[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 46 (Wednesday, April 12, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2128-H2147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 471 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 471
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 94) 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 previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the joint resolution and any amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two
hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; (2) an amendment printed in the Congressional
Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, 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 (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 471 is a structured rule providing for
the consideration of H.J. Res. 94, proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations. The
rule provides for 2 hours of debate in the House equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary. The rule provides for one amendment printed in the
Congressional Record if offered by the minority leader or his designee
which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, with tax day arriving at the end of this week, there is
certainly no better time for the House to consider this important
constitutional amendment. The tax limitation amendment starts from this
very simple premise that it should be harder, not easier, for
government to raise taxes. The average American pays more in taxes than
it does in food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. For
too long, the tax burden imposed by the Government has been going up,
not going down. I am very, very proud to sponsor this constitutional
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will allow the House to begin
debate on one of the most serious matters to be considered by this
House, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. When our
Founding Fathers met more than 200 years ago to draft what became the
Constitution of the United States, there was agreement on what problems
our Nation faced and our Constitution was drafted to address these
problems.
In many instances, they wrote specific language protecting people
from what at times could be an oppressive, intrusive, or overbearing
Federal Government. They protected bedrock foundations to our liberty
and freedom, such as life, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech
and freedom of religion. Just as importantly, the Founding Fathers
required certain actions and laws passed by Congress to obtain a
supermajority vote, not just a simple majority because they foresaw
that the people must overwhelmingly support some action.
Our Founding Fathers were so insightful and ingenious in their
preparation of the Constitution that they enlisted within our system of
checks and balances a Constitution which would clearly enumerate
occasions where a supermajority would be appropriate as a guardian of
the people. A vote of two-thirds of both houses, for example, is
required to override a presidential veto. A two-thirds vote of the
Senate is required to approve treaties or to convict an impeached
Federal official.
But a two-thirds vote in Congress is not yet required for raising
taxes. In my view, our Founding Fathers would recognize that under the
current system there is an inherent bias towards raising taxes and
might have supported this constitutional amendment.
{time} 1030
There has long been a bias towards raising taxes under the current
system. Spending benefits are targeted at specific groups. These
special interests successfully lobby Congress and the
[[Page H2129]]
President for more and more spending. Taxes, on the other hand, are
spread among millions of people. Taxpayers usually cannot come together
as efficiently as a special interest group with a specific
appropriation in mind.
As Congress seeks to keep the budget in balance, yet spending has
still remained high, the easiest answer always for Congress is simply
to raise taxes.
The Federal budget is currently in balance, in part due to spending
constraints by Congress, as well as hard work and global-leading
productivity of American workers, but short economic downturns can be
expected. Future Congresses may not be as fiscally responsible and
return to the ways of deficit spending.
The easy answer then is to raise taxes.
Making it more difficult to raise taxes balances the options
available to Congress and makes decisions on the size of government. It
is critical that this balance be achieved. By requiring a supermajority
to raise taxes, an incentive for government agencies would be created
to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and to create efficiency rather
than simply turning to more deficit spending or to increase taxes.
It is important to remember that there was no Federal income tax when
our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution. Not until 1913 was the
16th amendment of the Constitution passed to allow Congress to tax the
American people. The first tax ranged from 1 to 7 percent and only
applied to the wealthiest Americans. Today, some taxes are collected by
the Federal Government at a 50 percent rate.
Medieval serfs gave 30 percent of their output to the lord of the
manor. Egyptian peasants gave 20 percent of their toils in their fields
to the Pharaoh. God only required 10 percent from the people of Israel.
Yet in America, Federal, State and local taxes eat up many times in
excess of 40 percent of the average American's income.
The burden of tax rates is not only too high, but that is only half
the story. As tax rates have increased, the heavy hand of the tax
collecting branch of our government has been strengthened. It has been
determined by our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey), that our Federal income tax collection agency, the Internal
Revenue Service, sends out more than 8 billion pages of forms and
instructions each year. Our Federal income tax collection agency is
twice as big as the CIA and five times bigger than the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
No other institution poses such a threat to liberty than the Internal
Revenue Service and our Tax Code, and this is all as a consequence that
tax rates are too high and the Tax Code is too complex.
A constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes
would help alleviate some of this misfortune. Thomas Jefferson once
wrote, ``The God who gave us life gave us liberty.''
I imagine that Thomas Jefferson never envisioned such an intrusive
agency as the IRS. Today, unfortunately, the reality is the IRS is a
prevalent part of our daily lives, particularly this week with the
April 15 tax deadline fast approaching.
Every year, Americans are taxed for billions and billions of dollars.
Sometimes these taxes that are passed are retroactively done so.
