Protection 
     Act of 1996.'' Each of the bills was designed to be revenue 
     neutral but, due to the strictures of the Budget Act, was 
     slightly revenue positive and raised a ``de minimis'' amount 
     of revenue.
       I hope that this information is helpful in the 
     deliberations of the Committee on Judiciary.
           With best personal regards,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Speaker, I would note that as a part of this letter, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) says, ``Second, the Constitutional 
amendment excepts from the two-thirds tax requirement legislation that 
raises no more than a de minimis amount of revenue.''
  The gentleman from Virginia asks what that might be. The gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer) continues, ``The amendment states that Congress 
might reasonably provide how this exception is applied. Details may be 
very important,'' and they are, ``but they do not belong in the 
Constitution. Instead, Congress would adopt legislation that implements 
the constitutional amendment by defining terms and fleshing out 
procedures.
  ``It is up to this or a future Congress to design this implementing 
legislation. However, it is my understanding and intent that such 
legislation will have the following characteristics:
  ``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 revenue estimating 
rules. As under the Budget Act, a committee of jurisdiction or 
conference committee would, in consultation with the Congressional 
Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation, determine the revenue 
effect of a bill.
  ``A bill would be considered to raise a de minimis amount of revenue 
if it increased Federal tax revenues by no more than 0.1 percent over 5 
years.
  ``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. Other provisions that increase Federal revenues or 
receipts, such as asset sales, tariffs, user fees, et cetera, would not 
be taken into account in determining the revenue raised by the bill.
  ``Internal Revenue laws means the current Internal Revenue Code.
  ``Accordingly, a supermajority would not have been required for House 
Resolution 831, which increased and extended the health insurance 
deduction for the self-employed; House Resolution 2778, which provided 
for tax relief to our troops in Bosnia; H.R. 3103, the Health Coverage 
Availability and Affordability Act of 1996; and H.R. 3448, the Small 
Business Job Protection Act of 1996. Each of the bills was designed to 
be revenue neutral, but due to the strictures of the Budget Act, was 
slightly budget positive and raised a de minimis amount of revenue.
  ``I hope that this information is helpful to the deliberation of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to 
control that time and yield to other Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would announce that when the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) comes to the floor, I will ask 
unanimous consent to yield some of my time to him as the chief Democrat 
sponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Miller.)

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of 
a tax limitation amendment. I would like to take a minute to share what 
I have been hearing from my constituents in southwest Florida.
  In March, the Citizens for a Sound Economy's Scrap the Code Tour made 
a stop in Sarasota. Six hundred and fifty residents attended to hear 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) talk about the flat tax and the national sales tax. There 
was real excitement about the possibility of real tax reform. But I am 
also hearing at home that the tax limitation amendment is the first and 
perhaps the most critical step towards fundamental reform.
  At a recent town hall meeting, I asked my constituents to tell me 
whether they prefer a flat tax or a national sales tax. They told me 
that either approach was a vast improvement over the current system, 
but they do not believe that politicians can restrain themselves from 
tampering with the system once they fix it.
  Sarasota residents told me that tax rules must be consistent if 
taxpayers are to be a player in the game. But the truth is, and 
taxpayers know this better than anyone, that Congress changes tax laws 
every year. If we are to move to a simpler, fairer tax system, then we 
must assure the American people that Congress will not repeatedly 
change the rules.
  The sad truth is that Americans will no longer take our word for it. 
They want a legal restraint on Washington's tax and spend nature, and 
who can blame them? American taxpayers need to have confidence that if 
Congress reduces the tax burden this year, that they will not turn 
around and hike taxes next year. How can an American family decide how 
much to save or whether to buy a house if Congress continues to change 
the rules of the game?
  By requiring a two-fifths vote of Congress to any tax increase, 
taxpayers could finally have the confidence in the system. Americans 
need that peace of mind. They deserve that peace of mind. I advise my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to listen to the American people. 
They are urging us to pass the tax limitation amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding time to me.

[[Page H2139]]

  To the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and to my colleagues, I think the real 
issue here on this day, April 22, which is Earth Day, which hopefully 
has us embracing the richness of our earth and the value of the assets 
that this earth bestows upon all of us, I think we should actually come 
to the floor of the House and tell the simple truth.
  This legislation, which unfortunately our Republican friends did not 
have the opportunity to put before the House on April 15, for all of 
the political shenanigans that that would have generated across the 
country, is truly a case of the rule and the tyranny of the minority.
  This constitutional amendment is bogus and does not represent truth 
in lending or truth in telling the story about taxes in America. What 
actually tells the story of taxes in America is real reform: 
simplification of the Tax Code; making sure that the IRS lends itself 
to mediation and dispute resolution; ensuring that there is no marriage 
penalty, language that is in my Taxpayers Justice Act that was filed in 
1997, that has yet to see its time on the floor of the House for 
debate.
  But this bill simply is tyranny. For when I am home with my 
constituents and I hear from the veterans of the Vietnam War, people 
needing Social Security and Medicare, health benefits and education, 
they talk about fiscal responsibility. They talk about balancing the 
budget, but they realize that as we appropriate monies for these great 
needs, veterans' hospitals that are seeing closings and diminishing of 
service, and having to put veterans out after a 24-hour stay, they 
realize we must balance the budget with the responsibility of 
appropriating monies for these great needs in this country, at the same 
time as increasing or promoting or having the ability to raise revenue.
  What does this constitutional amendment do; a constitutional 
amendment, by the way, that never went to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, never followed the lines of processes? Yes, it went in 1997, 
but if my calendar tells me right, it is 1998, so it had no judicial 
process whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, the key is that it did not go through 
the judicial process, the committee that had the right of jurisdiction.
  In so doing, what we have in this process, we have two-thirds of this 
body that are required to raise the revenue to protect the veterans' 
benefits, health benefits, education benefits, and at the same time 
only 51 percent that can appropriate. So therefore, we appropriate, but 
do not have the money to either help balance or help pay for these 
needs.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the second session of the 
105th Congress. In the first session of the 105th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary held 
a hearing on March 18, 1997, where the resolution was ordered reported 
to the full House on April 8, 1997, by the subcommittee. It is the 
exact language that was voted on last year, so the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) did not feel they needed to hold another hearing on 
the exact language, since this is in the same Congress.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the clarification 
of my colleague, the gentleman from Texas.
  Let me clarify and say that as I understand it, the bill did not 
succeed in 1997, and therefore, I would argue very vigorously because 
of the real concerns with this legislation that it needed additional 
hearings and an additional opportunity to go through the process 
through the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Let me also respond to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, to say 
that this is a dangerous piece of legislation, because as we look to 
balance and secure Social Security and Medicare, this bill smacks in 
the face of being able to ensure that Medicare and Social Security are 
safe.
  A 1996 report for the Social Security trustees projects the Social 
Security trust fund to start running in deficits in 2012. Medicare 
actuaries project the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will 
become insolvent in 2010. It is, therefore, a requirement that not only 
do we see a decrease in benefits, but we also see an increase in 
revenue to provide for the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. 
This bill will kill that.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 
111, the Tax Limitation amendment. As you all know, this amendment 
seeks to require a two-thirds majority vote in each House to increase 
tax revenues by more than a ``de minimis'' amount, except in times of 
war or military conflict which posed a threat to national security. 
First of all, this measure is completely ambiguous. If we are proposing 
to amend the longest standing document of civil liberty and freedom in 
the Western world, surely, we should be absolutely clear about what our 
intentions are.
  Leaving the determination to Congress as to what a ``de minimis'' 
increase is, is ultimately as arbitrary and meaningless as not having a 
standard at all. The fact of the matter is that this language will 
inevitably encourage years of exhaustive litigation about what a ``de 
minimis'' increase truly is. Do the authors of this bill intend that 
potential tax increases be evaluated by changes in percentages or by 
numerical amount? When do changes begin to exceed the ``de minimis'' 
standard included in this bill, is it over an annual period, a two-year 
period or a five-year period? The plain answer is that nobody knows. 
Furthermore, the one exception in the bill in regards to the special 
circumstances that may arise during an armed military conflict are 
written too narrowly to be effective. Even in this drastic case, the 
tax limitation is only waived for a maximum of two years.
  But more importantly, this constitutional amendment is contrary to 
the very spirit and purpose of the Constitution. This nation was 
founded upon principles of majority rule, so why should we now 
sacrifice these sacred principles to encapsulated the level of the 
federal government's tax revenues? The whole purpose of the Connecticut 
and New Jersey Compromises that helped to form this great Congress over 
two centuries ago, was to allow the American people the opportunity to 
express their will through both locally and broadly elected 
representation that had their particular interests at hand.
  But how can this process continue to take place when 146 members of 
this body could vote to defeat any new tax measure that is not a so-
called ``de minimis'' change in current tax policy? Clearly, any 
initiative that would seek to give such an enormous amount of power to 
such a small minority is both imprudent and inappropriate. I believe 
that this bill is a poorly written expression of a poorly conceived 
legislative initiative, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote it 
down, just like we have done over the last two years.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, 
the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  What we have as we look to this bill, which requires a two-thirds 
majority for increasing the revenue, we have a rule by tyranny, a rule 
by the minority. We have a tyrannical ruling of those who would have us 
not provide for Social Security and Medicare, veterans' benefits, 
health benefits, educational benefits.
  Do Members know what else we have? We give to all of our large 
corporate multinationals, those individuals who see tax loopholes as a 
way to survive, we give them another hammer to beat down tax loopholes. 
Because what it would require of us, if we found a tax loophole that 
might just by coincidence raise a slight bit of revenue, two-thirds of 
this body would have to vote for it. That means that tax loopholes 
would proliferate across this Nation.
  I simply say that I realize my colleagues have good intentions, but 
this is not the way to run a government. This is a way to shut down a 
government. This is what the Founding Fathers did not want to have 
happen, the tyranny of the minority, telling us that we could not vote 
for or provide for the people of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues vote this down and rule on 
behalf of the people of America.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are going to put the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) down as undecided on this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
my California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been long observed that a frog thrown into a pot 
of

[[Page H2140]]

boiling water will jump right out, but throw a frog into a pot of tepid 
water and then slowly turn up the heat under the pot, and the frog will 
stay there until he is cooked.
  That boiled frog strategy is how Congress imposed a monstrous tax 
burden on the American people. Congress did not wake up one day and 
then pass a law that confiscates more than 20 percent of an American 
family's income, which is exactly how much in Federal taxes the 
American people are paying. Many people are paying more than 20 
percent. But the heat was turned up on the American taxpayer over the 
last six decades. That is how we got to this position.
  In 1934 the Federal Government took just 5 percent of an American 
family's income. Because of the increase in Federal taxes that we have 
seen, because that increase has been gradual, the American people have 
gone along just treading water while the heat was turned up. It made it 
even easier for Congress to increase taxes on the people, turning up 
the heat on the people all the time.
  This has come to a point today where our freedom is threatened by the 
level of taxation that our people have to bear. We are now at a level 
of taxation that is totally inconsistent with what our Founding Fathers 
had in mind and what our Founding Fathers believed was consistent with 
a free society. We are just servants, unable to choose our servitude, 
and having the fruits of our labor stolen by the government.
  We are here today to pass a tax limitation constitutional amendment 
which would make it harder to turn up the heat on the taxpayers. This 
resolution would amend the U.S. Constitution to require a two-thirds 
majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass 
any legislation resulting in a tax increase.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments we are hearing against this 
amendment is that it requires more than just a simple majority, which 
is 50 percent plus one, and that that subverts majority rule. But a 
supermajority is a majority. It is just a stronger majority, because it 
is reserved for situations that are important.
  In fact, there are two dozen instances in which the House of 
Representatives, or at least, excuse me, one House of Congress, is 
required to vote by more than a simple majority to get its work done. 
That is more. What is more, eight of these supermajorities are 
specifically written into the U.S. Constitution.
  What we are saying today is let us just add another, a ninth 
constitutional requirement, that would make it more difficult for 
Congress to raise the taxes of the American people. Because what we are 
recognizing today is that by raising taxes, we are diminishing the 
freedom of the individual American citizen to make decisions with his 
or her life about the product of their labor. Today we have a chance to 
vote clearly on the side of the people's freedom against increasing 
taxes and boiling their freedom down.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to correct the statement made in the 
earlier comments. It was indicated it required a two-thirds vote of the 
membership of the House. That was the bill as it had been introduced. 
The rule that we passed changed the bill, so it is only two-thirds of 
those present and voting. So if we want to cut Social Security, it 
would require a simple majority; if we want to cut education, a simple 
majority; cut Medicare, a simple majority. But to close the corporate 
loophole, it would require two-thirds of those present and voting.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster, a great Member of this 
body, said, ``The power to tax is the power to destroy.''
  Now, there are lots of folks that are saying we are taxed too much. 
They say, well, this is just the Federal level we are talking about. It 
is not a lot of taxes. But there are taxes on the local level, there 
are taxes on the State level, there are taxes on our gasoline, there 
are taxes on our bread. It goes on and on. So this simple amendment is 
needed if we are going to stem the tide here.
  This is not a new idea. Fourteen States currently require 
supermajorities in their legislative bodies to increase taxes or 
revenue. Let me repeat that, fourteen States already do this. This is 
not something new. From 1980 to 1987 taxpayers in those States enjoyed 
a 2 percent decrease in personal income taxes paid.
  More States are looking to protect their citizens from overtaxation. 
Since 1995, Mr. Speaker, legislators in 21 States introduced similar 
legislation. So what we have is the start of a rebellion across this 
country of ours of people saying, hold it, no more taxes; no more 
increasing taxes on the State, Federal, and local level until we pass 
it by a two-thirds majority.
  A lot of folks will say this is a draconian step, but it was pointed 
out by another colleague here, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dana 
Rohrabacher) that there are already on the books ten instances in which 
the Constitution already requires a supermajority vote. I will not go 
through and list all ten, I will make them part of the record.
  Let me mention one: conviction and impeachment trials. On that we 
would all agree. What about consent to a treaty? We cannot pass it by 
just a simple majority vote, we have to have two-thirds.

                              {time}  1215

  So surely if we consent to a treaty, we should have consent to taxes 
on the American people. State ratification of the original 
Constitution. And if the Electoral College is going to meet, if the 
Electoral College sits down and they want to vote, they have got to 
have a two-thirds presence and two-thirds vote to even start the 
procedures.
  If the President has a disability, it requires two-thirds of this 
body to vote. To remove one of the Members from holding office who is 
engaged in insurrection requires a two-thirds vote. There is a long 
history of using two-thirds majority or supermajority requirement to 
take action.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is not undemocratic. It is not unusual. This is 
something that the States are now doing. The Federal Government is 
stepping up to the plate and many of us support this strongly. I urge 
my colleagues to align themselves with the States, align themselves 
with the people and move forward and pass this amendment today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am providing for the Record a list of the instances 
where our Constitution already requires a supermajority vote, as 
mentioned in testimony on this legislation before the Committee on the 
Judiciary by Daniel Mitchell, McKenna Senior Fellow at the Heritage 
Foundation:

                Supermajority Requirements and Taxation

       There is nothing undemocratic or unusual about 
     supermajority requirements in our system of representative 
     democracy. Supermajority voting requirements are routinely 
     used for legislative business in both the House and the 
     Senate. Since 1828, the House has allowed a two-thirds vote 
     to suspend rules and pass legislation. Senate rules require a 
     two-thirds vote for suspension of the rules and for the 
     fixing of time for considering a subject. The Senate requires 
     a three-fifths vote of all Senators to end debate or to 
     increase the time available under cloture. Senate Budget 
     procedures require that three-fifths of the full Senate must 
     agree to waive balanced budget provisions or points of order 
     to consider amendments that would violate the budget approved 
     by Congress.
       There are ten instances in which the Constitution already 
     requires a supermajority vote. Seven of these were part of 
     the original Constitution and three were added through the 
     amendment process:
       Art. I, 3, cl. 6: Conviction in impeachment trials.
       Art. I, 5, cl. 2: Expulsion of a Member of Congress.
       Art. I, 7, cl. 2: Override a Presidential Veto.
       Art. II, 1, cl. 3: Quorum of two-thirds of the states to 
     elect the President.
       Art II, 2, cl. 2: Consent to a treaty.
       Art V: Proposing Constitutional Amendments.
       Art. VII: State ratification of the original Constitution.
       Amendment XII: Quorum of two-thirds of the states to elect 
     the President and the Vice President.
       Amendment XIV: 3: To remove disability for holding office 
     where one has engaged in ``insurrection or rebellion.''
       Amendment XXV, 4: Presidential disability.

[[Page H2141]]

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), my 
good friend, about the revolution he described. Last April 15th it 
failed in the House. Does the gentleman have some additional 
information that will lead us to believe we are going to be overwhelmed 
today with the passage of this amendment?
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
has always been very kind to question me after my speech, and I 
appreciate that because it gives me an opportunity----
  Mr. CONYERS. That is why I do it.
  Mr. STEARNS. To bring back some salient points that I may have 
forgotten.
  Mr. CONYERS. Just answer the question. I have yielded only a minute.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that frankly, 
from the time it was voted on the House floor until today, we have been 
enlightened. And since April 15th it has been very close to our minds 
and I think it will pass.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask if the 
gentleman remembers the $50 billion secret cigarette tax cut that has 
come into the legislation by Speaker Gingrich since April 15th? That is 
a question.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
do not know about a secret----
  Mr. CONYERS. Oh, the gentleman does not know about it?
  Mr. STEARNS. My colleague would realize that everything is passed on 
the House floor. There is nothing secret about it.
  Mr. CONYERS. The $50 billion tobacco tax cut was public? The 
gentleman knew about it before it was revealed, after it had been found 
in the budget bill? Just answer the question.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is asking me a question that 
does have not an answer.
  Mr. CONYERS. Did the gentleman know about it before all of us knew 
it? The gentleman knew about the $50 billion tobacco tax cut? Did he?
  Mr. STEARNS. I knew what I voted on on the House floor and the 
gentleman from Michigan did too.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) to respond. I do not mind doing it.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make the point, the 
question was asked as to what has changed since the last time this was 
voted upon in this body that would cause a different result. I think it 
is worth noting that two States have enacted tax limitation amendments 
since the last vote in this House on this issue. Those two States did 
so by a margin of over 70 percent.
  I think it is also very important to note that it is now broadly 
being publicized in this country that we are taxing the American people 
today at the highest rate we ever have in American history. Federal 
taxes are higher than at any point in time since the end of World War 
II, since 1945.
  In 1945, by the way, a war year in which we were funding a war 
economy and a war, in 1945 Federal taxes were one-tenth of 1 percentage 
point higher than they are now as a proportion of our Gross Domestic 
Product. If we add the obviously higher State and local taxes, 
dramatically higher than 1945, to those almost all-time high Federal 
taxes, it is clear we are taxing the American people at the highest 
level in our history.
  I think that is a change. It has been broadly publicized. It is part 
of the change which led two new States by a broad majority, 70 percent 
plus of the voters in those States, to enact their own tax limitation 
amendments.
  I think those are changes that have occurred since the last vote and 
hopefully will encourage Members of this body to embrace this today. 
Clear changes that have occurred since the last vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to the previous speaker, yes, taxes are high 
today on the American people. But they are highest because of the high 
FICA taxes on Social Security. More than half of American workers pay 
more in FICA taxes than they do in income taxes to the Federal 
Government.
  The wealthy are paying a rate of taxes less than 50 percent of what 
the gentleman talked about in those years. Less than 50 percent. That 
is what this bill is all about today: the wealthy and the powerful. Not 
about middle income people, not about working people who are paying 
more in FICA taxes than they are income taxes.
  We should be considering real reform today here on the floor of the 
House. The Tax Code could be reformed. It could be a lot simpler so 
people do not have to hire accountants. And if we make it simpler, we 
are going to cut out a lot of those loopholes and special interest tax 
breaks. That would be real reform.
  We could have the IRS reform, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that passed 
the House of Representatives last year which is held up by a Republican 
majority in the Senate for some strange reason. That would be real 
reform.
  We could middle income tax relief. That would be real reform. Expand 
the Earned Income Tax Credit to get people working and not confiscate 
taxes from people who earn below the poverty level. That would be real 
reform.
  But, no, what that is about today is quite simple. The Republicans 
are trotting out their same old tired, bait-and-switch constitutional 
amendment. It should be called ``The Special Interest Loophole and 
Deficit Promotion Act.'' It is not targeted toward average Americans.
  What are the Republican majority afraid of? Are they afraid that they 
are going to raise taxes on average Americans, so that they want to 
require a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives? I do not 
think so.
  What they are afraid of is that the outrage, and there is real 
outrage that the previous gentleman spoke about, among the American 
people that they are being screwed because the wealthy, the large 
corporations and the foreign corporations are not paying their fair 
share, that that might sink in with the American people and they might 
demand real reform. They are afraid that they will not be able to 
protect their corporate and special interest sponsors here on the floor 
of the House from a real grass roots movement to reform the Tax Code.
  Foreign corporations in this country, 73 percent of the foreign 
corporations operating in America pay no Federal income taxes because 
of a very generous loophole provided in our Federal Tax Code not 
provided by any of our competitor Nations. Won here, a gift to foreign 
corporations. It is beyond me why we cannot close that loophole and 
raise $15 billion a year from foreign corporations that make money in 
this country by just asking that they pay at the same pathetic rate 
that American corporations pay.
  But, no. We allow them to pay zero. Nothing. And under this bill that 
will never change, because it requires two-thirds vote here on the 
floor of the House to require foreign corporations to begin to pay 
income taxes, maybe so we could provide income tax relief to middle 
income Americans.
  U.S. multinationals use the same loophole to get around taxes. We 
have the pharmaceutical industry, a real darling. We have noticed the 
reasonable price of pharmaceuticals in this country. $3 billion tax 
loophole because they say all of our profits are made in Puerto Rico 
where we do not have to pay taxes, and all of our losses and 
development costs are here in the United States of America where we 
sell the drugs at inflated prices to the same people who are paying 
high taxes.
  Now, that would be real reform but, no, we are going to protect 
against reforming and closing that loophole by this amendment.
  Accelerated depreciation, the biggest loophole in the Tax Code. It 
would be nice if average Americans could get that. Eastman Kodak paid 
an average of 17.3 percent on their products last year. American Home 
Products, 15.6 percent on $4.2 billion of earnings. And Allied Signal, 
10.7 percent on $3.4 billion of earnings.

