Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 45 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)

[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:

``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.

____________________