Sometimes they are passed from generation to generation and sometimes
they are forced upon us even after death by the Federal Government.
So today, Mr. Speaker, I stand before my colleagues with a bipartisan
coalition to put forth to the States a question of liberty. Will we
make it harder for Congress to raise taxes on its citizens? Will we
require a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress to pass a tax
increase on to working Americans and children? Will we pass this
amendment to the Constitution and require a supermajority, not just a
simple majority to raise taxes?
This amendment will apply to all tax increases from the Federal
Government, not just tax hikes. A two-thirds vote requirement would
allow Congress to raise taxes in time of war or national emergency, but
would simultaneously prevent the intrusive and penalizing tax increases
that have been enacted with recklessness to fund government expansion
over the last decades.
As we speak, several States of this great Union, including Arizona,
California, Florida and Missouri, have adopted measures requiring that
any tax increase by their legislature pass by a two-thirds majority. It
is time that the Federal Government joins these States in listening to
the voice of the American people. It should be harder to raise taxes.
Had this amendment been adopted sooner, the four largest tax increases
since 1980, in 1982, 1983, 1990 and 1993 all would have failed. That
tax increase in 1993 was the largest tax increase in American history
and it passed just by one vote. These tax increases totaled $666
billion to the American taxpayer.
The bottom line of this debate, Mr. Speaker, is that we should make
it more difficult to raise taxes on the American people. Those that
oppose it will do so because they want to make it easier to raise taxes
on the American people.
Mr. Speaker, this is the defining issue. Those Members who support
this amendment are here to support the taxpayers of America. Those
Members who oppose it today are here to defend the tax collectors of
America. It is really that simple.
We hear rhetoric from opponents of this legislation citing
jurisdiction, procedure, and a slew of other glossary terms but nothing
can hide the reality that America and all taxpayers support a two-
thirds tax limitation because they want to make it more difficult to
raise taxes.
Mr. Speaker, like many Members of this body I not only oppose raising
taxes, I support making our Tax Code fairer, simpler, and flatter. The
tax limitation amendment allows for tax reform and it provides that any
tax reform is revenue neutral or provides a net tax cut. Also, any
fundamental tax reform which would have the overall effect of lowering
taxes could also still pass with a simple majority.
The tax limitation amendment also allows for a simple majority vote
to eliminate tax loopholes. The de minimis exemption would allow nearly
all loopholes to be closed without the supermajority requirement.
We may hear from opponents today, those who will be saying to make it
more difficult to raise taxes that the Government would be unable to
function if a supermajority is required. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would
encourage Members to look back at their States. Fourteen States require
a supermajority to raise taxes. Millions of Americans living in these
States have enjoyed slower growth in taxes, slower growth in government
spending, faster growing economies, and lower unemployment rates. Tax
limitation can bring to all Americans those things that are benefits
that are enjoyed by those living in tax limitation States.
This amendment protects the American people. It makes it harder for
the Federal Government to raise taxes on its citizens and that is why I
am here today.
Today we can take one step closer to regaining liberty and ensuring
future generations the freedom of our Founding Fathers intended for all
Americans to enjoy. This debate is about liberty. This debate is about
requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes on America.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would remind my colleagues that this is a
fair rule adopted by a voice vote yesterday in the Committee on Rules.
It is the standard rule under which this proposal has been considered
for years in the past. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, my friend, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for yielding me the customary half
hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today marks the fifth year in a row that my Republican
colleagues have dusted off this old same constitutional amendment just
in time for tax day. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we will
probably mark the fifth year in a row that this amendment fails to
garner the required two-thirds vote.
So why do my Republican colleagues continue to bring up this
resolution year after year after year? They do not even bother to bring
it to their own Committee on the Judiciary. I am glad
[[Page H2130]]
that my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), spoke so long
and explained it because this is the only debate we are going to have
on the bill. It did not go before the Committee on the Judiciary.
Imagine amending the Constitution of the United States of America
without one hearing before the basic committee in the Congress that
would deal with that, the Committee on the Judiciary?
Well, here we go again. Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues were
serious they would fine-tune this amendment in a congressional
committee. They would have hearings. They would mark it up, but this
resolution has not been to the Committee on the Judiciary. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, I will let my colleagues in on a little secret. This bill was
just introduced last Thursday. The ink is still wet.
Given that the amendment is destined to fail again this year, as it
does every year, it would seem that it is being offered not to effect
change but really to affect the evening news, because even when my
Republican colleagues had a chance to practice the preachings of this
amendment, they did not.
We may recall at the beginning of the 104th Congress, my Republican
colleagues changed the House rules to require a two-thirds majority for
every tax increase. Mr. Speaker, guess what? Every time it came up,
every time they have this tax increase, they waive the rule. I would
say, Mr. Speaker, that if a rule is not to be obeyed in the House of
Representatives that surely it is not worthy of being an amendment to
the United States Constitution.