[[Page H2142]]

  It would be nice if a teacher working full-time could pay taxes to 
the Federal Government at the rate of 10.7 percent like Allied Signal 
did with their tax loophole. But that will never happen in the 
Republicans' world if this amendment passes. We will never close those 
loopholes. We will never provide that tax relief to average Americans.
  This is not about wage earners. It is not about the middle-class. It 
is about the wealthy. It is about the people who have written the 
special interest loophole-ridden Tax Code that we have today, and it is 
about desperate attempts to protect those special interest loopholes 
against a real revolt by the American taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to send this phony amendment packing as we 
have three or four times previously, and to take up real reform on the 
floor of the House with a simple majority. Close the tax loopholes; 
make the special interests, make the foreign corporations, make others 
pay their fair share, and give the American workers the tax relief they 
deserve.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right. FICA taxes are a tax. 
Under this amendment it would take a two-thirds vote to raise FICA 
taxes, which would make it unlikely.
  The gentleman may be right about some of the tax loopholes. I would 
point out that under this amendment we could close every loophole in 
the Tax Code if we wanted to, as long as we used that revenue that was 
generated to then lower the overall tax rate or tax burden, and the 
overall net effect was a de minimis increase in taxes. We could do that 
until the cows come home.
  We could go to a flat tax, a sales tax. What we cannot do is raise 
the overall tax burden unless two-thirds of the Members of this House 
and the other body vote to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, Tip O'Neill once made the statement, Tip O'Neill, the 
long-time Speaker of the House here in this Chamber made the statement, 
and I quote directly, ``God, I love big government.'' If my colleagues 
adhere to that philosophy, then they do not want this amendment.
  But if my colleagues want a smaller government, a less intrusive 
government, a less expensive government, this amendment needs to be 
passed. It should not be easy to raise taxes and it is far too easy to 
do that now.
  Mr. Speaker, I have listened to some of the comments coming from the 
other side on this issue and they keep telling us that we should not 
make it harder for Congress to raise taxes for the sake of the people. 
Do not do it because it would hurt seniors and Social Security. Do not 
do it because too many children are smoking. Do not do it because there 
are too many people out there that need our help. Always reasons to 
take more of the people's hard-earned money because we seem to know a 
better way to spend it than they do.
  A great deal of my colleagues seem to think that if the Nation has a 
problem, we should simply raise taxes to solve it. They still do not 
understand that in so many cases higher taxes is the problem.
  If we allow every American to keep more of their own money, lower 
taxes could make seniors and future retirees less reliant on the 
Federal Government and Social Security. It could mean that families 
might be able to spend a little more time together instead of one 
parent working to pay the taxes and the other parent working to pay the 
bills, as in so many families. The extra family time would do more to 
ensure our children are raised right than all the Federal programs that 
we can drag out.
  Mr. Speaker, those on the other side of this issue still do not get 
it. And unfortunately if we do not get it, the American people will pay 
the price. '
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley), who made a very impassioned statement that I agree with in 
principle.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem is, though, that if we do this, it may be 
virtually impossible to raise the excise tax on cigarettes pursuant to 
the pending tobacco settlement legislation. Had the gentleman 
considered that?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, there is no tobacco settlement at this 
point.
  Mr. CONYERS. I said pending tobacco settlement legislation.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, there is all kinds of pending out there that 
by the time we get through, it will change form many times. But by the 
time this amendment is ratified, we will have far more than enough time 
to do whatever the gentleman wants to do with the tobacco settlement.
  Mr. CONYERS. Okay. I get it. Then the gentleman from Colorado, too, 
was one of the ones that presumably knew about the $50 billion tax cut 
for the tobacco people that was put into the budget amendment?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a ridiculous question.
  Mr. CONYERS. That is a ridiculous question, is it not?
  Mr. HEFLEY. My answer to the gentleman is I think that is a 
ridiculous question that not even the gentleman from Michigan----
  Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman does not even want to answer it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Neither the gentleman from Michigan nor I know whether 
there was a $50 billion tax cut put in the budget agreements.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman that we voted it out of the bill. It must have been put into 
the bill. I presume the gentleman was aware and awake the day we voted 
to take it out. What does the gentleman mean that he does not know if 
it was put in in the first place?
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there is no tobacco 
settlement----
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I did not yield to the gentleman. I am not 
going to yield to the gentleman anymore.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, today the House is listening to the American 
people by voting on the tax limitation amendment. I feel very strongly 
about this vote because I know that the citizens in my district, the 
Third District of North Carolina, need and deserve tax fairness. They, 
like so many Americans throughout this Nation, are tired of Congress 
raising their taxes time and time again with just a simple majority.
  Taxes have been raised so many times over the years that the American 
citizen now spends more on taxes than on food, clothing, and shelter 
combined. In 1934, the American people paid just 5 percent of their 
income in Federal taxes, but today that burden has soared to over 20 
percent. This is simply unfair to the American people.
  The tax limitation amendment will protect the American people from 
elected officials who wish to raise their taxes on a lark by requiring 
a supermajority for such a vote. Four out of the last five major tax 
increases have passed with less than the two-thirds majority which this 
amendment would require. That means had the tax limitation amendment 
been in place, the American taxpayer could have kept approximately $660 
billion of their hard-earned dollars instead of sending the money to 
Washington, D.C.
  I imagine this is why polls show that 75 percent of the American 
people support this amendment. When I was elected to Congress in 1994, 
I made a promise to the people of my district that I would work to 
reduce their unfair tax burden. This legislation that we are voting on 
today represents a major step toward that goal. It is a protection for 
the taxpayer that is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me ask my colleagues to keep in mind a 
quote from an editorial in today's Investors Business Daily. I quote: 
``The U.S. House will have the chance Wednesday

[[Page H2143]]

to perform a noble deed. It can begin to unshackle American taxpayers 
by passing a tax limitation amendment to the Constitution.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is the third time in as many years 
that we are considering amending the Constitution to require a two-
thirds majority of both Houses regarding any increase in revenue. Note 
revenue, not just taxes.
  I guess this is turning into one of those rites of spring, like the 
Cherry Blossom Festival, that comes around when the sap rises. But let 
us not be taken for saps in this.
  This is not a spring fling that is harmless fun. It is very serious 
business. We need to take it seriously even though the process and the 
timing of this debate, like the cherry blossom parade, suggest that it 
is mainly for show.
  The proposed amendment is a bad idea. But it is also coming before 
this House through a process that insults Members' intelligence, 
contradicts any aspiration that this body has to be a thoughtful one, 
and really demeans and debases the constitutional amendment process 
itself.
  Second, perhaps, only to declaring war, an amendment to the 
Constitution ought to command the most serious deliberation and 
legislative review and analysis we are capable of. It deserves much 
better treatment than this kind of rush job. The Constitution is a 
little bit too important to be used as a prop for a political stunt.
  Even if this were being considered in a serious way, it does not 
warrant approval, first, because it is undemocratic, and second, 
because it is grossly impractical.
  First, this proposed amendment violates what James Madison called the 
fundamental principle of free government, the principle of majority 
rule. In the Federalist paper No. 58, Madison put it quite well, and I 
quote, ``It has been said that more than a majority ought to be 
required,'' in certain instances. Madison goes on, ``In all cases where 
justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed or 
active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free 
government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that 
would rule, the power would be transferred to the minority.''
  In other words, the logical corollary of supermajority rule is 
minority control. And this amendment demonstrates that in a dramatic 
way.
  Under this proposed amendment, 34 United States Senators, who today 
might represent less than 10 percent of the American people, would have 
the power to control the government's tax and revenue policy.
  The Constitution makes very few exceptions to the general principle 
of majority rule; none of them, none of them having to do with the core 
ongoing responsibilities of government.
  The framers considered this very question of whether to require 
supermajorities for passage of certain kinds of legislation. They 
specifically rejected proposals to require a supermajority to pass 
bills on subjects such as navigation and revenues because of their 
experience under the Articles of Confederation and of the paralysis 
caused by the Articles' requirement for supermajorities to raise and 
spend money. Their judgment ought to resonate today and cause us great 
pause.
  In those few exceptions where the framers did impose supermajority 
requirements, none deals with the ongoing core responsibilities of 
government. There were only two requirements for supermajorities in 
both Houses as this amendment would involve: one, to override a 
Presidential veto; two on the referral of other amendments to the 
Constitution. Both extraordinary matters.
  Under this proposal, it would be, and this gets to the 
impracticability of it, much more difficult to close corporate 
loopholes than it would be to impeach the President of the United 
States. In sum, this goes far beyond any existing constitutional 
precedent.
  But if it is bad in theory, it is even worse in practice.
  For example, some of the things that would be made much more 
difficult, if not impossible, if this amendment were really in the 
Constitution would be: tax reform, which is hard to do if you do not 
also have offsetting revenues as well as revenue decreases; eliminating 
corporate welfare and improving the fairness of the Tax Code by getting 
rid of special tax breaks on loopholes; selling Federal assets.
  There is no definition in this proposal of what internal revenue is. 
We recently sold the Elk Hills Petroleum Reserve for over $3 billion, 
certainly not de minimis, that went into the internal revenues of the 
country. Would that bill have required two-thirds? Nobody can answer 
that question because this thing was rushed through without any kind of 
careful deliberation.
  Preserving Social Security, Medicare, balancing the budget, all of 
those things are likely to involve offsetting raises and subtractions. 
Presumably the raises are going to demand a two-thirds margin.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The time of the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) will now control the time for the opposition.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) is 
recognized for an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, we hear an awful lot about wanting to reduce 
taxes and everybody would love to lower taxes. But do we really think 
that reasonable, rational, serious-minded Members of future Congresses 
will be likely to reduce taxes in times when we have budget surpluses 
and are able responsibly to do so knowing full well that if times go 
bad and there were need, again, to balance the budget with increased 
revenues, that it would take two-thirds then to do so?
  It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that when the House was constrained by 
its own rule requiring a three-fifths supermajority to deal with this 
same issue, it waived that rule repeatedly, to balance the budget, to 
reform welfare, to preserve Medicare, to extend health care coverage, 
and increase deductions for small business. But if this supermajority 
requirement were in the Constitution rather than in the House rules, we 
could not have waived it, and we could not have passed those bills.
  One thing we can be very sure of, we do not know what the future 
holds. Why would this Congress wish to deprive our successors of the 
tools and ability to deal with future problems? How arrogant is it of 
us to say to our successor Members of Congress: We do not care what may 
be the problems that you face. We are so certain today that you will be 
incompetent to exercise good judgment in the future that we will make 
sure that you are deprived of the ability to do so through majority 
rule.
  Rather than insulting those future Members of this body, we ought to 
honor the wisdom of the framers and protect that central principle of 
this wonderful government of ours: the principle of majority rule. It 
has stood us in good stead for over 200 years. We should reject this 
atrocious idea.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 64 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 61 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond 
to the gentleman from Colorado.
  First, I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs). He 
led the debate in opposition to this at least one of the times it has 
been on the floor. I thought we had a very good, informed, and 
intellectual debate. I would say to my good friend that the reason it 
is on the floor is because it is something that needs to be done.
  We have 14 States that require some sort of supermajority for tax 
increase, including, I believe, the gentleman's State of Colorado. We 
have 27 groups that have endorsed this amendment. We have 10 national 
groups that have key voted it. We have approximately 10 Governors who 
have now come out in support of it. We can debate spending priorities; 
that is a fair thing.

[[Page H2144]]

  We can debate whether we should have any tax increase or more tax 
increases, but if you look at the marginal tax rate that has gone up 
from 1 percent back in 1914 to around 40 percent today, you cannot 
debate that taxes have gone up tremendously, and to most Americans that 
tax burden is as high as it should be.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for the straight 
face with which he suggests that we are indulged in serious business. 
We all know we are doing this because it is close to tax day. We did 
this a year ago. We did this 2 years ago. It failed both times. This is 
a charade and the gentleman is well aware of it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am totally unaware of that. I 
think it is a serious issue. I would ask my good friend from Colorado 
to ask me to his congressional district at a time and place of his 
convenience, and we will engage in as serious a debate as the gentleman 
wishes to participate in before his constituents.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. We will see if they think it should be more 
difficult to raise their taxes.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
will be in touch to work out a date.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me the time. I listened with great interest to my colleague 
from Colorado who plans to return to private life, and I appreciate my 
colleague from Colorado a great deal, especially since he was one who 
spearheaded the notion of civility returning to this Chamber.
  Let me humbly suggest in the most civil tones I can offer that when 
the people's business comes before the House, whether it is in April or 
December or a time in between, it will befit this House to call serious 
debate or to characterize serious debate as some form of stunt.
  I also appreciate the gentleman's revision of American history 
because the gentleman, I know, swore to uphold and defend the 
Constitution. Let us just simply read the first clause from article 5, 
Mr. Speaker. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall 
deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution. There 
is no subservience to some Washingtonized rules of the House.
  This House, whenever it shall deem it necessary, shall propose 
amendments to the Constitution, but to the revisionist history offered 
by my colleague from Colorado on the left, I would point out that when 
it came to questions of revenue in the Federal Government and the 
intent of our founders, there is a larger question this House should 
consider. And that is, if revenue procurement was so noble and so 
necessary, why did not the founders include the direct taxation of 
income in the main body of the Constitution or in the subsequent Bill 
of Rights?
  Indeed, if that is so noble, if that is so civic minded, it would 
appear to me if that were so sober that our founders would have 
incorporated that form of revenue procurement into the main body of the 
Constitution.

                              {time}  1245

  And yet, the amendment process gave us the 16th amendment. And, as my 
colleague from Texas pointed out, starting at a very modest level, we 
have seen taxes grow from 1 percent to almost 40 percent of the median 
family income.
  Therefore, to be truly constitutional and true to the spirit of 
debate and civility in this Chamber, those of us who are here to serve 
the people bring this proposal forward again, not because of cherry 
blossoms in the spring or sap or any other derogatory comment that some 
gentleman may offer to score debating points but because, to be true to 
the spirit of the Constitution, the 5th article is a living, breathing 
part of the Constitution and we have every right to do this. Because 
the people govern; and the people in the 6th district of Arizona and 
across the State of Arizona who have enacted a supermajority limit for 
raising taxes in State government, and I see my colleague from Arizona, 
who helped lead that initiative when we were both private citizens, 
have said, enough is enough.
  And so we stand here today to say, the people know best. Not that 
Washington knows best and not that any type of verbal gymnastics can 
obscure this basic notion, that it is not a profile in courage to go 
back to the pocketbooks of the American people again and again and 
again and, by the margin of one vote, enact what the liberal senior 
senator from New York called the largest tax increase in the history of 
the world.
  Indeed, this amendment offers a tool completely constitutional, 
completely rational, and I daresay completely civil to allow Americans 
to hold on to more of their hard-earned money and send less of it to 
Washington.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) before I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am reassured that this is 
not purely symbolism. But I am puzzled. As I calculate the debate, we 
have about 2 hours left. It is a quarter to 1. I went into my cloakroom 
assuming I would be told we would be voting between 3 and 3:30. But I 
am told that we have been informed that the vote will not be until 5:30 
or so because the Speaker of the House is not in town. He is out doing 
something else, and we have to hold the vote so he can be sitting here.
  Now, I hope that is inaccurate. And I am always glad to be corrected. 
Well, not always glad. Sometimes I am gladder than other times. If I am 
to be corrected, I would like to be. But if we are holding up a vote 
for 2 hours just so our out-of-town Speaker can rejoin us and preside 
on the vote, that seems to me a little symbolistic.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for an 
answer?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I saw the Speaker in HT-5 less than 
an hour ago. So at least an hour ago he was in town.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So we will be voting right at the 
conclusion of this debate?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman would yield further, I do not 
know when we are going to vote. But the Speaker is in town.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Republican tax 
loophole preservation act.
  Certainly, it is tempting to write off the proposal as just another 
expression of Republican frustration at their failure to advance the 
cause of true tax reform in this Congress. We know that even the 
bipartisan legislation that we approved here in the House last year to 
correct some of the abuses at the IRS continues to linger.
  Indeed, one of the many subjects on which this do-nothing Republican 
Congress has done nothing this year is tax reform. There is not one 
taxpayer in this entire country that can point to a bit of help that it 
has gotten in 4 months out of this Republican Congress since it 
convened in January. And this constitutional amendment is no doubt a 
part of the overall Republican strategy with reference to the United 
States Constitution.
  I have got some friends there in Austin and they wake up each morning 
and on their calendar they have a thought for the day. Well, the House 
Republicans always go them one better. They seem to have a 
constitutional amendment a day. They profess to be a conservative 
Congress, but we would never know that from the fervor and the furor to 
edit and tinker and rewrite one provision after another in the United 
States Constitution that has served our country so well over the last 2 
centuries.
  The document upon which this Nation was founded is in danger of being 
tinkered with and overwritten, until it commands as much respect as the 
municipal traffic code.
  And, of course, the immediate effect of this proposal on our efforts 
to reduce youth smoking must also be considered.
  In this morning's paper, our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.

[[Page H2145]]

DeLay), writes, ``No new taxes. No, not even on cigarettes,'' and he 
declares that any increase on Federal taxes on tobacco is unwise, 
unwarranted, and unfair.
  Well, those of us who have seen the studies that this is the most 
effective way to cause young Americans to not become addicted to 
nicotine, the leading cause of preventable death in this country, 
reject that kind of thinking. We have had difficulty mustering a 
majority to overcome the stranglehold that big tobacco has had on this 
House, and to get a two-thirds majority would be impossible forever. 
And perhaps that is why the tobacco companies support this kind of an 
approach.
  But even more is at stake on this particular matter, and that is why 
I call it the Republican tax loophole preservation act. Americans are 
rightfully dissatisfied with our tax system and our Tax Code. They know 
that it has one provision after another that is a special loophole or 
advantage that benefits the few at the expense of the many.
  Let me reiterate one of the examples that has been given on this 
floor and enlighten my colleagues a little bit more about it. The $50 
billion tax credit that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and 
his cohorts put into this Tax Code last year as they proposed it was 
passed here in the House on about page 317 of an extensive bill under a 
title that masqueraded as assistance for small business. They included 
$50 billion for the tobacco industry. And only after the bill passed 
and that little provision was found tucked in there did they suddenly 
disavow any knowledge. They did not even know how it got there.
  Well, if this piece of legislation, this constitutional amendment, 
passes, all that we need is to get some smooth lobbyist and the 
cooperation of the Speaker of the House to tuck in a provision like 
this $50 billion tax credit, and guess what? It will be there forever 
unless we can muster two-thirds to undo the damage. Unless we can find 
the will in the House to get two-thirds of this body to write out these 
loopholes, they are going to be there forever.
  I am concerned about the loopholes, about the corporate welfare in 
our Tax Code. I think it is unfair. I think there is one provision, one 
special provision put in there by these thick-carpet lobbyists after 
another that ought to be repealed in the Tax Code. But if we want to 
ensure that our Tax Code has all the loopholes that it has today plus 
any that the Speaker and the lobby can throw in there in the future and 
that they stay there and that all the rest of us who are out there 
working for a living have to pay for those tax loopholes, approve this 
measure.
  Because the only way we get rid of any of those loopholes is not only 
to get the majority we find so difficult to get for reforming the tax 
system today, we will have to have two-thirds of this body. This is the 
tax loophole protection measure that is up for consideration today.
  And every American who wants to see this system change and changed 
fundamentally so that there is more fairness in our tax system, so that 
it does not take a bank of accountants to prepare a tax return on April 
15, all of us who want to see real change in that system need to be 
here speaking out against this constitutional amendment. Because it 
will set back our effort at reform, not advance it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the arguments time and 
again against this amendment. This is straightforward.
  Government survives on the generosity of its citizens. Should not 
changes that affect that generosity require more than 50 percent plus 
one vote?
  When the people put on the cloak of responsibility inherent in 
citizenship of this great country, they understand that they will have 
an obligation to contribute. They must keep vigilant of the issues of 
the day, express their opinions, vote their conscience, and actually 
pay money into the system. This is the price of democracy.
  Government has a responsibility, in turn, to respect its citizens. 
When we talk about legislating an increase in the cost of government, 
we are talking about taking by force more of the hard-earned money of 
our own constituents, the people who voted to have us represent them 
here in Washington, D.C.
  In 1996, during my campaign, I pledged, like many other Members, to 
reduce the tax burden put on American families and to require a 
supermajority to raise taxes. Today, just a few days after April 15, we 
all agree that our Tax Code is too thick, our tax laws are too 
complicated, and our tax system is too burdensome. Our constituents 
agree. In fact, that is why many if not most of us are here.
  An editorial from yesterday's Investor's Business Daily makes this 
point clearly. The tax limitation amendment is key to reforming a 
corrupt system that pushes the average American family's tax bill 
beyond the combined costs of food, clothing, and housing. It is hard to 
imagine that anyone could find fault with it, certainly not the 
taxpayers who will work until May 10 just to make enough money to pay 
taxes.
  It is our responsibility today to restore respect for our citizen's 
generosity with the accountability that the they deserve.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I respect my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and his genuine concern for high 
taxes, and I share that concern. But the more I study this 
constitutional amendment, the less I like it. It is bad policy, period.
  This resolution should be named the tax loophole protection act. And 
this is how it works. If they can afford a million-dollar tax lobbyist, 
just hide a special interest tax break in a huge tax bill; and then, 
once it becomes law, it would require a two-thirds vote in Congress to 
undo their special deal.
  Let us be specific. Just a few years ago, when we were trying to stop 
multi-billionaire American citizens from leaving this country and not 
paying their fair share of taxes, this would have been a dream come 
true for them. That is bad news for average working families. They will 
pay higher taxes to cover the costs of special-interest tax loopholes 
for multinational corporations and multi-millionaires.
  If they can afford to hire well-heeled tax lobbyists, this bill is a 
dream come true. But if they are a typical hard-working American trying 
to support their family, this bill is a nightmare.
  Mr. Speaker, what bothers most Americans is not paying their fair 
share of taxes. What bothers most Americans, and especially on April 
15, is that their taxes are higher because some powerful special 
interest too often got back-room, one-of-a-kind tax loopholes. If they 
think it is a great idea that special interests get tax breaks and 
loopholes we do not get, they will love the tax loophole protection 
act.
  The American people need to know, and we certainly know, the 
congressional tax bills are filled with special-interest tax breaks. 
Sometimes these bills are hundreds, hundreds of pages long; and the 
effect of hiding taxes, tax cuts, loopholes behind vague language would 
make Rembrandt and Picasso green with envy.
  If there is a single Member of this House that claims that he or she 
is aware of every hidden tax loophole in our tax bills in recent years, 
I will relinquish the rest of my time right now. I did not think so.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not enshrine into law tax loopholes by 
requiring the same supermajority vote to amend those loopholes that it 
would tax to amend our U.S. Constitution. Somehow it just does not seem 
right to give special-interest tax loopholes the same protection we 
give our American Constitution. This resolution may lower taxes for the 
powerfully connected, but it will raise taxes for average working 
Americans.

                              {time}  1300

  Vote no on this resolution.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), one of the chief sponsors of this 
amendment.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time. It is often important in a debate to have a red herring. If we do 
not want to talk about the real issue in a piece of legislation, talk 
about something that we can imply is involved in the legislation but 
really is not, a red hearing.

[[Page H2146]]

  In this debate today, sadly, we have a red herring. The red herring 
is the argument raised on the other side that this measure will make it 
harder to close tax loopholes. Member after Member after Member after 
Member of the other side has gotten up and said this is the Tax 
Loophole Protection Act. This will make it impossible to close tax 
loopholes. This is a bad idea because it will make it impossible to 
reach corporate tax loopholes. Sadly, it appears that those Members 
either have read it and know that to be false, or have not bothered to 
read the language that we are voting on.
  Simply stated, this measure will make it no harder to close tax 
loopholes. Any tax loophole in the current Code, as the last speaker 
identified, and the speaker before him, and the speaker before him 
berated their concern about not being able to close tax loopholes, 
every single one of the tax loopholes about which they are concerned 
can be closed under this measure, and can be closed with a simple 
majority vote provided that the Congress does not use the closing of 
the tax loophole to raise overall taxes.
  That is, if we close the tax loophole on one particular group or 
corporation as they would like to do, we have to give tax relief to 
some other group of Americans. If they are greatly concerned about 
individual taxpayers being punished when they close the tax loophole, 
all they have to do is grant tax relief to individual Americans, and 
only a simple majority vote is required.
  All of this discussion of preserving forever tax loopholes is simply 
wrong. It is not the way the measure is written. The measure is written 
to provide that any tax increase, that means the closing of the tax 
loophole, which is revenue neutral, does not result in the increase in 
overall taxes, passes with a simple vote.
  We close a tax loophole, we give other Americans a tax break, and 
there is, in fact, only a simple majority required. It is sad that they 
cannot comprehend the language of this measure and want to use a red 
herring.
  Let us talk about some of the other arguments that have been made. It 
has been argued that this matter is impractical. Well, 14 States are 
currently operating under this measure and doing extremely well.
  It has also been argued that it is confusing, and we do not know what 
will happen. Well, 68 million Americans know what will happen under tax 
limitation. In a 12-year statistical comparison of States with tax 
limitation against States without tax limitation, what happens is very 
clear.
  In States where we have tax limitation, government spending goes up 
more slowly. As a matter of fact, in tax limitation States, while 
government spending went up by 132 percent over those 12 years, in 
nontax limitation States it went up by 141 percent.
  There is another corollary. Taxes go up more slowly in tax limitation 
States. In this 12-year period, taxes went up 102 percent. It is 
clearly possible still to raise taxes. In nontax limitation States, 
taxes went up by 112 percent. So we slow the growth of government if we 
pass a tax limitation amendment.
  But let us talk about the positive side of this for the American 
people. In tax limitation States, this 12-year study showed economies 
expand faster. Overall economies grow dramatically faster. In tax 
limitation States, economies grew by 43 percent, whereas, in nontax 
limitation States, the economies grew by only 35 percent.
  Let us talk about the final benefit of this so we do know what would 
happen. In those States which have enacted tax limitation, employment, 
jobs, putting people to work grows faster and grew faster in those 12 
years than in nontax limitation States.
  In tax limitation States, States which have adopted a Constitutional 
amendment identical to this one, employment grew at 26 percent in the 
12 years. By contrast, in States which refused to adopt this, as my 
colleagues on the other side are arguing, employment grew by only 21 
percent.
  The bottom line is it is very clear tax limitation slows the growth 
of government and boosts the private economy, including jobs for which 
my colleagues on the other side are so concerned.
  Another colleague of mine got up and said that this is undemocratic. 
Somehow this flies in the face of democracy. He quoted James Hamilton, 
excuse me, James Madison. Let me make it very clear what James Madison 
said. He was a vocal supporter of majority rule. But he argued that the 
greatest threat to liberty in the republic came from an unrestrained 
majority rule.
  On top of James Madison who argued that an unrestrained majority rule 
is bad for democracies, Alexander Hamilton also argued in favor of the 
danger of an unrestrained majority. The Presidential veto used by this 
President is the best example of the restraining the majority rule.
  The final argument I want to turn to is the issue of how this is 
somehow inconsistent with the Founding Fathers' view of the world and 
that the Founding Fathers considered and rejected this. Absolutely 
nothing could be further from the truth.
  Alexander Hamilton, who expressed his views on this issue, pointed 
out that direct taxes should require specific constitutional 
constraints. And I would note that, at the founding of this Nation, 
there was no direct tax. To argue that the Founding Fathers debated 
this issue and rejected it is silliness. At the founding of this 
country, there, we not only could pass an income tax with a simple 
majority vote, we could not pass an income tax with 100 percent vote. 
Because, at that time, direct taxation of the people was not permitted.
  The second claim made by that same speaker was, well, if we pass a 
tax limitation amendment, no future Congress will ever cut taxes, 
because they will be afraid that they cannot raise them again in the 
future. Again the argument is false.
  In my State of Arizona, we passed tax limitation in 1992. Since then, 
we have enacted four significant tax cuts. So with tax limitation in 
place, the legislature of the State of Arizona has said that they could 
still cut taxes and have the courage to do that.
  There is a simple fact here. This measure will make it harder for 
this Congress to raise taxes, harder for this Congress to reach into 
the wallets of hard-working Americans and take money out of those 
wallets.
  All the other discussion on the other side is red herring. What they 
want is they want it to be easy to reach into your wallet or your purse 
and take your money. And they understand the simple principle. If we 
have to have a two-thirds vote, it is going to be harder to raise taxes 
than if we have to have a simple majority vote. I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could I gain the attention of the floor 
manager, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton)? He, in response to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, said that he saw the Speaker. He was 
sighted recently this morning.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I did.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded yet. The fact of the 
matter is, if the Speaker's office is correct, they say he is out of 
town, and is not due back until late afternoon.
  I just wanted to announce that so that everybody will know that there 
is not clones of Speaker Gingrich around on the floor.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to 
me?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the gentleman. 
Apparently, he misspoke; that what happened, he had said that he had 
thought he had seen the Speaker an hour ago. He later told me he had 
seen him maybe a couple of hours or 2\1/2\ or 3 hours before. But we 
have since asked, because I was just puzzled.
  This debate is going to end by 3:00 or 3:30, and we were told we 
would not vote until 5:30. We have been told that the reason for the 
delay is that the Speaker is out of town. He wanted personally to 
reside, and that is why we are going to delay it. I mention that in the 
context of whether or not that was symbolic.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's information. Apparently, the 
gentleman from Texas miscalculated on the time, and he had seen the 
Speaker earlier. The Speaker since left town, and we are going to 
apparently delay the vote until the Speaker comes back.

[[Page H2147]]

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I add this information, not that I am 
concerned that he is here or not here, but I just want the record to be 
correct.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, is there a question?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted the gentleman's attention. 
No; it is not a question. I am making an announcement.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), who recognizes the effect of high taxes on the economy. As a 
matter of fact, recently he traveled to my home State of New Jersey to 
boost an effort there to do a very similar type of thing that we are 
trying to do here, hopefully, with a successful vote today.
  He went to New Jersey because New Jersey serves as a case study for 
the reasons that we believe strongly that this bill ought to be passed 
today. And let me just recite a bit about that case study.
  Back in 1990, the then Governor of New Jersey proposed a $2.8 billion 
tax increase on the citizens of New Jersey, Mr. Speaker. By a single 
vote, by a single vote in both the State Assembly, that is the lower 
house, and, of course, the State Senate, also by a single vote in the 
Senate, the tyranny of a one-person majority pushed through the largest 
tax increase in New Jersey's history.
  The consequences of this onerous tax cost 300,000 taxpayers in New 
Jersey their jobs. And 300,000 people, following that tax break, 
following that tax increase, were out of jobs. The economy of New 
Jersey, already hit by the nationwide recession, fell into further 
crisis. We called it a recession within a recession because of that 
large tax increase.
  As a result, the leadership in New Jersey changed. It changed hands. 
And Governor Christie Todd Whitman was elected to reverse the 
devastating effects of the 1990 tax increase. Governor Whitman pledged 
during her campaign to cut taxes and then maintained the pledge, and 
followed through even earlier and more quickly and more efficiently 
than she had promised.
  However, the real threat continues in New Jersey. The tyranny of a 
one-person majority still has the power to raise taxes on hard-working 
people in New Jersey. For this reason, Governor Whitman has set out on 
an ambitious endeavor to ensure that a one-vote majority in both Houses 
of the State legislature will never again raise the taxes on hard-
working families in New Jersey with similar results of the 1990 
increase.
  Governor Whitman has begun to lobby the State legislature to enact a 
supermajority to raise taxes modeled after the attempt here today to 
pass the Constitutional amendment. The people of New Jersey have 
experienced firsthand the devastating impact of raising taxes on the 
work force and on the economy.
  Providing an amendment to the Constitution requiring a supermajority 
to raise taxes will negate the possibility of the tyranny of a one-
person majority as history in New Jersey has demonstrated. It will be 
more difficult to raise taxes on hard-working Americans. It will be 
easier for people to make a living, and easier for the economy to 
respond in a positive nature.
  I urge Members to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 111, and commend the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Shadegg), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) 
made a statement about how great the seven States were doing that 
require a supermajority vote of the legislature. Sorry. Wrong report.
  The fact of it is that the Heritage Foundation report is 
fundamentally flawed. My source is the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, which point out that five of the seven States that the 
gentleman cited experienced slower than average growth in tax revenue, 
because the study is flawed for the reason that it considers only State 
level tax changes rather than changes in total State and local 
revenues. The gentleman forgot that. It is a small point, but it is 
critical.
  By some measures, supermajority States have had less economic growth 
than other States, and have not had smaller tax increases. Sorry about 
that. Five of the seven States with supermajority requirements 
experience lower than average economic growth as measured by changes in 
per capita, personal incomes between the years 1979 and 1989.
  In addition, five of the seven supermajority requirement States had 
higher than average growth of State and local revenues as a percentage 
of residents' income. Case closed.
  Why do you not bring some accurate statistics and reports, I say to 
the gentleman from Arizona, who is still my friend? But let us be 
accurate. We are talking about constitutional amendments.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas for yielding this time to me and commend him on his work on this 
issue.
  Why should we make it more difficult to raise taxes? Most Americans 
believe the Federal Government is too big, is too intrusive in their 
lives. It is a bureaucracy they cannot deal with, and they do not want 
it to grow, so we do not need to look at more money. This government 
grows and our taxes grow without raising them.
  Many have said we are trying to protect the current Tax Code. That is 
a lie. If those really believe that, I urge them to join the Largent-
Paxton bill that I joined and many have joined here that sunsets the 
current code on December 31st of 2001, but also requires that by July 
the 4th we have a replacement. We want to replace this code, but we do 
not want to make it easier to raise taxes.
  The vast majority of Americans believe the Federal Government should 
stop growing. It grows because of the aggressiveness of our current Tax 
Code. I come from a State government where taxes were flat. We did not 
get the kind of growth we get, usually double the rate of inflation 
just with new money every year.
  Then there are those that are salivating over the cigarette tax 
because it will allow government to grow even more. Now I am not 
opposing the cigarette tax, but I say for every penny that we bring in 
on a cigarette tax we need to decrease taxes an equal amount because we 
do not need more money in Washington. The cigarette tax should not come 
forward unless we agree that we are going to cut taxes equally.
  Why are Democrats afraid of tax limitation? They ruled here for four 
decades by buying the people's support with new programs, more 
government, a bigger Federal Government, and this will stop them in 
their tracks. The American public changed here a couple years ago 
because they suddenly realized that all of this free money from 
Washington was not free. They were sending it to Washington, and they 
got less back than they sent and a Federal Government that does not 
answer their phone calls, a Federal bureaucracy that does not care 
about them, a Federal bureaucracy that is totally insensitive to the 
needs of our communities because they do not understand them.
  Yes, the voters today realize that when they increase Federal taxes 
that the Federal Government is going to grow, and that is what 
Democrats want, that is what made them successful. But all of a sudden 
the American taxpayers had as much government as they could afford and 
as they could want, and that is why Republicans are running the 
Congress today. And this bill, this resolution, will lock in and make 
it more difficult to grow this Federal Government that by most people's 
standards is too big and too hard to deal with.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think the previous speaker 
made it very clear. The motivation for this is a distrust of democracy 
in the

[[Page H2148]]

people. The gentleman from Pennsylvania said the Democrats kept control 
by buying the support of the people with programs. In other words, the 
people dared to disagree with him. The majority preferred certain 
programs.
  For example, to take a program that I believe would have been made 
impossible by this amendment, the Medicare program, because the 
Medicare program was passed by less than a two-thirds majority, and it 
raised taxes because we financed Medigap through Social Security, and 
the gentleman is correct. The Democratic majority of 1965 would not 
have been able to buy the support of the people who crassly said, 
``We'll take some Medicare in return for a tax increase.'' He would 
like to make it impossible.
  What this amendment is about is a fundamental distrust of democracy, 
and arguing frankly as to what the results are of having tax limitation 
or not seems to me inappropriate because we do not in my view derogate 
from democracy because we think it will have better results.
  If my colleagues are committed to majority rule, now we have a 
modified form of majority rule. We have 2 senators per State. We do not 
have undaunted majority rule, but within that framework we have always 
felt that a majority is a more democratic, more representative method 
than a minority, and what we are being told here is no, majority rule 
does not work.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) made it clear. The 
darn people kept voting for Democrats. They were bought off. We cannot 
trust these people to make their own decisions. And then he said 
correctly, yes, people were unhappy so they voted Republican. But I 
think my Republican friends are not sure that is going to stick. They 
shut down the Federal government in 1995; it was not the best decision 
they ever made. They were a little worried.
  So what do they want to do? We heard the gentleman from Pennsylvania; 
he wants to lock in the decision. In other words, Democrats had won, 
now Republicans have won, let us not trust democracy. We never can tell 
about those people, they may get bought off by support for programs 
again. As my colleagues know, they were for Medicare, they were for 
Social Security, they may be for another one of those other darn 
programs.
  Let us therefore lock this in; let us change the rules. Let us, while 
we have a majority now, change the rules so if the people change their 
opinion, if the public decides that they want more of a public sector, 
if we were to decide that years from now we might want to increase this 
percentage of revenue, if the people decided they wanted to raise taxes 
on cigarettes and not necessarily reduce revenues elsewhere, if people 
decided they wanted to raise taxes on cigarettes just for programs 
dealing with health, let us make that impossible. Let us go to a two-
thirds vote.
  The question is democracy, and by the way, that is a pattern.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman understands that 
when we considered this the last time it got 233 votes, a majority. The 
only reason that they carried the debate with a minority is that it 
takes two-thirds in order to amend the Constitution.
  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts think that Article V of the 
Constitution distrusts democracy? Does the gentleman think when three-
quarters of the State legislatures have to approve what we are doing 
here today by a bare majority vote, not a supermajority, that it is not 
distrusting democracy?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, it is. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad 
to respond to the gentleman.
  Of course there is a difference, and this is a very profound and very 
clear difference. There is a difference between the day-to-day 
decisions that government makes and the question about what the basic 
rules will be.
  Of course the Constitution treats amending the Constitution 
differently than passing legislation, because what we say is when we 
are creating the fundamental structure of government, that is a more 
fundamental decision. And yes it is, I think, reasonable to say. And, 
no, I am not going to yield yet. The gentleman apparently just 
discovered that the Constitution required two-thirds and three-
quarters.
  Mr. COX of California. If the gentleman would yield for a point of 
personal privilege, I went to the same law school at the very same 
time, and the gentleman and I were classmates.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I must say the relevance of 
where either the gentleman or I went to law school, my friend talked 
about red herrings, that seems to me totally trivial. The fact is this:
  There is a very clear distinction between a Constitutional Convention 
and the rules for amending the fundamental rules and the day-to-day 
decisions, and no, I do not think decisions about whether or not we 
should have a Medicare program. And I want to be clear, the Medicare 
program would have been made impossible by this.
  This is a kind of imposition on the people they do not like. They try 
to whittle it down, now they would apparently wish they never had it. 
But the fact is that a decision about whether or not there were 
Medicare programs, a decision about whether or not to raise taxes on 
cigarettes, is not the same as the fundamental decision about the 
structure of government.
  And, yes, I think it ought to take two-thirds to decide if we are 
going to change the Bill of Rights, if we are going to change the basic 
rules by which we govern ourselves, but that is not the same as saying 
that the decision to raise the cigarette tax or to institute Medicare, 
and those are two issues which are involved, should be done only by a 
majority.
  And I think it is very clear the other side does not like a majority. 
The gentleman from California conceded that point. No, he does not want 
it to be by majority rule. They have had bad luck with the majority. 
They did come back into control of Congress in 1994, and it turned out 
the public has been less sympathetic to their wishes than they had 
hoped them to be.
  So what they are trying to do, the gentleman from Pennsylvania was 
right, they want to lock it in. They want to use the temporary majority 
they have now to change the rules so in the future majorities that 
disagree with them will not have a chance to vote.
  They do not like some of the highway bill. They think the highway 
bill is one of those programs where the Americans get bought off. I 
have heard some of the Republican leaders say that is what Democrats 
do. I think the American people have a right to decide they want to go 
forward with that program. I do not think they are getting bought off.
  Now the point again I want to stress is this: Results in tax 
limitation States and nontax limitation States seem to me irrelevant. 
We do not decide whether or not we are going to stay with the 
fundamental precepts of democracy because it might be advantageous.
  I will say as far as results are concerned there is a difference 
between a Federal and a State taxation base. I heard all these 
arguments about how terrible taxes were for the minority in 1993. They 
made all kinds of predictions about the tax bill of 1993 would hurt the 
economy. Never have they been more wrong. But the question is if we 
will stay with democracy or restrict the people because we do not trust 
them.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, who went to the same 
law school as the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Why do all my colleagues keep saying 
that?
  Mr. CONYERS. It does not mean that everybody learned the same thing 
at that class. I mean everyone did their own thing. So some of this 
information is very important about the Constitution that we are 
discussing here today.
  Now the $50 billion cigarette tax reduction for the tobacco industry, 
which the Speaker knows about since his fingerprints are the only ones 
on it, would have required a two-thirds majority to have taken out. 
That is what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) keeps telling 
the Republicans, that that is what the problem with this giveaway bill 
is that they are masquerading as something good for working folks. It 
is a corporate giveaway, and they are not going to get

[[Page H2149]]

away with it again. They did not succeed last year and it does not look 
like they are going to do it again.

                                Appendix


      data do not show better economic performance in states with 
                       supermajority requirements

       The Heritage Foundation contends that states in which a 
     supermajority vote of the legislature is required to raise 
     taxes have experienced faster economic growth and fewer tax 
     increases than other states. A March 1996 Heritage report 
     looks at the seven states that have had supermajority 
     requirements in place for a number of years--Arkansas, 
     California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
     South Dakota--and finds that five of the seven states 
     experienced slower than average growth in tax revenue. It 
     also finds that five of the seven states (but not the same 
     five states) experienced faster economic growth than the 
     average state. The Heritage report suggests a casual link 
     between supermajority limits, lower taxes, and faster 
     economic growth, saying ``. . . there is no escaping the 
     logical relationship between supermajorities and super state 
     performances.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \3\ Daniel J. Mitchell, ``Why a Supermajority Would Protect 
     Taxpayers,'' The Heritage Foundation, March 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       But the Heritage study is fundamentally flawed. It 
     considers only state-level tax changes rather than changes in 
     total state and local revenues, despite the capacity of 
     states to shift costs and responsibilities to local 
     governments. In addition, it compares 1980, a year in which 
     the economy was just turning down from the peak of an 
     economic expansion, with 1992, a year at the beginning of a 
     recovery from a deep recession. Economists and analysts 
     generally frown upon comparisons that use years representing 
     different points in the business cycle.
       If one measures state and local revenues, examines years 
     that represent similar points in the business cycle, and 
     looks at various measures of economic growth, conclusions 
     very different from those Heritage has presented may be 
     drawn. By some measures, supermajority states have had less 
     economic growth than other states and have not had smaller 
     tax increases. For example:
       Five of the seven states with supermajority requirements 
     experienced lower-than-average economic growth, as measured 
     by changes in per capita personal incomes between 1979 and 
     1989. (These years both represented business cycle peaks.) 
     Four of the seven supermajority states had lower-than-average 
     economic growth during this period as measured by changes in 
     Gross State Product.
       In addition, five of the seven states with supermajority 
     requirements had higher-than-average growth of state and 
     local revenues as a percent of residents' incomes from 1979 
     to 1989. Five of the seven states (not the same five) had 
     higher-than-average increases in state and local taxes per 
     capita from 1984 to 1993, two other years falling at similar 
     points in the business cycle.
       This is not to say that supermajority requirements hinder 
     economic growth and lead to revenue increases. Rather, the 
     point is that different choices of years and of measures of 
     taxes and economic growth lead to diametrically opposed 
     results. This should serve as a strong caution that no valid 
     conclusions about the effects of supermajority requirements 
     can be drawn from the type of simplistic analysis the 
     Heritage Foundation has conducted.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just want to summarize, to 
say I understand particularly that the conservative wing of the 
Republican party has been dissatisfied lately. They used to be 
dissatisfied with the Democrats, they were dissatisfied with the 
President. Now they are dissatisfied with their leadership, and I think 
they are beginning to show dissatisfaction with the American people. 
The American people are not quite as willing as they are to see the 
government dismantled.
  Yes, people have criticisms of the government in general, but the 
people show more support for particular programs than is popular with 
some over there. That is why the gentleman from Pennsylvania talked 
witheringly about the people being bought off and locking these in, and 
I say to my friends on the other side, the response when they think the 
majority is no longer as supportive of their philosophy as they once 
were is to try to talk them back into being on their side. It is not to 
change the rules so that the country becomes structurally less 
democratic than it was the day before.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, does that mean we will be 
voting at the close of approximately an hour and a half that is left? 
Will we be voting right away around 3:30, for the Members that want to 
know when we are going to vote? Does that mean when this debate ends we 
will proceed immediately to a vote?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will make that judgment at that 
time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, who will tell the Chair what 
judgment to make, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will be making that decision at 
that time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  To the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I want in the 
interests of full disclosure and open and honest debate, subsequent to 
his conversation with me publicly and privately, I have called the 
Speaker's office to try to confirm his whereabouts. The Speaker is not 
on Capitol Hill at this point in time. He does expect to arrive between 
5:00 and 5:30. I will at the appropriate time, at the end of all 
debate, if we use the full time, ask for the yeas and nays, and I have 
asked that the vote be held until the Speaker can be here which should 
be between 5:00 and 5:30.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
clarifying that and for not mentioning where my friend and I went to 
law school
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for making that announcement, but 
I made it earlier. I made it first.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. So?
  I would like to walk through some of the constitutional mechanisms 
which I believe are very important, and which show that the majority 
that supports this amendment wants the majority to speak on this 
amendment.
  The 16th Amendment allowed a Federal income tax. That passed with a 
two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate, was sent to the States, 
and three-fourths of the States ratified it. It is my belief that 
because of the 16th Amendment, which allowed income taxes to be placed 
on the heads of the American taxpayer, that we need a constitutional 
amendment raising the bar to a two-thirds vote.
  If we were to pass this amendment today, it would take two-thirds of 
the House. We would send it to the Senate, it would take two-thirds of 
the Senate. It would go to the States, it would take three-fourths of 
the States to ratify. Those States would ratify by a majority vote in 
the States, so there will be ample opportunity for a majority of the 
citizenry and their elected legislatures in this country to determine 
whether they want to raise the bar on raising taxes.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX of California. I think the gentleman raises a very important 
point. We were just having a debate about what are procedural rules and 
what are substantive rules. The gentleman from Massachusetts insists 
that it would be antidemocratic were we to have a two-thirds vote 
requirement to have procedural rules that govern revenue bills, and yet 
the gentleman makes a very fine point.
  The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, including the Bill 
of Rights that we now so cherish and would not amend without a two-
thirds vote, said there could be no income tax at all, not Medicare 
payroll taxes, not any kind of tax. And it required the 16th Amendment 
to the Constitution in the 20th century, which passed not only the 
Congress by a two-thirds vote but all of the State legislatures, three-
quarters of them by another majority vote in each, in order to change 
that rule.

                              {time}  1330

  Clearly the constitutional requirements to raise revenue are the 
sorts of procedural rules that the Founding Fathers intended would be 
governed by Article V of the Constitution, and clearly the consequence 
of the amendment that the gentleman is proposing

[[Page H2150]]

here today is not only to ensure that two-thirds of the House and 
Senate are with us, so it is clearly majoritarian, but also all of the 
States get in on this debate.
  In 75 percent of the State legislatures, at least we would have to 
have a majority vote in support of this proposal before it can become 
law. I can think of no more deep trust in democracy than this proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the constitutional fathers wanted 
to make it impossible to have an income tax, so you could have had 100 
percent vote, and it would have been unconstitutional, because direct 
head taxes were unconstitutional. It took an amendment to the 
Constitution in 1914 to make income taxes permissible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Granger), the former mayor of Fort Worth.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the tax 
limitation amendment. Ronald Reagan once said, ``We all work for the 
Federal Government. It's just that some of us don't take the civil 
service exam.''
  The Gipper was making a joke, but he was not trying to be funny. He 
was referring to the fact that every American works from January 1 to 
May 9 just to pay his Federal income taxes. That is right, for over 4 
months of the year, the income of Americans goes not to their savings 
account, not to their families, but to the government.
  For too long, Washington has taken too much money from too many 
people. The only way to stop this is to lower taxes and keep them 
lowered.
  How can we do this? With the tax limitation amendment. This amendment 
simply says if you want to raise taxes, you better have a good reason, 
and you better be able to convince two-thirds of the people's 
representatives in Congress.
  For the critics of this amendment, I have some questions. Do you 
really think the American people are undertaxed? Most Americans do not 
think so. Do you really think a tax increase automatically equals a 
revenue increase? History suggests otherwise. Do you really think it is 
such a bad thing to make it difficult to raise taxes? After all, it is 
not our money we are talking about; it is the hard-earned, hard-won 
money of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind some of our friends on the other side of 
the aisle that Congress does not live on taxes alone. We have reached a 
budget surplus by controlling spending and growing the economy.
  More importantly, Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment because it is 
true to the spirit and the soul of our Nation. Before there was an 
American dream, there was the dream of America; a place where free 
people could raise a family, work for a living, and maybe own a home. A 
place where free people were busy making a living by making a 
difference.
  This is a story of America. Our greatness is found not in the halls 
of Congress, but in the heartland of the Nation. We have solved our 
problems not because of government programs, but because of our good 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, just think what the American people can do and will do 
when we let them keep more of their own money. Just think of the 
history that will be written in the next century, if only we allow 
Americans to have the resources they need and the freedom they deserve.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 111, the tax 
limitation amendment. I support fiscal discipline, including strict 
adherence to the Balanced Budget Act we enacted just 8 months ago, and 
I support a simpler, fairer, and more efficient tax code. But this 
proposed constitutional amendment does not guarantee that we will stay 
the course of fiscal discipline or enact responsible tax reform. This 
legislation is bad process, bad politics and bad policy.
  First, an amendment requiring two-thirds of both houses of Congress 
to raise taxes would allow a small minority to hijack tax policy. 
That's critical because only 146 members of the House could exert 
control over the Federal Government's most powerful policy lever. This 
is simply unwise. A small minority of the House could impose its will 
on the majority giving new meaning to the phrase, ``Taxation without 
representation.'' And why limit the two-thirds requirement to tax 
increases? Why not require a two-thirds increase to reduce Social 
Security benefits or to declare war? In making policy choices, the 
Constitution adheres to the time-honored principle of majority-rule. I 
believe we should stay the course.
  Second, although the resolution would amend the Constitution to make 
it more difficult to raise taxes, it does not define what constitutes a 
tax or a tax increase. For instance, many of us support scrapping the 
Federal Tax Code. Yet, if this amendment were adopted it could result 
in a small minority blocking significant tax reform because any closure 
of a tax loophole to create a more simple and fairer tax system could 
be considered a tax increase. Eliminating the wasteful ethanol subsidy 
could be interpreted as a tax increase. Issues like this would kill tax 
reform.
  Third, this is the third time in 3 years that we will go through this 
publicity stunt. In 1996, an identical resolution failed by 37 votes. 
In 1997, it failed by 49 votes. The Senate did not even consider the 
bill. Each time, more members are realizing that the resolution is a 
Republican Party publicity stunt performed around each April 15. This 
is a political device disguised as a solemn constitutional amendment; 
it embraces a popular goal while maintaining silence over the means to 
accomplish it.
  I want to emphasize that this is not a vote on whether to raise 
taxes. many who oppose this legislation, myself included, voted for $95 
billion in tax cuts as part of the balanced budget agreement reached 
last year. Rather, this is a vote about whether we will effectively put 
the President and the Congress in a policy straightjacket that would 
severely limit our ability to fight recessions, depressions, capital 
flights, currency devaluations, reform the Federal Tax Code, and other 
challenges posed by a new economy.
  Rather than engage in making political points, this Congress should 
continue on the path of sound fiscal policy we established in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Passage of this act showed we could 
balance the budget while cutting taxes for working families, 
encouraging Americans to save for retirement, protecting Medicare, and 
investing in education and research.
  If we are serious about reforming the Tax Code and maintaining fiscal 
discipline, we cannot rely on gimmicks that tinker with the 
Constitution. Rather, let us get on with the important work of this 
Congress, including passing a long-overdue budget resolution that 
abides by the budget agreement, committing any surpluses to paying down 
the $5.4 trillion Federal debt, and strengthening Social Security for 
future generations. These are steps that will make a real difference 
for the American people. This legislation will not.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of tax cuts for hard-
working American families, but in opposition to this tax loophole 
protection bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would require a two-thirds majority vote to 
approve any legislation raising taxes. Now, that is a great sound bite, 
until you realize that it stops bills closing tax loopholes for the 
wealthy in order to provide tax relief to working middle-class families 
in this country.
  For instance, it would allow billionaires, who have made their 
fortunes here, to decide to renounce their citizenship to go to live in 
another country, and, therefore, not have to pay for any taxes. It 
makes it harder to pass legislation raising tobacco taxes to stop 
children from smoking.
  I support tax relief for working families. The first bill I 
introduced as a Member of Congress was a bill to cut taxes for middle-
class families. In this Congress, I have introduced the bipartisan 
Smoke-Free and Healthy Children Act to raise taxes on tobacco by $1.50 
per pack. This bill would deter children from starting to smoke. It 
would fund cancer research and public health initiatives, and it will 
support safe, affordable child care for all of our children. But if 
this two-thirds requirement passes, legislation raising tobacco taxes 
is doomed.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today protects the tobacco 
industry and makes it harder for Congress to pass legislation 
increasing the taxes on cigarettes. Today, as we discuss tobacco 
legislation, the tobacco industry executives must be dancing for joy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman

[[Page H2151]]

from California (Mr. Cox), the Chairman of the Republican Policy 
Committee.
  Mr. COX of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out in response to my colleague who just 
spoke that she is incorrect about the way that the amendment would 
work. It would be very easy for us by mere majority vote to have a 
tobacco tax, even with this amendment in the Constitution. However, it 
would be very difficult for us to raise $300 billion or more from the 
American people and grow the government by that amount.
  What would be required by this amendment is that we have a thorough 
debate on whether we want to grow the government with those new taxes 
or whether we want to offset other taxes on the working Americans that 
the gentlewoman says she favors simultaneously. If the net effect is to 
grow the government by $300 billion rather than impose a new tariff on 
tobacco, but return those revenues to the American people who earn the 
money in the first place in the form of other tax cuts, it makes a big, 
big difference.
  What this legislation is all about is the tax burden on the American 
people, which right now is higher than at any time in two centuries of 
American history.
  It is worth dwelling on that. In fact, we should have a moment of 
silence for the hard-working American people bearing this tax burden. 
Not just the highest tax burden in the history of the United States of 
America in terms of the raw number of dollars, not even the highest tax 
burden in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, but the highest tax 
burden as a share of the economy in two centuries of American history, 
even with this large and growing economy, as a share of that economy, 
with the exception of 2 years, 1944 and 1945, when income taxation by 
the Federal Government reached 20.9 percent of gross domestic product.
  We are up over 20 percent again now in peacetime, not World War II. 
That is where the tax limitation amendment passed the House of 
Representatives on April 15th, 1997, a year ago, with 233 votes, a 
significant majority. But the defenders of majority rule over there, 
who say we distrust majorities, are hiding behind the fact they have to 
have a two-thirds vote in order to pass this, and claiming victory 
because a minority of them want to have higher taxes on the American 
people, and it is minority rule and minority dictation that are 
actually controlling this debate today, because we need to get from 233 
votes to 290 votes in order to succeed, where the State legislatures 
then, after we propose, and that is all we do in this process as 
Congress, is propose a constitutional amendment, will pass it or not by 
a majority vote. A majority will rule in the State legislatures.
  That is how constitutional amendments under Article V of the 
Constitution become part of that charter document. Seventy-five percent 
of the State legislatures would have to enact it by a 50 percent vote.
  So do not give us this stuff about ``We are for majority rule.'' You 
are hiding behind the supermajority vote requirement here to defeat tax 
limitation for the American people so you can keep taxes high and make 
them easier to raise. The tax burden on the American people now is 
unconscionably high, and we need relief.
  It is currently a rule of the House of Representatives that we have a 
supermajority vote to raise taxes. That is the way we operate right 
now. Ever since Democrats lost their status as the majority party here 
in 1994, we have operated under this rule, and we have not raised 
taxes.
  In 1993 we had the largest tax increase in American history, and that 
was the penultimate act of the Democratic Congress before they lost 
their status as the majority party.
  In 1994, when we won majority status as Republicans in this Congress, 
the Dow Jones industrial average was at 3900. Today, it is around 9000. 
Today, tax collection by governments at all levels are higher than ever 
as a result of wise tax policy; not trying to soak the American people 
for every last red cent they are worth, but as a result of some common 
sense and moderation.
  The 16th amendment to the Constitution, which made the income tax 
possible, was proposed by a Republican Congress. In the House of 
Representatives, in this very building, in 1909, Representative Sereno 
Payne of New York offered what became the 16th amendment to the 
Constitution; and Champ Clark, the minority leader from Missouri, also 
spoke in favor of that. Both of them were opposed to the kinds of tax 
regime we have today.
  Mr. Payne, the chief sponsor of the 16th amendment, said he wanted to 
make sure that we had this power added to the Constitution so that we 
could exercise it only in time of national security emergency, in time 
of war.
  As to the general policy of an income tax, he said,

       I am with Gladstone. I believe it tends to make a Nation of 
     liars. It is, in a word, a tax upon the income of honest 
     citizens, and an exemption, to a greater or lesser extent, of 
     the income of rascals.

  That is the chief sponsor of the 16th amendment that made this 
possible. It took two-thirds of both the House and the Senate to give 
us that amendment in the first place.
  If you want to trust democracy, then trust our State legislatures, 
who, by majority vote, will give us this tax limitation upon the 
Congress, or they will not. Seventy-five percent of them must act by 
majority vote in order for this to happen.
  If you want to trust democracy, consider the results of the last half 
century, when the income taxes exploded by leaps and bounds. As 
recently as the eve of Pearl Harbor, only one in seven Americans had to 
file an income tax. My folks, when raising me, making the average 
national income, like every family making the average national income 
in the 1950's, paid income tax at a rate of 2 percent. The FICA tax on 
my dad's paycheck was 1.5 percent. Look at where we are today.
  If you think taxes need to be higher, vote against this. If you think 
it is undemocratic that we require two-thirds of the United States 
Senate to ratify a treaty, vote against this.
  If you believe in the United States Constitution, if you believe in 
the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution that they gave 
us, if you believe in the American people, and you do not think this is 
a giveaway, but rather letting them keep their money, vote with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and vote for this amendment. We 
desperately and dearly need it for the future of America.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say in response to the comments of the gentleman 
from California that I do believe in the United States Constitution, 
and I think sometimes that the Republican majority in this House thinks 
that the U.S. Constitution is a draft document that needs constant 
revision. Our Founding Fathers set up a document that establishes a 
balance between the branches and establishes majority rule on those 
issues of substance that come before this particular body.
  There is a difference. As the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed 
out earlier, there is a difference between those rules laid out in the 
Constitution that govern how we operate here and the matters that 
relate to what working families in this country have to deal with.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COX of California. I would point out, if I understood the 
gentleman, he said the Founding Fathers set up this balance, and that 
the Constitution is not a draft document. But the Constitution the 
Founding Fathers gave us made taxes unconstitutional and it took the 
16th amendment to make it possible. So we are only amending the 16th 
amendment.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the Founding Fathers said very clearly that 
there is a process for establishing, for amending the Constitution. 
That is what we are going through. This is not hiding behind the 
supermajority vote. This is not minority dictation. This is an issue of 
how we are going to deal with substantial, substantive issues as we go 
forward.
  There has been a lot of debate here about State examples. They are, 
in my

[[Page H2152]]

view, almost completely irrelevant. The States are not responsible for 
Medicare, the States are not responsible for Social Security, the 
States are not responsible for national defense, and the States are not 
responsible for taking this country out of a deep recession or 
depression, if we ever fall into one again.
  We want to preserve majority rules on those issues that matter, 
mostly that involve the business of this House, as we conduct it.
  I would say this. One speaker earlier said this limitation, 
constitutional tax limitation agreement, would make it harder for this 
Congress to raise taxes. That is right. It would make it harder for 
this Congress to raise taxes, and it would make it much harder for this 
Congress to reduce deficits, because the two go together.
  If we look back at history, what has happened here in this Congress 
in recent years, since 1982, five of the six major deficit reduction 
acts that have been enacted since 1982 and helped us balance the budget 
have included a combination of revenue increases and program cuts. 
President Reagan signed three of those deficit reduction measures, 
President Bush signed one, and President Clinton signed one. Not one of 
those five passed with a two-thirds majority in this House of 
Representatives.
  There is no one in this House, there is no one in this House who can 
look out into the future and see what is going to happen to Medicare in 
10, 20, 30 or 40 years. There is no one in this House who can be 
absolutely sure that we are not going to need to do something with 
Social Security, or other issues that come before us.
  This is a bad bill, and it should be voted down.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is a big deal to amend the Constitution, 
I agree. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about this issue from a little bit 
different level than what we have talked about it thus far.
  Why should we change the Constitution and make it hard to raise 
taxes? One simple reason: freedom, freedom, freedom. If we take 
someone's money, we take their freedom away. The more money we take, 
the more freedom we take away. It is inherent upon us to try to restore 
some of the freedoms that have been lost in the last 50 years in this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I can remember as a small boy and then as a young man 
and now here at 50 years of age, I can list the things I cannot do 
today as an American citizen that I could do at those times. So what I 
would want the American people to think, and for the Members of 
Congress to consider, is are they more free if we make it harder to 
raise Americans' taxes? Are Americans more free if we take less of 
their money, not more? That is what this is about. We are not amending 
the Constitution any more than we are amending the sixteenth amendment, 
which made it all too easy to raise taxes.
  We just heard about the five tax increases that have been passed. Not 
one of those balanced the budget. The budget is not balanced now.
  We have heard of surpluses. That is a joke. We are going to borrow 
$150 billion this year. There is no surplus.
  The tax increase never gave us a balanced budget. For every dollar we 
increased taxes out of the last five, the Members of this body have not 
had the determination, except to spend another $1.46 for every dollar 
we increased the taxes. So we should make it very difficult to raise 
taxes, because it is very important we return freedom to the people of 
this society.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this amendment, because it 
is part of the annual rite of spring; that is, the Republicans wait 
until tax day and then they trot out this bill. And in a somewhat 
cynical fashion they suggest to us, you did not like paying your taxes, 
so here is our solution so you will not have to pay higher taxes.
  Let us try to go behind the rhetoric and look at the reality. The 
fact of the matter is, it is not likely that we are going to raise 
taxes. Number one, we are in a period of unprecedented economic 
prosperity. We have projected surpluses for the next 5 to 10 years. 
There is absolutely no enthusiasm or inclination to raise taxes.
  Second, as the gentleman from California pointed out, we are 
operating under House rules by the Republicans that say we have to have 
a supermajority to initiate a revenue increase. Unfortunately, they 
have waived it about three times, but the fact of the matter is, if we 
have the House rules that prevent raising taxes, if we have an economy 
that suggests there is no need to raise taxes, we have to wonder, why 
are they so determined to pass this measure?
  Let me suggest that this is just another in the continuing chapter of 
the Republican efforts to provide tax reform for the rich. Why? Because 
what this bill would do is prevent us from closing tax loopholes in two 
areas: first, the corporate tax loopholes. What this bill would say is, 
if we Democrats propose to close tax loopholes, oh, that is raising 
revenue, we cannot do it. There are also tax loopholes for the very 
wealthy. We could also be prohibited under this amendment from closing 
those tax loopholes.
  So the real beneficiaries of this amendment are not going to be 
average Americans, who are not likely to see a tax increase. The real 
beneficiaries are going to be the very wealthy and the corporations.
  One other group we heard about, the billionaire expatriates; that is, 
the people who earned their money in this country and then decided to 
leave and take up foreign citizenship so they could avoid paying taxes. 
They, too, would be protected under this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the point is this: We need to close some tax loopholes. 
We need to close corporate tax loopholes, we need to close corporate 
loopholes for the very wealthy, and we need to close the expatriate tax 
loophole. We need the ability to do it. This bill impedes that.
  We do not need to tinker with the Constitution. I found it very 
interesting that the gentleman from California suggested, well, the 
reason we cannot get this bill passed is because we require a 
supermajority to amend the Constitution. That is the whole point. That 
is why this is a bad idea. I do not think the gentleman can have it 
both ways.
  The Constitution is working. The economy is working. The only people 
who benefit from this April Fool's joke are the rich. It does not 
benefit the average taxpayer. I urge the rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I will actually read the resolution we are voting on and 
explain it:
  ``Any bill, resolution, or other legislative measure,'' and that 
means any vehicle that we bring to the floor, ``changing the Internal 
Revenue laws,'' that is, the Internal Revenue Code we currently operate 
under, ``shall require,'' it means we must, ``for final adoption in 
each House,'' that is, the House and Senate, ``the concurrence of two-
thirds of the Members of that House voting and present,'' it means it 
would take a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, ``unless that bill is 
determined at the time of adoption,'' i.e., through the normal 
committee process, ``in a reasonable manner,'' we would be open and 
transparent, ``prescribed by law, not to increase the internal revenue 
by more than a de minimis amount.'' De minimis is a Latin word that 
means a very little bit, if you want to talk Texan.
  ``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.'' That is, you can cut 
the capital gains tax rate with a majority vote, and if that raises 
revenues, so be it. ``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,'' so it has to be a record vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Delay), the distinguished Majority Whip.
  Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for all his hard work. 
I am proud to call him a fellow Texan,

[[Page H2153]]

and he has worked so hard on this constitutional amendment, along with 
the gentleman from Arizona and so many other people, just to get this 
amendment passed for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman clarifying what has been 
going on here. It will be tough to pass this legislation today, chiefly 
because of the efforts of liberal Democrats to kill it. We all know 
that.
  There has been a lot of talk about addiction these days: drug 
addiction, cigarette addiction, other things. Make no mistake about it, 
liberal Democrats are addicted to higher taxes. They want higher taxes 
so they can spend more money and expand the size of this government. We 
know that. That is the difference between the two parties. They are 
trying to defend it, though, by covering up the reality of what this 
bill actually does.
  The gentleman from Maryland was talking about the fact that we cannot 
close corporate loopholes for the rich. That is not true. What is in 
the amendment is, basically, if we want to close corporate loopholes, 
then cut taxes for somebody else and make it a tax-neutral bill, and we 
will not have to have the supermajority vote. That is covering up what 
is the truth here. He wants more taxes to expand the size of 
government.
  The gentleman from Maine was talking about the fact that, since 1982, 
there have been five bills introduced in this House to lower the 
deficit and balance the budget, each one of them to raise taxes by a 
majority vote. He is absolutely right. But the fact was, in every one 
of those bills, including the ones signed by Reagan and Bush, the size 
of government expanded, the taxes went up, and the deficits went up, 
too. There was no balanced budget. The only budget that is close to 
being balanced is the one that we passed last year that cut taxes and 
restricted spending and the growth of this government.
  The American people know that. They are not going to be fooled by all 
the rhetoric. Every proposal that has come out of this White House is a 
proposal that will be funded with higher taxes.
  The gentleman from Maryland said we are not going to raise taxes 
around here because we have a surplus. Has he not been listening to the 
White House? They want to raise cigarette taxes. They are talking about 
it almost every day, about raising cigarette taxes to $1 or $2 a pack. 
Every proposal that comes out of this White House will be funded by 
more taxes.
  In fact, later on this week, tomorrow, I understand, the White House 
is going to celebrate with those Members of Congress who voted for the 
largest tax increase in history in 1993. They are going to have a party 
over at the White House, imagine that, a celebration for those who 
voted for the largest tax increase in the history of this country.
  I have to tell the Members, many of those people that will be 
celebrating tomorrow at the White House are now former Members of 
Congress. The American people spoke in that last election that made 
them former Members.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly, clearly the White House, the President of the 
United States, liberal Democrats, are totally out of touch with the 
American people. If we look at the elections all across this country, 
their philosophy of higher taxes and bigger government is being 
rejected all across this country. The American people are overtaxed, 
they are overregulated, and they are overburdened by this Federal 
Government.
  I am not talking about the tax burden of 38 percent. Over 50 percent 
of the average family's income goes to pay for government, if we add up 
all the costs of government, local, State, and Federal taxes, and the 
cost of regulations. Fifty cents out of every one of Members' 
constituents' hard-earned dollars goes to the government today. No 
wonder America's families are under such strain, because it takes one 
parent who is forced to support the government while the other one 
works for the family in this country.
  We think that is immoral. We have got to stop this rampaging in the 
American family's pocketbook, Mr. Speaker. This amendment to the 
Constitution will make it more difficult to raise those taxes, and we 
should make it more difficult to raise taxes. That is why I support 
this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague 
from Virginia for yielding time to me.
  I rise in opposition to this resolution to amend the U.S. 
Constitution to require a two-thirds vote to raise Federal taxes.
  Last year, the Washington Post characterized this best under the 
editorial, Show Vote on Tax Day. That does not apply this year, because 
we were in recess when April 15 came and went, but the strongest 
argument is still applicable, we should not be using the Constitution 
as a political prop.
  We know the political advantages of doing this kind of thing, but let 
me tell the Members some of the disadvantages of doing it and some of 
the fatal flaws that are involved with this legislation.

                              {time}  1400

  One of them is that we fail to define a number of the most important 
terms. For example, what is ``de minimis''? We do not explain whether 
we are talking about a $50 million tax increase or a $1 billion tax 
increase.
  What constitutes a ``broadening of the tax base''? Whose 
interpretation is it? The leadership of the Congress? When we are 
talking about something this serious, clearly we need to define 
precisely what it is we are talking about.
  But it also needs to be stated and considered by the majority that 
this would preclude any fundamental reform of the IRS Code, because we 
cannot have a fundamental reform of the IRS Code without affecting tax 
rates and altering the present tax base. Any changes that would broaden 
the base, such as closing corporate loopholes or replacing the current 
tax system, as the majority leader wants to do with the new flat tax, 
or the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means wants to do with a 
national sales tax, would now require a \2/3\ vote and then ultimately 
would not be determined on the floor of the House. Instead, there 
issues would have to be determined across the street in the Supreme 
Court.
  But let me tell my colleagues about another issue, one that smacks of 
hypocrisy. Let me bring the House back to 1995 when this body passed 
the Contract on America, and we had one provision which was the most 
celebrated. First of all we had a rule that passed in January, and I 
think all the Members remember that. We had to have a three-fifths vote 
to raise any taxes. It said ``no bill or joint resolution or amendment 
or conference report carrying a Federal income tax increase shall be 
considered or passed or agreed to unless determined by three-fifths of 
all the Members voting.'' That is a rule that applied to all of our 
legislation.
  We then had the Contract With America Tax Relief Act of 1995 three 
months later, which became the first violation of that very rule. I 
raised a point of order because that so-called Tax Relief Act actually 
increased capital gains taxes on small business from 14 percent to 19.8 
percent. There was a point of order that should have been applied. In a 
precipitous ruling it was originally rejected, but then I got a letter 
from the House Parliamentarian saying absolutely, it was a violation of 
the House rule.
  Subsequently and because of that ruling, the House leadership, the 
Committee on Rules, has had to waive the three-fifths vote requirement 
on every single occasion they have brought up a tax bill. Four 
occasions in the last term. For the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, they 
had to waive the rule. For the Medicare Preservation Act, they had to 
waived the rule. The Health Coverage Affordability and Portability Act, 
waive the three-fifths requirement. Likewise, the Small Business 
Protection Act. Four times we waived the rule that required a three-
fifths vote because we never had three-fifths of the votes to pass just 
those basic relatively non-controversial tax law changes.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues about another more recent example, and 
that is the tax relief bill we just passed as part of the Balanced 
Budget Act. It was a compromise. The majority and the minority both 
agreed to it. It was called the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. It closed 
some tax loopholes, but it imposed a new aviation excise tax and

[[Page H2154]]

broadened the tax base to help pay for some of the bill's tax cuts. 
That also did not get three-fifths. It was a violation of the House 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we know if this was passed we could never do that kind 
of a thing. We could never have that kind of a Balanced Budget Act.
  Lastly, I want to go even further back to the Articles of 
Confederation. Initially they thought this was a good idea. They said 
that nine out of the original 13 States would have to vote. Article 9 
of the Articles of Confederation required just this kind of 
supermajority, nine out of 13 States.
  If we look back at some of the debate that occurred in the 
Constitutional Convention, we will find that tax increases became too 
politicized. They could never get 9 out of 13 States to actually do 
what was necessary to keep this Republic going. And so in 1787 at the 
Constitutional Convention our Founding Fathers recognized that this was 
a supreme defect and they established a national government that could 
impose and enforce laws and collect revenues through a simple majority 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, my point is, this is a legislative responsibility. Do 
not take this legislative responsibility and pass the buck, send it 
across the street to the Supreme Court and have these difficult issues 
resolved by the Judicial Branch. They should properly be resolved by 
the legislative branch, by Congress.
  I do agree with that Post article last year that this is another 
``show vote.'' We do not need show votes in the Congress. What we need 
is people who are willing to make the tough choices, who are willing to 
look back at history and realize that the public is best served by 
majority rule and a Congress with the courage to do the right thing 
ahead of the politically expedient thing. This constitutional amendment 
is not the right thing to do, it is at best a politically expedient 
``show vote''.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
for his contribution today. Four times they have had, the Republicans 
have had to waive their own requirement. Does the gentleman have there 
any explanation from them as to why that occurred?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, obviously 
they felt that they got the political benefit from putting in that 
three-fifths rule requirement. But then when it would apply, they got a 
rule that waived it. We raised an objection but nobody seemed to care.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
why would people come to the floor crying about that same issue, then? 
Why would people now come to the floor crying about why they need to 
impose this two-thirds requirement rule, when the same rule they 
imposed in the House under Newt Gingrich, the Speaker, is the one they 
ignore, they honor in the breach, they never do it?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the distinguished 
ranking member that he makes an excellent point. Here we cannot even 
meet the 60 percent requirement and they want to raise it to a 67 
percent requirement. It seems to me, again, that this is just window 
dressing and not substantive legislation. I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for raising an excellent point.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
very important issue to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment the gentlemen and ladies 
on the other side who have spoken out against this resolution, because 
I have to compliment them. They are brave to be able to come up here 
and speak their beliefs and really come out on the position of being 
for taxes. If I did something like that, I could not return to Texas. 
But I have to admire them for their willingness to come here and take a 
pro-tax position, so I think that is to be commended.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to our side that if we all in 
the Congress did a better job in following the Constitution, we would 
not need this amendment. Because if we took our oath of office 
seriously, if we followed the doctrine of enumerated powers, if we knew 
the original intent of the Constitution, this government and this 
Congress would be very small and, therefore, we would not have to be 
worrying.
  The other contention we have and have to think about is if we do not 
already follow the Constitution in so many ways, why are we going to 
follow it next time? Nevertheless, this is a great debate. I am glad I 
am a cosponsor. I am glad it was brought to the floor.
  We do have to remember there is another half to taxation and that is 
the spending half. It is politically unpopular to talk about spending. 
It is politically very popular to talk about the taxes. So, yes, we are 
for lower taxes, but we also have to realize that the government is too 
big. They are consuming 50 percent of our revenues and our income 
today, and that is the problem.
  Government can pay for these bills in three different ways. One, they 
can tax us. One, they can borrow. And one, they can have the tax of 
inflation, which is indeed a tax. We are dealing here only with one 
single tax. But eventually, when we make a sincere effort to get this 
government under control, we will look at all three areas.
  We will limit the borrowing power. We will limit the ability of this 
Congress to inflate the currency to pay the bills. And we certainly 
will follow the rules of this House and this Constitution and not raise 
taxes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul) before he goes out, I just wanted to explain one thing. This 
is not a debate about those ``for'' taxes and those ``against'' taxes, 
so the gentleman misunderstands our position. Our position is not for 
enshrining corporate loopholes to the tune of $450 billion in a 
constitutional amendment. It is not about being for taxes. I am not for 
taxes. I am trying to keep the gentleman's side of the aisle from 
enshrining this $450 billion loophole.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, for the 
third year in a row we are now debating a resolution to pass a 
constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds majority for any bill 
making a change in the revenue laws unless it is, ``determined at the 
time of adoption in a reasonable manner prescribed by law not to 
increase revenue by more than a de minimis amount.'' The resolution 
failed to receive a two-thirds majority for passage the past two years, 
and last year the defeat was by a greater margin.
  All I can say about this resolution is that we have said enough about 
it and it is time to move on, instead of this waste of time with the 
gimmicks that are typically associated with these efforts in this 
House. Let us get away from the gimmicks.
  Mr. Speaker, if I can, we ought to call this the ``Republican 
Straight-Faced Amendment.'' There are Members of this House that vote 
for term limits after they have served for 20-plus years and do not 
retire. That constitutionally we ought to take the line-item veto and 
pass it down to the White House, because somehow they believe that 
there is more wisdom at that end of Pennsylvania Avenue than this end 
of Pennsylvania Avenue. And, Mr. Speaker, instead of doing our work, we 
ought to have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which we 
balanced without disturbing the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, it is gimmickry and it speaks to the lowest instincts of 
the American voter when these proposals are repeatedly put in front of 
them by people who lack the fundamental sincerity on most of these 
issues. If they are for term limits after 12 years or 6 years, pick up 
and go. If they pledge at home that they are going to do that, they 
ought to take advantage of it and

[[Page H2155]]

leave the institution. But no, we come back with this kind of a gimmick 
time and time again.
  Since this is the third year in a row, Mr. Speaker, that this 
proposal is brought before us, let me give my testimony from the last 2 
years as well and submit that for the Record:
  Mr. Speaker, today is a day that is dreaded by most Americans for one 
reason or another. Today, April 15th is commonly known as ``Tax Day.'' 
Anxiety is high and many Americans are scrambling to meet the deadline. 
People across America are concerned if they have to pay or if they did 
their taxes right. Today, the House is participating in a publicity 
stunt to try to ease the anxiety and fear about our current tax system.
  We went through this exercise exactly a year ago today and rational 
minds prevailed. The resolution fell 37 votes short of the two-thirds 
majority required to endorse a change in the Constitution. We should 
not waste our time by having this debate again and hear Mr. Speaker 
would like to have it every April 15th.
  Instead of holding this publicity stunt, Congress should be working 
towards balancing the budget. This resolution will not help individual 
taxpayers. A balanced budget will benefit us all. If we want to help 
taxpayers, we should enact targeted tax breaks such as expanded 
individual retirement accounts (IRAs). IRAs will provide a tax 
incentive for savings. We need to increase our national savings rate.
  Today, we are debating an amendment to the Constitution. Any time we 
amend the Constitution it should be done in a serious manner. Amending 
the Constitution should not be taken lightly. This proposed amendment 
to the Constitution would require a two-thirds majority for any bill 
making a change in the revenue laws unless 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 debate.
  As a former history teacher, I value the Constitution and I have 
tried to pass this on to my students. Currently, the Constitution 
requires a two-thirds majority vote in the House in only three 
instances--overriding the 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.
  The proposed Constitutional Amendment is similar to a House rule 
which was adopted last Congress. The rule required a three-fifth 
majority for ``carrying a Federal income tax rate increase.'' This rule 
change was narrower than the proposed Constitutional amendment. The 
Constitutional Amendment would affect all taxes and would also prohibit 
revenue increases through eliminating loopholes or other base 
broadeners.
  The experience with the House rule demonstrates the unworkability of 
the proposed Constitutional Amendment. This rule was narrowed at the 
beginning of this Congress and the rule is basically meaningless.
  The issue of requiring a two-thirds majority is not a new issue. This 
issue plagued our Founding Fathers. This proposed amendment would 
gravely weaken the principle of majority rule that has been at the 
heart of our system for more than 200 years. The Constitutional 
Convention rejected requiring a super-majority approval for basic 
functions such as raising taxes. James Madison associated majority rule 
with ``free government.'' He believed a person whose vote is diluted by 
super-majority rules is not an equal citizen and his freedom is not 
fully enjoyed. The arguments of James Madison still hold true today. 
With the adoption of this amendment, power would be transferred to the 
minority. A minority would be able to prevent passage of important 
legislation. Our Founding Fathers recognized the difficulty of 
operating under a two-thirds majority. The Articles of Confederation 
required the vote of nine of the thirteen states to raise revenue. We 
should learn from the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.
  The proposed Constitutional Amendment would change how the House 
currently functions. This amendment would require any bill closing 
loopholes for deficit reduction to require a two-thirds majority. 
However, the amendment would permit tax increases on one group of 
taxpayers to pay for a tax break for another group of preferences.
  This proposed amendment would require a two-thirds majority to 
reinstate funding of the Superfund program. A supermajority would be 
required to reinstate the trust fund for the airport and safety and 
improvement program.
  Deficit reduction should be our primary focus and this proposed 
amendment would make it harder to enact deficit reduction. The 
Coalition Budget which was a responsible balanced budget would require 
a two-third majority by closing unnecessary tax preferences.
  We should take a hard look at the action we are about to take today. 
Last year the Washington Post ran an editorial entitled ``False 
Promises.'' This editorial hit the nail on the head. It reminds us that 
damage done to the Constitution cannot be undone. We simply cannot 
waive the Constitution.
  We should realize that we are elected to make hard decisions. A 
majority of major legislation passes with less than a two-thirds 
margin. Our job would be easier here if two-thirds of us could always 
agree and this is not supposed to be an easy job. We have to make tough 
decisions which often result in close votes.
  Between 1982 and 1993, five bills that raised significant revenue 
were enacted. President Reagan signed three and the other two were 
signed by President Bush and President Clinton. All five of these bills 
did not receive a two-thirds vote on the House Floor.
  Raising taxes is never an easy decision. I voted for President 
Clinton's budget in 1993 and parts of this budget were hard to support 
enthusiastically. But as a package, it was the right thing to do. 
President Clinton's budget in 1993 tackled the deficit. In 1992, the 
deficit was equal to 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product. The 
deficit will drop to 1.4 percent of GDP. The difference is money 
available for investment in the private economy.
  I cannot predict the future, but based on past precedents, I believe 
it will be extremely difficult for any President to have a budget pass 
Congress if this amendment is enacted. So many of us hear the 
complaints from our constituents about gridlock. This amendment could 
add to the gridlock. We would not be able to pass the budget deals of 
the past without a supermajority. We should all know from this year's 
budget process how difficult this could be.
  We will hear today that this amendment is important because it will 
help reduce our taxes. If we really want to help the American taxpayer 
we can do better than this legislation today. Our energy should be 
focused on deficit reduction. This amendment would make deficit 
reduction more difficult.
  We all want to make our tax system more fair and simpler. This 
amendment will not help reach that goal. We have not studied the 
effects of this amendment closely enough. The wording of this amendment 
is not clear and could result in years of litigation. The resolution is 
not specific enough to address questions such as the length of the 
budget window or what constitutes a tax or a fee.
  I urge you not to support this proposed amendment. We do not know 
enough about its effects. Just because it is Tax Day, we should not 
support a Constitutional Amendment that sounds good at first. In 
reality, this amendment will create numerous problems and will change 
the concept of majority rule. With this Amendment, we are turning back 
the clock of history and not moving forward.
  Mr. Speaker, what we should be doing here today, according to the 
Certified Public Accountants of America, is speaking to the 10 big 
taxpayer headaches that could be cured through a little tax 
simplification. We could use our time to correct legislation that would 
make the tax burden easier for the American people.
  Number two and three are individual alternative minimum tax and 
individual capital gains. Democrats on the Ways and Means subcommittee 
have introduced two bills that would address these important issues.
  But let me talk if I can about AMT. The accountants refer to the 
individual AMT as the ``iceberg on the horizon sneaking up on 
unsuspecting middle income taxpayers as fast as the Titanic went 
down.''
  The individual AMT is a tax on the individual taxpayer to the extent 
that the taxpayer's minimum liability exceeds his or her regular tax 
liability. The AMT imposes a lower marginal rate of tax on a broader 
base of income. The nonrefundable credits available to an individual to 
reduce his or her regular tax liability generally may not reduce the 
individual's minimum tax.
  But starting in 1998, individuals who take advantage of that tax 
credit enacted as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 will now have 
to fill out the complicated AMT form. In 1998, 856,000 people will pay 
the AMT, and this will increase to 3,000,822 taxpayers in the year 
2008.

                              {time}  1415

  The AMT will affect middle-income earners and result in the 
individual not being able to fully benefit from the new credits. An 
example would be a married couple with three children, including one in 
college, with a gross income of $63,000 would be affected by the AMT. 
This couple is entitled to $2,300 in credits, but $620 of that amount 
would be disallowed due to the alternative minimum tax.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) has introduced a 
good

[[Page H2156]]

piece of legislation that would fix that problem. Many of us have spent 
hours upon hours of filling out schedule D. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 
1997 provides for five different rates. An additional tax rate is 
scheduled to take place in 2001 and another in 2006. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) has introduced a very simplified Capital Gains 
Tax Act of 1998. This legislation would require a taxpayer to include 
60 percent of their total capital distributions on appropriate tax 
lines.
  My argument here today is simply this. The other side knows that this 
is not going to pass, and they are trying to position Members of this 
House again in an election year over this issue. Leave the Constitution 
alone. The Constitution works fine as we have demonstrated with the 
balanced budget amendment, as we have demonstrated internationally with 
the demise of the Soviet Union. The rest of the world envies this 
system and they view it with a great deal of envy. Yet we sit here and 
come up with gimmicks rather than speaking to the real issues that 
confront the American citizen every single day, whether in the 
workplace or in other avenues of their lives. It is time to move on 
from this gimmickry, Mr. Speaker, and get to the real issues that 
confront this Nation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton) on a fine proposal here.
  I have been here for about 45 minutes. I finally heard something I 
absolutely agree with on the other side. The purpose of bringing this 
bill to the floor today is to position Members officially, those that 
are for higher taxes, and those who think taxes are too high already. I 
absolutely agree that that is what this bill will do.
  If Members do not support the Tax Limitation Act, they are clearly 
defining themselves as being a person who is for higher taxes. The 
reality is this debate is not about what has been discussed here so 
far, though. This debate is about who knows best how to spend the hard-
working people of America's money. That is what this debate is about.
  The United States Government right now today collects an average of 
$6,500 for every man, woman and child in the United States of America. 
A lot of citizens say, do not worry about me; I do not pay that much in 
taxes.
  If one does something as simple as buy a pair of shoes in a store, 
and the store owner makes a profit selling that pair of shoes, the 
store owner then has to turn around, take some of that money, and send 
it here to Washington. The point is, the United States Government is 
too big and spends too much of the taxpayers money, and the people in 
this city want to maintain the power and the ability to even take more 
out of those paychecks of hard-working Americans, and that is wrong.
  Why is it, why is it that that tax rate is so high? We need to 
understand the thinking in this town. The reason taxes are so high is 
because the people in this community believe they know how to spend the 
hard-working people of America's money better than those people 
themselves know how to spend it. The reason taxes are so high is 
because spending is so high.
  When we got here in 1995, spending was growing at twice the rate of 
inflation. Think about that. What other family in America, what other 
institution in America was in a position where they could increase the 
spending rates at twice the rate of inflation? But that is what 
government was doing. The only reason we have a balanced budget today, 
the economy is strong, but the reason we have a balanced budget is 
because in the face of that strong economy we slowed the growth rate of 
Washington spending down to the rate of inflation, and one would have 
thought we were cutting it to ribbons. All we did was slow the growth 
rate so it was only going up as fast as the rate of inflation, and in 
this community one would have thought we were cutting it to ribbons.
  I rise today to urge in the strongest way I can the support of this 
amendment to prevent higher taxes in the future.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Fazio).
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, supporters of this resolution, 
as we have just heard, would like us to believe that this is a debate 
between those who would raise taxes and those who do not want to raise 
taxes. But this is a wolf in sheep's clothing, little more than an 
invitation, instead, to gridlock.
  If Members need any evidence of that, just look to my home State to 
see how giving the power of a majority to a few has resulted in a 
deadlocked legislature that has been annually unable to govern 
effectively.
  In California, we have a two-thirds rule requirement for passing 
taxes and budgets. As a result, State government has missed its budget 
deadline nearly every year. The legislative gridlock is intense, 
throwing the operation of the State into a crisis mode time and time 
again.
  We had a taste of that kind of deadlock 2 years ago when the 
President and Congress were unable to see eye to eye on the budget and 
the government was shut down. I doubt any of us would want to relive 
that experience every year, least of all the new majority that brought 
it about.
  Passage of this resolution would also thwart any attempts at real tax 
reform because it would take a two-thirds majority to pass changes in 
the tax system to make it fairer. The current tax system, laced with 
loopholes and complexities, would stay on the books forever.
  So forget about any ideas for tax simplification because a two-thirds 
majority would be required. We will be stuck with what we have. Somehow 
I doubt those pushing this resolution today, as well as those who want 
a fairer, simpler tax system, would be happy about that.
  It is also easy to see why special interests are lined up today to 
support this resolution. While it would still take only a majority vote 
to write a loophole to give a tax break to an industry, it would be 
nearly impossible to repeal it. Why? Because the two-thirds vote would 
be required.
  If the voters are not happy with those who vote for tax increases in 
the best interests of our Nation, they have ample opportunity to 
express their opinions every other November. That is the way our 
democracy works. When George Bush said ``no new taxes'' and did 
otherwise, a simple majority of New Hampshire's Presidential primary 
sent him a punishing message. We would not have been able to slash our 
Federal budget deficit either, if this two-thirds rule had been in 
effect during the past 10 years.
  In 1990, 1993 and 1997, we made tough votes, including one that 
passed by a single vote, to move this Nation from the $200 billion 
deficits of the Reagan era to our upcoming budget surplus of over $50 
billion. Not one of those measures would have been passed if a two-
thirds requirement was in place.
  I know we have heard quotes from our Founding Fathers time and time 
again today about the tyranny of the minority, but the framers of our 
Constitution, who witnessed the collapse of the Articles of 
Confederation which required 9 of the 13 States to approve any tax, 
well understood the danger of the supermajority requirements.
  As Madison wrote, ``the minorities might take advantage of it to 
screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or in 
particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.''
  This would be especially so in the Senate, where a third of the 
Senate represents only 10 percent of the population of this country. 
They would be in position to kill any legislation. In other words, the 
State of California--10 percent of the population with but two votes in 
the Senate, is equal to the smallest States adding up to a third of the 
Senate; and yet those 17 States could control what would be voted out 
of that institution, a rampant example of minority power which 
frustrates the will of the majority and only adds to the existing 
inequity in the other body.
  For example, it would be nearly impossible to pass any tax increase 
on the tobacco companies because Senators representing the handful of 
tobacco-growing States with only a few allies could effectively thwart 
any tax increase. That might be a good example of what some of the 
advocates of this

[[Page H2157]]

proposal bring us today: To hand a small minority veto power over what 
the majority believes is important to democracy. This amendment ought 
to be defeated every year in April when it is brought back for 
political purposes, as it is today.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Speaker, on a radio quiz program that premiered this 
day back in 1940, America first heard the phrase, ``the 64-dollar 
question.'' At that time that was pretty good money and a lot of 
listeners tuned in. Of course, it was just a few years after that that 
it had grown to the $64,000 question. And then that game was on a roll.
  Of course, today we look at State lotteries; it is not unusual to see 
a $64 million prize handed out. It has gotten ridiculous and taxes have 
inflated over the years much the same way. And it is our families and 
our small businesses that are paying the price.
  Look at what we do each day. As we get up in the morning, we drink 
the first cup of coffee, we pay a sales tax on it. Jump in the shower, 
pay a water tax; get in our car to drive to work, and pay a fuel tax. 
At work we pay on our income an income tax and the payroll tax; drive 
home to our house on which we pay a property tax; flick on the lights 
and pay the electricity tax; hit the TV and pay cable tax; talk on the 
telephone and pay a franchise tax. On and on and on until at the end of 
our life we pay a death tax. No wonder it is so hard for families to 
make ends meet these days. We are taking their dollars and they need to 
keep more of what they earn. And that is what this amendment is all 
about.
  I have served on the city council, had the privilege of serving in 
the Texas legislature, and now in Congress. I can tell my colleagues, 
when revenues go down, government first tries to raise taxes. If that 
does not work, they borrow. If that does not work, they use accounting 
tricks. And finally, and only if they are forced to, they will live 
within their means.
  That is what this amendment is all about, forcing the government, who 
historically has not lived within its means, to start living within its 
means.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and urge its 
passage.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I 
certainly share the goal of limiting taxes and strongly support 
reducing taxes. However, I cannot support a fiscally irresponsible 
proposal that allows us to increase spending with a simple majority, 
but requires a supermajority to pay for the spending increases that we 
have already enacted.
  I want to start by saying that I have a great deal of respect for my 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas, who has worked diligently and 
honorably for years on behalf of this amendment, and I know that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has the highest level of integrity. 
Having worked with him on several efforts to control spending and bring 
fiscal responsibility to our government, I know that he advocates this 
amendment based on a sincere principle, and I respect that.
  Unfortunately, I am not sure that everyone advocating this amendment 
is doing so for the same motivations. This debate today is part of a 
pattern of fiscal irresponsibility and a fiscally irresponsible 
legislative agenda of this year.
  Two weeks ago we passed a highway bill that increased spending by 
more than $20 billion beyond the 42-percent increase in highway 
spending in the budget resolution without saying how we are going to 
pay for it. Next month, we will vote to sunset the current Tax Code 
without giving business and other taxpayers any idea of how they should 
plan for the future. We read about all kinds of promises about what 
Congress is going to do, but we do not have a budget resolution to show 
how we are going to pay for it all. If Congress is interested in 
keeping taxes low, we should focus our energy on controlling spending.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership seems to be more interested 
in moving legislation to increase spending than they are in working to 
control spending. The Concord Coalition, one of the most credible 
watchdogs of deficit spending, opposes this amendment because it would 
be detrimental to maintaining a balanced budget, and they are right.
  My foremost fiscal concern is that we not mortgage our children's 
future to pay for today's consumption. Balancing the budget honestly 
without depending on the Social Security surplus should be our highest 
priority. Under this amendment, we can increase spending by a majority 
vote, but would need a two-thirds vote to raise the revenues to pay for 
the increased spending.
  The easy option will be for Congress to increase spending and pay for 
that by increasing the debt we will leave to our children and 
grandchildren. Witness the 1980's, if Members do not believe Congress 
left to its own whims, what we will do. This debate is just a 
distraction from a meaningful debate on genuine tax reform and budget 
priorities. If we were serious about helping American taxpayers, we 
would be doing our work to develop legislation that will actually 
accomplish something meaningful.
  We would have passed a budget resolution to establish a road map to 
show how we are going on control spending and maintain a balanced 
budget. We would have passed IRS reform legislation to ensure that the 
important protections in this bill were available when Americans filed 
their tax returns this year. We would be conducting serious hearings to 
carefully examine the various options for tax reform. I am anxious to 
begin work on tax reform.
  I thought we were supposed to start work on tax reform before the 
Presidential election in 1996. We have been talking about tax reform 
for almost 3 years now, but have not even begun to do any serious work 
in committees to bring legislation forward.

                              {time}  1430

  I am a lot more interested in working to pass meaningful IRS reform 
and tax reform legislation that would do a lot more for American 
taxpayers instead of spending time debating amendments that are going 
nowhere.
  Saying that a simple majority can increase spending but a two-thirds 
vote is necessary to pay for it is irresponsible. The truly 
conservative and responsible position is to protect future generations 
from having to bear the burden of our irresponsibility today. Vote 
responsibly. Oppose this amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The Chair would advise the 
Members that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) controls 10\1/2\ 
minutes and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) controls 17 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ long minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the distinguished chairman, 
a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, one issue distinguishing the two major 
political parties is a five-letter word, ``taxes.''
  Now, I am not suggesting that all Democrats favor high taxes nor that 
all Republicans favor low taxes. There are exceptions to every rule. 
But I am suggesting that the philosophy of the two major parties is 
clear and that it is genuinely recognized from sea to sea, from border 
to border, that the Republican Party is generally the party that 
advocates low taxes, that the Republican Party is the party that 
generally advocates and permits workers to retain more of their 
earnings.
  We talked for a long time about estate tax reform, capital gains tax 
reform. ``Oh, we can't do that. It costs too much money on 
collections.'' In fact, some of my Democrat friends about 5 or 6 or 7 
years ago wanted to lower the exemption threshold on estate taxes from 
$600,000 to $200,000.
  Well, we have raised it, raised the exemption. We have delayed the 
call of the tax man knocking on the door at the estate's house 
collecting the tax. We advocate low taxes.
  What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that perhaps the bar in raising 
taxes of a simple majority may be too low. Let us raise that bar and 
make it a little more difficult and a little more challenging to 
negotiate in the resulting tax increase. Make it tougher.

[[Page H2158]]

  I advocate the resolution that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
is promoting and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
resolution.
  Two things about today's tax bill are important to note:
  First, it is a waste of time, and therefore--ironically--a waste of 
taxpayer's money.
  And second, it is a diversionary tactic, intended to distract the 
public's attention away from the fact that the Republican leaders have 
stifled action on issues that most American families really want, like: 
Protecting thousands of teenagers and pre-adolescents from predatory 
practices of cigarette companies; passing a bill to protect the rights 
of patients unfairly treated by their HMOs and insurance companies; and 
enacting real campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of 
special interest money in politics.
  Instead, because it does not want to act on any of these critical 
issues, the Republican leadership is running out the legislative clock 
by bringing to the floor a bill that has failed time and time again.
  This proposal failed in 1996. It got even fewer votes when it was 
brought up in 1997. And the Republicans know full well that it will 
fail again today.
  Today, ladies and gentlemen, you are witnessing a show. But shows 
belong in the theater, not on the floor of the People's House.
  If Republicans had really wanted to get something done for taxpayers, 
they would have already sent the bipartisan IRS reform bill to the 
President for his signature.
  The reason today's bill has failed in the past, and the reason it 
will fail again today, is that it is bad legislation.
  Despite what you are being told, this bill would do very little to 
help, and a lot more to hurt, the average taxpayer.
  In fact, this legislation is custom-made to perpetuate some of the 
most egregious inequities in the current tax system and to frustrate 
efforts at real reform, all at the expense of the American taxpayer.
  This bill would effectively prevent any tax reform which would close 
tax loopholes for corporations and special interests.
  It would make it virtually impossible to pass comprehensive tobacco 
legislation like the bipartisan bill developed by Senator McCain.
  It would cripple the ability of the government to act during national 
crises.
  And it could saddle America with financial disaster by foreclosing 
any revenue increases to deal with future deficits.
  This bill is yet another effort by this Republican leadership to 
further restrict the democratic process in the House of Representatives 
and to prevent a majority of Members from exercising its will. Under 
this bill, all it would take is one-third of members to block real tax 
reform or to block a tobacco settlement.
  I congratulate my colleagues in advance for their resolve in standing 
up to the Republican leadership and voting against this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) that we have two speakers left; and if he has more than that, 
we would prefer that he go at this point.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the tax limitation 
amendment.
  It has amazed me today to listen to the opponents of this amendment 
call it undemocratic. I can think of nothing more democratic than doing 
what the majority of the American people want to have done. And the 
American people want this amendment. We have seen it in poll after 
poll. The latest polls show that, 3-to-1, people in this country favor 
this amendment, support for it is so strong, that a growing number of 
States are now requiring supermajorities in their own legislatures to 
raise taxes.
  My colleagues, let us cut to the bottom line. This is not about 
democracy. It is about the fear some Members have of losing power, the 
power to increase the tax burden on the American people with a slim 
majority. We can see why some Members are afraid of losing that power 
when we see how often Congress has exercised that power in the past, 
usually unwisely.
  In recent decades, Congress has raised taxes time and time again. 
Until today, working Americans struggle under the heaviest tax burden 
they have carried in the last 50 years. At the same time we have that 
shocking tax burden, we have a revenue surplus that is now predicted to 
swell annually for the next several years. Why? Because President 
Clinton acted too hastily when he asked for the largest tax hike in 
history 5 years ago and the Democratic-controlled Congress acted 
unnecessarily when it gave it to him by the slimmest of majorities, one 
vote.
  For the last 5 years, working Americans have paid the price for that 
haste and imprudence. With this amendment, that would never have 
happened and it could never happen again. This amendment simply says 
that Congress must have a strong enough, compelling enough reason to 
raise taxes, a reason that is so sound it persuades two-thirds of the 
Congress. My colleagues, if there ever was time for this amendment, 
that time is now.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and we will have two speakers after 
that.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this must be an election year or something. The 
Republican majority this year fancies itself a constitutional 
convention, so many constitutional amendments have come forward.
  The framers gave us a flawed document, but this was not the flaw in 
it. Why is two-thirds so rare in the Constitution for a presidential 
veto, for a constitutional amendment and for expulsion of a Member? 
Because the framers were democrats. They reserved minority power for 
fundamental rights only, not for everyday business of the House.
  This amendment would create a field day for lawyers: the ``de 
minimis'' language in the amendment, for example ``De minimis'' in 
relationship to what?
  Who is the majority afraid of? They control the House. Are they 
afraid they will raise taxes, like taxes on tobacco, for example, to 
save the lives of children?
  We are not smarter than the framers. I like the framework they gave 
us. Let's keep it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I was on the road within the last month and 
I happened to be at a Holiday Inn. I changed my clothes, and I was 
getting ready to leave the Holiday Inn, and I walked past the door 
where there was a family. It kind of took me back to my youth. Remember 
when we used to go on vacation as a kid? We would spend the first 24 
hours arguing about where we were going to stay and then the next 12 
hours arguing about the fact that we did not stay at the right place.
  I looked inside the hotel room, and there was mom and dad and the 
kids. And I say to Members of the House, like many of them in the 
gallery here today, and there was grandma and grandpa. Then I looked 
inside the room real quickly, because I kind of thought I saw myself 
there for just a minute thinking about my childhood. And there was mom 
and dad taking lunch meat and making sandwiches for all the people in 
that room.
  I knew the kids were going to go in that little swimming pool in that 
Holiday Inn, and they were going to have some of the greatest times 
bonding as a family, understanding each other's love and caring, which 
we all need more of in this world.
  When I looked in the room of that hotel, do my colleagues know what 
struck me and what touched my heart? Would it not be great if that 
family had more, would it not be great if that family could take that 
trip more than once a year, and would it not be great if that family 
could, instead of having to take the lunch meat and make the 
sandwiches, maybe that night they would get to go to McDonald's and 
they can get the quarter-pounder and extra large fries.
  There are so many people in this Chamber today smiling about that 
story because there are so many people in this Chamber today that live 
that life. And this proposal is designed to say to the government 
officials and the politicians, ``You are not going to get into the 
people's budgets anymore to make the government budget bigger and the 
family budget smaller.''

[[Page H2159]]

  Why do we want to lock in two-thirds? Because we think there is a 
crisis in the family in America today. We are not going to solve the 
problems of violence in our schools with another cop in the school 
yard. We are going to solve it with love and support and rebuilding or 
families.
  So I want to compliment the gentleman today; and I think every Member 
ought to come to this floor and say that if the government at some 
point decides it has to take more power from families, they ought to 
have a large percentage of this House that goes along.
  Frankly, tax cuts are not about economic theory. They are about 
personal power. And the more that moms and dads have in their hands, 
the better off their children are, the better off their communities 
are, the better off all the American people are. So that is why we 
think this is such an important issue.
  I ask my colleagues not just to vote for this amendment to help that 
family in that Holiday Inn that I saw, but why do they not exercise a 
little self-interest and help their children and the children of their 
constituents so that family budgets get bigger, so that families are 
more powerful, that we have more love and peace in this country?
  That is what this is really all about, not economic theory. Although 
that is a part of it, not economic theory. It is about the stuff of 
life and about the stuff of caring.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), who represents the entire State.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.
  There is one fact that Americans must always bear in mind: The 
government spends their money because it does not have any money of its 
own to spend, period. It is their money when they earn it. It is their 
money when it is taken out of their paycheck before they ever see it. 
And it is still their money when the government spends it. And when it 
is their money that is spent, the government ought to be more 
accountable to them.
  Do my colleagues know what we have done with the spending habits in 
this government? The average American family pays 40 percent of their 
income in taxes. What that means is we have stolen the choice of many 
of our young families as to whether or not one parent will stay home 
and raise the children and the other one go to work to support the 
family.
  Now, as it is, one has to support the family and the other one works 
full-time to support the government. That means that they cannot be the 
room mother, they cannot stay home to take care of their ailing elderly 
parents, they have to work because they have to feed the government.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Riley), in hope that he would talk fast.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
American taxpayer and in support of the tax limitation amendment.
  This Congress, more than any other, has given the American people 
much-needed tax relief. But there is still a lot we must do. Taxes is 
still too high. The Tax Code is still too complicated.
  Seventy-nine percent of the American people believe that it is far 
too easy for Congress to raise their taxes. Mr. Speaker, I agree with 
them.
  Four out of the last five major tax increases passed Congress with 
less than a two-thirds majority. In my book, it should be much more 
difficult for this government to confiscate an even bigger chunk of the 
family's income. The time to turn this trend around has come. The tax 
limitation amendment will do just that.
  Once again, we have heard from the naysayers and the doomsdayers who 
fear that the sky will fall if this tax limitation amendment is 
enacted. They say that a supermajority requirement will make it too 
difficult to raise taxes for their feel-good social policies. They are 
rightfully concerned, Mr. Speaker.
  The tax limitation amendment will indeed make it tougher for Congress 
to raise taxes. That is exactly why I support it.
  This year the average American family will work until approximately 
mid-May to earn enough income to pay an entire year's worth of taxes. 
Factor in local and state taxes, and U.S. taxpayers will spend more 
time working for the government than they will for their own families. 
Mr. Speaker, that is wrong.
  This amendment will once and for all give Congress the needed 
discipline to hold the line on taxes. It will require a two-thirds 
supermajority vote in both Houses of Congress before any tax increase 
can be passed.
  The American people know how to spend their hard earned income better 
than we do. It is time we let them keep more of it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the Members that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) controls 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am wiping the tears from my eyes from the 
touching Holiday Inn story of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), 
where he peeked into the door and saw himself with this family.
  And I just want him to know, wherever he is, that if that family had 
gotten a fair and honest campaign financing system that the Speaker of 
the House continues to bottle up, they would have more money. If that 
family in the Holiday Inn that he peeked in on was relying on Medicare 
or Social Security, they would oppose the amendment because it 
threatens their viability. If that family relied on a minimum wage, 
they would be hurt by this Republican Congress that does not want to 
raise the minimum wage.

                              {time}  1445

  If for all of the Republicans that claim that they are for lower 
taxes but for really huge tax loopholes, they would realize how 
fraudulent this measure is. It really takes some acting to pull this 
off every April around tax time. The same people who are willing to 
throw out and undercut the cornerstone of our democracy majority rule 
to let this repose in a small and a controlled system, reversing the 
principles of James Madison. I think that this is outrageous that we 
would permanently enshrine $450 billion corporate and tax loopholes in 
an amendment like this.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I call on you this year, I called on you last 
year, I called on you the year before, reject this foolishness that 
demeans the House of Representatives.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure and high 
honor to yield 4 minutes to the honorable gentleman from Rockwell, 
Texas (Mr. Hall), the chief Democratic sponsor of the tax limitation 
amendment. He has done an outstanding job on his side of the aisle in 
pushing this very necessary constitutional amendment.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand here of course today with my 
colleagues to show my support for the tax limitation amendment. I have 
no ill will toward anyone on either side. It is an issue that 
reasonable men and women can differ. It is not a situation where a 
double handful of Republicans or just a few of us Democrats are for tax 
limitation. There are a lot of us that are for it. Last time, it got 
170, 180 or 190 votes. That is not just a double handful of people. 
That is a ground swell, and it is a beginning.
  We may not pass it this time. It has been said by my friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who is truly my friend, and he 
expresses his own thoughts on behalf of his own district and does it 
very well. I have to do the same thing. I can do it without rancor. I 
can do it without calling anybody names or anything. I just think that 
it makes sense to make it a little tougher to put taxes on anyone, to 
pass any more taxes.
  Along the way to passing something like this, I think this will pass. 
It may not pass. As several speakers have said, it may not pass today, 
but it will pass in time and, along the way, good men and good women 
will differ.
  It has been my privilege to work for this measure for the past 3 
years with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and, of course, with 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and others.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and I share the representation 
of probably two of the most conservative areas in the State of Texas. 
But that does not mean that they have a corner on the market of being 
smart or knowing how we tax people or how we should not tax people. 
They are simply fiscally conservative districts, and

[[Page H2160]]

they think we ought to have a tax limitation amendment.
  It will be a very responsible tool for providing continued budgetary 
discipline for those deserving constituents that we are standing here 
representing.
  The premise behind the tax limitation amendment is simple, but it is 
very powerful. The Constitution would simply be amended to permanently 
reflect current House rules which were implemented in response to a 
past record of a lot of pork barrel spending. There is no question 
about that.
  Look at the transportation bill we just passed. We just passed a 
balanced budget amendment and then passed a bill with an increase of 45 
or 48 percent increase over the last budget, busts the budget by $20 
billion or $30 billion. I think we just have to be sensible about it.
  I think, also, it has been said that we cannot look into the future. 
One of the speakers over here who opposes this says we cannot look into 
the future. We may have more problems for Medicare and Medicaid. He is 
exactly right.
  Henry Ford in 1913 thought he had the only assembly line that was 
ever going to be worth 15 cents. It happened so that same year they 
passed the IRS bill, the very first. And they could not look into the 
future, because they said it was temporary. It is a page and a half.
  We will pass tax limitation. It is going to take some time. It took 
15 or 20 years to get a balanced budget amendment, but it happened. It 
took 10 or 12 years to pass the Telecommunications Act, but it happened 
because good people kept pressing, good people kept pushing.
  We are in the tenth or twelfth year on record to try to reauthorize 
the superfund legislation, but it is going to happen because it ought 
to happen. And I think so with the tax limitation, not for the rich, 
but for the working, for people who are working for money, have to buy 
school clothes in September, people who have to make payments on cars. 
They ought not to have their taxes passed on to them without having 
some say in it.
  We are not taking that say away from anybody today. We are passing it 
on to the 50 States. They get last guess at whether or not this 
amendment ought to pass. Are we afraid of their decision? I think not.
  I ask each Member of this Congress, maybe not today but before we 
vote again on it, for it or against it next year, and, yes, on tax day 
is a good day because people are very interested in taxes on April the 
15th, walk out into your district and talk to the first 10 people you 
see. Do not handpick them and do not have a poll that you like. Walk 
out there and talk to the first 10 people that are having to pay taxes, 
no matter what their station in life is, no matter how far they are. 
Ask them if they are for making it a little more difficult to put taxes 
on their poor old backs. I think 9 out of 10 will tell you they are for 
the limitation tax bill, and so am I.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to associate my remarks with a good 
Democrat, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and another good 
Republican, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). Thank you for 
bringing this bill before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States to require a two-thirds vote to increase taxes.
  This Congress needs to act to limit taxes. Our current tax system 
takes so much out of the take home pay of the average family that it is 
difficult to pay the rest of the bills.
  We talk about the need to preserve families and family values, but 
then government takes away more and more, leaving families with less 
and less.
  This tax limitation amendment is designed to make it more difficult 
for the Federal Government to take more of the people's money.
  It will require the Congress to focus on options other than raising 
taxes to manage the Federal budget.
  Some on the other side of this issue have argued that a requirement 
for a two-thirds vote to increase taxes is somehow undemocratic.
  But the truth is that there are already numerous supermajority voting 
requirements.
  For over a century and a half the House has required a two-thirds 
vote to suspend the rules and pass legislation. It requires a two-
thirds vote to take up a rule on the same day that it is reported from 
the Rules Committee. The House also requires a three-fifths vote to 
pass bills on the Corrections Calendar.
  On the other side of this building, the Senate requires a three-
fifths vote of all Senators to end a filibuster.
  Senate budget procedures require that three-fifths of the Senate must 
agree to waive points of order that would violate the budget approved 
by Congress.
  There are ten instances in which the Constitution currently requires 
a supermajority vote. Seven of these were part of the original 
Constitution, and three were added through the amendment process.
  The seven in the original Constitution are:
  (1) Conviction in impeachment trials;
  (2) Expulsion of a Member of Congress;
  (3) Override a presidential veto;
  (4) Quorum of two-thirds of the states to elect the President;
  (5) Consent to a treaty;
  (6) Proposing constitutional amendments; and
  (7) State ratification of the original Constitution.
  The three additional supermajority requirements included in the 
amendments to the Constitution are:
  (1) Quorum of two-thirds of the states to elect the President and the 
Vice President;
  (2) To remove disability for holding office where one has engaged in 
``insurrection or rebellion''; and
  (3) Presidential disability.
  It is no doubt important to require a two-thirds vote to remove the 
disability for holding office where one has engaged in ``insurrection 
or rebellion''. But it seems to me that increasing the burdens of 
taxation on our own citizens is a much more important decision in the 
life of this nation.
  The adoption of a requirement for a two-thirds vote to raise taxes 
will ensure Congress has to think twice before it increases the burdens 
on hardworking American families. Members should vote for this rule and 
the constitutional amendment to make it harder to raise taxes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
resolution. The Constitution does not need to be fixed. If it is not 
broken, it does not need fixing.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 111, a constitutional amendment that would require a two-
thirds majority vote in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. 
Senate to pass any bill increasing federal taxes, except in time of war 
or military conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill for many reasons, but the fundamental 
reason is the change in our tradition of majority rule which has 
governed our country, with limited exceptions, for the past two 
centuries. Over the years I have seen our system of checks and balances 
work to the benefit of the American people time and time again. When 
Congress gets out of sync with the American people, the people elect 
new Senators and Members of Congress. When the views of the public 
change more than those of the Members of Congress, we see more 
significant changes in the membership of the two Houses of Congress. 
These larger changes take place because individual voters take their 
right to vote seriously, and vote for individuals who represent their 
interests.
  This system has worked well for over 200 years. Today, H.J. Res. 111 
proposes to alter this system and give to one-third of the Members of 
either House of Congress the power to prevent Congress from increasing 
revenue collected by the government. Why is this being proposed? 
Supporters of this resolution say it is too easy to raise taxes. I find 
that difficult to accept. While I cannot vote on the floor of this 
House, I generally find consideration of legislation which will raise 
taxes difficult enough just to support, let alone vote for.
  Our voting records are all reviewed carefully by our opponents at 
election time, and votes which are perceived to be unpopular back home 
are brought to the public's attention over and over again through 
political advertising. Votes to increase taxes are difficult votes, but 
there are times when it is in the national interest to do so. 
Traditionally, it has been the majority of the Members of Congress, 
together with the President, who determine what is in the national 
interest. H.J. Res. 111 would permit one-third of either House of 
Congress to make that decision for what could be the vast majority of 
Congress. For example, thirty-four Senators could subvert the wishes of 
435

[[Page H2161]]

Members of the House and 66 Senators. This is an important point 
because the Constitution gives the power to originate tax measures to 
this body, the U.S. House of Representatives. Under the terms of H.J. 
Res. 111, the will of a vast majority of this body could be thwarted by 
34 Senators. Mr. Speaker, this is not democracy and should not be 
supported.
  There are many examples of the problems the proposed constitutional 
amendment would create, and I want to take a moment to briefly mention 
a couple. For example, would a provision that reduces revenues for five 
years but would raise them every year after that be prohibited? Are we 
to be stuck with current tax rates on the rich? Are those to be the 
maximum tax rates forever? Currently, the poor pay no federal income 
taxes. Are we to be stuck with the tax rate of zero percent for them 
forever? Under the terms of H.J. Res. 111, I submit we would be, 
because it will be very difficult to get two-thirds of both Houses of 
Congress and the President of the United States to sign a bill which 
would change those rates.
  There is also the issue of tax loopholes. It is hard enough under 
current law to end these provisions which inure to the benefit of 
special interest groups. Let us not make it any harder.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all up for re-election every two years. That 
alone is a strong enough disincentive to raise taxes only when it is in 
our national interest to do so. The voters are the check in our current 
system and the current system is working well. Under the current 
system, majority rules. Under H.J. Res. 111, the minority rules. Let's 
not change the Constitution to give this significant power to a 
minority of Congress.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Minority Whip.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I 
appreciate the debate that we have had this afternoon.
  This amendment would rewrite the Constitution to say that the tail 
should wag the dog. How else would you describe an amendment that 
empowers a minority of the Congress to dictate policy to the majority? 
How else can you describe an amendment that effectively denies a 
majority of Americans a voice on their own taxes? That is what the 
amendment would do.
  But it is only one of 99 constitutional amendments that have been 
proposed in this Congress. So were Jefferson and Madison and the other 
framers of the Constitution so negligent that our Constitution actually 
needs 99 amendments? Are members of the 105th Congress so wise that we 
can propose 99 improvements to one of the greatest documents in the 
history of democracy?
  America needs tax reform. We agree on that. But we do not need a 
constitutional amendment that would protect special interest loopholes.
  Now, this proposal that we have been discussing today might as well 
be called a loophole protection act, because it will make it nearly 
impossible to eliminate tax loopholes that cost, every day, American 
taxpayers billions of dollars, like the tax breaks that companies that 
send American jobs overseas would get.
  Or do you remember the bill we had just last Congress that would 
reward billionaires who renounce their American citizenship just to 
avoid taxes? That would be protected under this proposal. You would 
need supermajorities to deal with that, to repeal those benefits.
  We have seen this proposal before. We voted it down in 1996. We 
defeated it again just last year. Bad ideas, like rotten fish, do not 
improve with age. This amendment is just one of a whole series of bad 
tax proposals the Republicans have put forward lately.
  It is almost as bad as their plan to enact the national sales plan. 
They have a plan, listen to this, that would effectively force 
Americans to pay 30 percent more for a house, 30 percent more for a 
car, 30 percent more for your child's education, 30 percent more for 
everything. It's their sales tax proposal.
  Under this plan, the heaviest burden, of course, would fall on those 
who could least afford it, working families, senior citizens, those on 
fixed income. They need tax relief, not what these folks are offering 
over here in the GOP.
  What if the price of prescription drugs went up 30 percent overnight? 
Look at this chart: blood pressure, arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, 
inhaler drugs priced at a 30 percent increase on these basic 
commodities oftentimes used by our seniors. How would that affect them? 
How would it affect our mothers and our fathers and our grandparents 
who are living on a budget that is tight? How could they afford this 30 
percent GOP tax increase?
  The flat tax is another idea that they have, the GOP flat tax. If you 
are a middle-class family making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year, 
the GOP flat tax would actually mean a tax increase for you, a tax 
increase for you. If you make over $100,000 a year, as this chart 
shows, you would get a tremendous tax break. If you make between 
$25,000 and $100,000, you are paying.
  So our message is that working families need tax relief, not a tax 
increase. Let us leave the Constitution alone. Let us defeat this ill-
conceived amendment.
  We are for tax cuts. I believe those cuts must be a part of a fair 
and a reasonable approach to tax reform, tax reform that genuinely 
helps America's working families. Like the education tax credit we 
recently adopted that would provide Hope scholarships and other types 
of tax credits and scholarships for higher education, make education 
more affordable for our families. Like the child care tax credit that 
makes raising families a little bit easier. Like the earned income tax 
credit that helps literally tens of millions of people in this country, 
those were Democratic proposals that help people specifically. And 
like, of course, the tax credit that we are suggesting this Congress 
that would help in child care for our families.
  This kind of tax relief makes sense. It makes a difference in 
people's lives. We ought to focus on that, not on half-baked 
constitutional ideas that would take away from the majority the right 
to control, to have a say in the tax policies of this country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this proposal.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is 
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for the tone 
of the debate. I thought we had a good debate this year, and I 
appreciate your participation. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hall), my chief Democratic sponsor, along with the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, the first Federal income tax that was levied on the 
American people was 1 percent of any net income over $3,000. Today, the 
average American taxpayer pays 39.8 percent in Federal and State taxes. 
That is an all-time high with the exception of World War II when we 
were fighting to maintain democracy against Naziism and imperialism of 
the empire of Japan.
  Simply put, something needs to be done about that. We need a tax 
limitation amendment to the Constitution of the United States of 
America. When the original Constitution was written by our Founding 
Fathers, they made it unconstitutional to have an income tax. 
Unconstitutional. You could have had a 100 percent vote, and there 
would be no income tax because it was unconstitutional.
  But the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution, which was passed in 
1913, made income taxes constitutional. So we need a \2/3\ vote to 
raise taxes, Federal taxes on the American people.
  The question is, would it work? That is a fair question. We have not 
had anybody who opposes it say that it would not work. They are opposed 
to it for the reason that it would work.
  There are 14 States that have requirements for supermajorities to 
raise taxes. And in those 14 States, their taxes are lower, their taxes 
go up slower, their economies grow faster, and more jobs are created 
than States that do not. So if it works in the States, I think it would 
work here in the Federal Government.
  Is it supported by the American people? I will enter into the Record 
an endorsement letter from the American

[[Page H2162]]

Legislative Exchange Counsel which is 3,000 legislators on a bipartisan 
basis around this country, endorsing the tax limitation amendment. The 
signer of this is the Speaker of the Arkansas House, a Democrat, Bobby 
Hogue. So the State legislators support it and think that it would 
work.
  Mr. Speaker, I include that letter for the Record as follows:
                                              American Legislative


                                             Exchange Counsel,

                                   Washington, DC, April 17, 1998.
     Congressman Joe Barton,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Barton: The 3,000 state legislators who 
     are members of the American Legislative Exchange Council 
     (ALEC), 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 of 
     their total income on federal, state and local taxes. More 
     than they will spend on food, clothing, shelter and medical 
     expenses combined. 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 experienced slower tax and 
     spending increases, than the states without a supermajority 
     requirement. A supermajority amendment would constrain tax 
     and spend policies that squash economic opportunities 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 it is 
     time to apply this experience to the federal government.
           Sincerely,
                                              Speaker Bobby Hogue,
                                      Arkansas, National Chairman.

  We have over 27 national groups that have endorsed the tax limitation 
constitutional amendment. I will enter that into the Record at this 
point in time.
  The document referred to is as follows:

       Supporters of H.J. Res. 111, the Tax Limitation Amendment

       Association of Concerned Taxpayers; American Conservative 
     Union; American Legislative Exchange Council; Americans for 
     Hope, Growth & Opportunity; Americans for Tax Reform; 
     Associated Builders & Contractors; Christian Coalition; 
     Citizens for a Sound Economy; Competitive Enterprise 
     Institute; Concerned Woman for America; Council for 
     Affordable Health Insurance; Council for Citizens Against 
     Government Waste; Empower America; Family Research Council; 
     Food Distributors International; National Association of 
     Manufacturers; National Association of Wholesaler-
     Distributors; National Beer Wholesalers Association; National 
     Federation of American-Hungarians; National Federation of 
     Independent Business; National Tax Limitation Committee; 
     National Taxpayers Union; Seniors Coalition; Small Business 
     Survival Committee; United Seniors Association; U.S. Chamber 
     of Commerce; and 60 Plus

  We have 10 groups that have keyvoted it, saying it is something that 
they have really taken a look at: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
Americans for Tax Reform, the Citizens for a Sound Economy, the 
National Taxpayers Union, the National Association of Manufacturers, 60 
Plus, Seniors Coalition, Associated Builders and Contractors, National 
Beer Wholesalers.
  We have got 10 governors who think it will work. I will enter their 
names in the Record, and they support it.
  The document referred to follows:

       Key points on H.J. Res. 111, The Tax Limitation Amendment

       Highest cosponsor total ever--186.
       27 diverse groups from pro-business to pro-family have 
     endorsed TLA (See attached endorsement list).
       Keyvote by: U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Americans for Tax 
     Reform; Citizens for a Sound Economy; National Taxpayers 
     Union; National Association of Manufacturers; 60 Plus; 
     Seniors Coalition; Associated Builders and Contractors; and 
     National Beer Wholesalers.
       Have received encouragement/endorsement letters from the 
     following Governors: Governor Christine Todd Whitman (NJ); 
     Governor Mike Huckabee (AR); Governor Paul Cellucci (MA); 
     Governor Frank Keating (OK); Governor Pete Wilson (CA); 
     Governor Jane Dee Hull (AZ); Governor Kirk Fordice (MS); and 
     Lt. Governor Bob Peeler (SC).

  But the reason that I am here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives supporting this as strongly as I am is not because of 
all the groups that are for it, it is not because all of my colleagues 
are for it, it is because it is in the best interest of my family.
  Nell Barton, retiree, widow on Social Security and teacher 
retirement, had to write a check for over $1,000 to pay her Federal 
income taxes 2 weeks ago. My son, Brad Barton, has graduated from 
graduate school, going into the job market; my daughter, Allison, just 
graduated from college, wants to be a teacher; my wife, Janet, who has 
been a homemaker while we have raised our children, wants to go back 
into the job market.

                              {time}  1500

  I do not want their taxes to go up, I am sorry. Our problem in 
Washington, D.C., is not lack of revenue. Do my colleagues know how 
much revenue increased from last year to this year at the Federal 
level? $126 billion. $126 billion. Do my colleagues know what the 
average is for the last 4 years? $106 billion. Do my colleagues know 
what the average is for the last 10 years? Over $60 billion.
  My colleagues, our problem is not lack of revenue. Our problem is 
lack of spending discipline.
  As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), pointed out about 15 minutes ago, we need to make it 
tougher to raise taxes. Let us vote for a two-thirds constitutional 
requirement to raise taxes, send it to the other body, send it to the 
States, and hopefully three-fourths of the legislatures will ratify it 
and it will become a part of the Constitution of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop debating. It is time to vote to make 
it tougher to raise taxes.
  Vote for the constitutional amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the tax limitation 
amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is not 
appropriately named. A more accurate title would be the ``Minority 
Rules Amendment,'' because it would require a two-thirds majority vote 
in the House and Senate to pass any bill increasing Federal revenues.
  What we are debating here today is not whether taxes should be raised 
or lowered, but whether the majority of the House of Representatives 
should be empowered to make the tough decisions on one of the most 
important areas of governmental operation. The effects of the 
legislation before us would go far beyond debates on personal tax 
rates--this legislation would impose dangerous limits on our ability to 
address the health and social welfare needs of millions of Americans.
  Some of the most critical areas of policy that this House will 
consider in the near future will involve debates about taxation, 
including tobacco control, Medicare, and Social Security.
  On the issue of tobacco, we have research showing that price 
increases can be effective at reducing teen smoking--the most important 
aspect of tobacco legislation being considered this year.
  Passage of the constitutional amendment before us would undermine our 
ability to enact legislation which puts this research to work, by 
making it more difficult to impose tax increases on tobacco products. 
It would mean that we cannot equally and fairly consider the range of 
options available to limit tobacco use among young people. Why should a 
minority of Members be empowered to proscribe our consideration of the 
options to reduce teen smoking?
  On Social Security, there are numerous proposals being offered to 
secure the financial health of the trust fund for decades to come. And 
there are few issues more important to our constituents than protecting 
the stability of the social Security system. If we pass the legislation 
before us today, one potential ingredient of a comprehensive plan to 
support Social Security will become far more difficult to enact. I ask 
again, why should a minority of Members be able to stop congressional 
action in this area?
  The point is not to make taxation easier. None of us want to do that. 
The point is maintain the principle of majority rule on essential 
matters before the Congress. It is to recognize that on the key issues 
before this House, we must take responsibility to act thoughtfully and 
wisely. The issue of taxation has implications for our ability to 
promote public health, lift seniors out of poverty, and address other 
national priorities. We must not abandon majority rule and limit our 
ability to fairly and honestly consider policy on these and other 
critical issues.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 111.

[[Page H2163]]

  This joint resolution would eviscerate the principle of majority rule 
in this House with respect to the most fundamental power of the 
Congress. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the 
powers of the Congress. It begins with the words, ``The Congress shall 
have Power to lay and collect Taxes.''
  Those words make clear the view of the Founders of the Constitution 
that the power to tax is the most basic power of the legislative branch 
of government. The men who wrote the Constitution were acutely aware of 
the dangers of the government's power to tax. Their anger and 
frustration over the taxing practices of the British government led to 
the American Revolution.
  The framers of the Constitution also were familiar with the use of 
supermajority requirements. The Constitution reserves supermajorities 
to instances involving the fundamental processes of government, not 
substantive policy proposals. The House is required to produce a 
supermajority in only three cases--overriding a presidential veto, 
submitting a constitutional amendment to the states, and expulsion of a 
member from the House.
  What is clear is that the American people are disgusted with our 
federal tax system. What is also clear is that the problem with the tax 
system in this country is not found in the Constitution. It is found in 
this Congress. Instead of tax reform, we continue to add complexity and 
confusion to a tax code that is already beyond comprehension for most 
Americans. We need tax reform, not constitutional gimmickry.
  The fact is that this proposal is unworkable. The evidence of this is 
in the record of the majority party in this House. In January of 1995, 
fresh upon taking control of the House for the first time in forty 
years, the new majority amended the rules of this House to require a 
three-fifths majority to pass any tax increase.
  During the 104th Congress, the rule came into play on five occasions. 
And each time, five out of five, the majority chose to waive the rule. 
At the start of this Congress, having learned from that embarrassing 
experience, the majority narrowed the rule to make it unlikely it will 
ever apply to any legislation.
  Imagine the crisis that might have ensured had this constitutional 
amendment been in effect instead of the provision amending the rules of 
the House. Instead of simply having the Rules Committee waive the rule 
to permit the legislative process to function, we would have had a 
potential constitutional crisis. The last thing this country needs is 
to have the legislative process bogged down in extended court battles 
every time a revenue increase is included in any legislation.
  Let me emphasize this problem. The vagueness of this amendment is a 
constitutional shipwreck waiting to happen. Most members of this body, 
and the overwhelming majority of the American people, agree on the need 
for comprehensive reform of our tax system. Under this amendment, 
however, tax reform-- already facing an uphill political battle--will 
become all but impossible.

  Tax reform will involve tremendous shifts in the ways the federal 
government collects revenues. As a supporter of a plan to move from the 
current tax system to a fairer, more simple, more efficient system 
based on a broad-based consumption tax, I am committed to the principle 
that tax reform must be accomplished on a revenue neutral basis.
  But in tax reform, there will be winners and losers. If the 
constitution says that revenue increases must be approved by a two-
thirds majority, the losers in tax reform will be sure to pursue the 
matter in court. The resulting delay and confusion will make it even 
more difficult to give the American people the tax reform they deserve.
  Let me make one final point. The sponsors of this proposal argue that 
it is needed because without it, it is just too easy to raise taxes. 
Respectfully, that is a ridiculous notion. It is not easy to raise 
taxes. It has never been easy to raise taxes. It never should be, and 
it never will be.
  Consider the 1993 tax bill, which the supporters of this proposal 
cite as an example of the horrors that the amendment would prevent. It 
passed by one vote margins in both Houses. It definitely wasn't easy.
  But more important, had this amendment been in effect, that 
legislation would not be law. The budget of the United States, instead 
of heading for the first surplus in thirty years, would be hundreds of 
billions of dollars in the red. The national debt, instead of heading 
down, would be climbing toward $7 trillion. And instead of looking at 
the third tax cut bill in the three years, we would be in the depths of 
the fiscal crisis that gripped this country and choked our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not trivialize the Constitution. We should defeat 
this diversion, and move quickly to get on with the real business of 
tax reform.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 111, 
the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment.
  Since I was first elected to this body, I have fought against the 
growth of government in Washington. For most of my tenure, that fight 
was an uphill battle, and our rising debt and annual deficits were 
testaments to that fact. The last time our government enjoyed a budget 
surplus was the year I was first elected to Congress, 1969. Until 
recent years, Congress has been to blame for the lack of fiscal 
discipline, not the taxpayers. Even though we are enjoying a budget 
surplus, Americans have the highest tax burden since World War II.
  Quite simply, the Tax Limitation Amendment proposes a constitutional 
amendment requiring a two-thirds majority vote of both the House and 
Senate for passage of a bill that would raise taxes, except in the case 
of war. Even taxes that were increased as a result of the United States 
involvement in a war would be in effect for no more than 2 years. That 
provision alone would have forced Congress after World War II to 
revisit the high taxes, and the implementation of mandatory tax 
withholding, that helped to fund our victory over tyranny, but which 
were unnecessary after peace was achieved.
  Since 1980, four of the five tax increase bills passed with less than 
a two-thirds majority. The last tax increase, the 1993 Clinton tax 
increase, was the largest in America's history. That bill passed both 
Houses by a two-vote margin. Although it will do nothing to redress 
past tax increases, a supermajority requirement will protect the 
American taxpayers from future Congresses.
  To those who have reservations or objections to making this part of 
the Constitution, I assure you that the Tax Limitation Amendment is 
completely consistent with that document. The Constitution demands that 
Congress consider important matters such as overriding presidential 
vetoes and passing constitutional amendments by two-thirds majorities. 
Certainly, protecting the wallets of American taxpayers from profligate 
Washington spending is just as important.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Tax Limitation 
Amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 
111, proposing an amendment to the Constitution to require a two-thirds 
supermajority vote in both House and Senate for any legislation that 
would raise revenues through changes to the Tax Code.
  A supermajority requirement is a profoundly bad idea. Majority rule 
is a fundamental principle of our American government. To allow a 
minority in one Chamber to block urgently needed legislation for any 
reason--ideological, partisan, whatever--would stand that principle on 
its head.
  Today, with no supermajority requirements, Congress can do a great 
many things with only a simple majority in each Chamber. Many of us 
consider these just as important as raising taxes. Yet no supermajority 
requirement is proposed for them:
  Congress can declare war, surely one of the most significant powers 
granted us by the Constitution--by majority vote.
  Congress can pass appropriations to protect and enhance the well-
being of our people, through education, biomedical research, law 
enforcement, public health, housing, food safety, national security--by 
majority vote.
  Congress can pass bills that invest in America's physical 
infrastructure, our highways and airways, transit systems, ports, and 
parks--by majority vote.
  Congress can balance tax and spending provisions to deal with 
pressing budgetary and economic situations--by majority vote.
  Congress can create or close tax loopholes for wealthy special 
interests or pass a steep hike in the federal tobacco tax--by majority 
vote.
  Congress can permit or deny access to federally-funded abortions--by 
majority vote.
  Congress can impose the death penalty for more crimes, and for ever-
younger criminals--by majority vote.
  Surely these policies are as important and deserve as much deference 
as raising taxes does.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we wasting a day on this loser? The same 
amendment failed to pass in 1996 and actually lost support in 1997. 
There's no reason to believe it will do better this year. This is an 
exercise in empty rhetoric, nothing more.
  There are other bills we could have taken up today that might 
actually accomplish something. But no, Republicans must prove their 
devotion to tax cuts above all other priorities by engaging in 3 hours 
of unproductive bombast and then failing to pass anything.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to 
H.J. Res. 111, the Tax Limitation Amendment, which would require a two-
thirds supermajority in both houses of Congress to approve increases in 
taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe our fiscal problems result from excessive 
spending and I do not favor tax increases. I voted against tax 
increases in 1983 and 1990 and President Clinton's 1993 tax increase, 
and I have supported

[[Page H2164]]

fiscally conservative policies throughout my service in Congress. My 
voting record in this regard has earned numerous awards from groups 
such as the National Taxpayers Union, the Grace Commission's Citizens 
Against Government Waste, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Watchdogs of 
the Treasury, Inc., Citizens For A Sound Economy and the Concord 
Coalition, which rated my work in the last Congress at 100 percent.
  Despite my strong opposition to tax increases, however, I do not feel 
it is appropriate to amend the Constitution by adding a two-thirds 
supermajority requirement to it for Congress to pass tax increases. 
Over 200 years ago, our forefathers founded our nation in tax revolt. 
King George III's imposition of huge and unfair levies without the 
consent of the American colonists led to their rallying cry of ``no 
taxation without representation.'' The British crown's impositions, 
including heavy taxation, were among the principal causes of the 
American Revolution.
  Within a decade, in 1787, the leaders of that revolution were writing 
a new constitution to govern the relationship among the new national 
government, the states, and the people. Heavy upon their minds was the 
power of the central government to tax, as can be seen throughout the 
document. Yet having the opportunity to require supermajorities for the 
imposition of any tax, they did not write such a provision into the new 
constitution.
  Supermajorities are found in our Constitution for a number of 
purposes, but each one relates to the separation of powers and the 
system of checks and balances among the branches of government. No 
supermajority provisions concern policies which federal governments 
might seek to follow in the future. Our nation's wise founders clearly 
and explicitly placed their faith and the entire structure of our 
government in simple majority rule. This is the essence of our 
democratic Republic under the Constitution.
  To write a two-thirds requirement for tax increases into the House 
rules is one thing. I support it and voted for ti during the last 
Congress. But to write the same provision into our Constitution to bind 
Americans for all time to come is quite a different matter. I cannot 
support it. I believe it should be a matter for the people of each time 
to determine on their own.
  As always, I remain committed to cutting federal spending and to 
opposing tax increases. My view is that these policy decisions should 
be driven by the will of the people and the individuals they choose to 
elect in their time, not by the views of one generation enshrined as a 
constitutional mandate.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, taxes are too high. Federal taxes take over 
a fifth of America's entire economic output--more than ever before in 
history, and many Americans pay half of their income in combined 
Federal, State, and local taxes.
  And some people will do anything to throw up roadblocks and detours 
in our trip to fiscal responsibility. They don't want to make the 
journey toward a balanced budget in the first place. They like 
joyriding instead, and sending the bill to taxpayers. They want to 
spend, spend, spend, without regard for how much it costs or how much 
debt we build.
  When confronted with the debt, they always do the same thing: Raise 
taxes, and pat themselves on the back for ``making the tough 
decisions!''
  Mr. Speaker, the joyride is over. This time we move toward a balanced 
budget, and we can't bill taxpayers for the trip.
  Big government got us where we are. So big government can foot the 
travel costs to get us back to fiscal sanity. Cutting spending is the 
way to reach a balanced budget.
  But the joyriders won't stop looking for a free ride from taxpayers, 
and that's why we need the Barton tax limitation amendment. No more 
detours. No more tax increases.
  Let's pay our own way to a balanced budget. Support the Barton 
amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 407, the previous question is ordered on 
the joint resolution, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, further 
proceedings on final passage are postponed.

                          ____________________