Back in the 1780s under the Articles of Confederation, the United
States tried a supermajority. It did not work then. It will not work
now.
The foundation of a supermajority is a mistrust, a mistrust of the
ability of the majority of American people to govern; and I for one
think that that mistrust is misplaced. Because of that mistrust, Mr.
Speaker, a supermajority changes the very foundations of our government
from a majority-run institution to a minority-run institution, and that
is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
In the Federalist Papers No. 58, James Madison argued against
supermajorities. Under a supermajority, he said, the fundamental
principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer
the majority that would rule. The power would be transferred to the
minority.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if this tax amendment were to pass, it
would help the rich and hurt the middle- and lower-income people. Rich
Americans get most of their government benefits in the form of tax
breaks. The rest of the country gets their government benefits in the
form of Social Security, Medicare, student loans, and unemployment
insurance. This amendment would make it much harder to close those tax
loopholes for the very rich, and make it necessary to cut the benefits
for everyone else.
Mr. Speaker, it would also make it much harder to strengthen Social
Security, make it much harder to strengthen Medicare. In fact, it could
even have the effect of reducing Social Security benefits.
In short, Mr. Speaker, it would shackle our government to the tax
laws in effect today, with very little hope of changing them in the
future. Whether for better or for worse and like so many of my
Republican colleagues' proposals, the rich come out way ahead and
everybody else pays the price.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment was a bad idea 5 years ago. This was a
bad idea 4 years ago. This was a bad idea 3 years ago. This was a bad
idea 2 years ago; and, Mr. Speaker, it is a bad idea today.
{time} 1045
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this annual tax day Valentine, this
sloppy assault on our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am really not surprised for us to be debating in this
manner that what we are doing does not make sense, it is unnecessary,
it is unwise, no one would be in favor of making it harder to raise
taxes. It is bad for America, it is all for the rich. Well, in fact,
the reason why we are standing up today is for the exact people that we
have talked about that the minority says is bad for them.
There is a power model in this same vein that was followed and begun
some 30 years ago. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) from the
Seventh District of Texas, now the chairman of the Committee on Ways
and Means, when he came to Congress 30 years ago, the first bill that
he dropped as a Member of Congress said that he would like to raise the
earnings limit that was placed on senior citizens. For 25 years, he was
not only called names and made fun of, but Members of the other side
made sure that they said that is not necessary, it is for rich people.
In fact, it was for the senior citizens of this country.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) became the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman from Texas then held the
first hearings that were necessary to begin the dialogue and the
debate. Then this senior earnings limit began appearing on the floor of
the House of Representatives because Republicans knew that it was
important to senior citizens; and beyond that, it was simply fair and
the right thing to do.
Several times, it was voted on on the floor of the House of
Representatives. Our friends on the other side had an opportunity every
time to vote against senior citizens in lifting this earnings limit.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what happened then is, because of efforts by the
Republican Party where we quit spending every single penny of Social
Security, the surplus, and we started putting it back into Social
Security, my friends on the other side of the aisle began feeling a
little bit queasy about who was making progress with the American
taxpayer; in this case, it was the senior citizen of America.
Just 3 weeks ago, this House of Representatives passed 422 to
nothing, unanimously in the Senate, that we would lift the earnings
limit. The President of the United States signed this into law after
vetoing this several times. The President said, boy, he wished we could
have done more, could have done more for senior citizens, but not
everybody is for making the same kind of progress. He recognized that
there are honest differences on both sides of the aisle. Yes, we
understand that honesty. We understand those honest differences today.
Today we are now in our 10th year of what may be a 30-year effort to
make it harder to raise taxes. As usual, one side is going to be
supportive of this, by and large, and the other side is going to drag
their heels. But we are not going to be frustrated. We are not going to
worry about what the rhetoric is. We are going to continue to stand up
on the side of the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Stratford,
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my colleague and assistant Majority Whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for the time to speak in favor of this rule and for bringing
this, and I also want to thank him for bringing this important issue to
the floor of the House.
We have a chance today to cast a vote for the future. Two-thirds
simple majority is, in fact, reserved for the most important of issues,
including amending the Constitution, ratifying treaties in the Senate.
The founders understood that the two-thirds majority was appropriate
majority on those kinds of issues.
I am confident that this standard of importance would have been used
to decide other things if there had been any perception of what those
other things might have been.
There were issues that James Madison and others thought were
important enough for a supermajority. If they had any idea of what the
tax burden on American families would be today, this would have been
one of those issues in that Philadelphia summer of 1787.
A two-thirds simple majority standard would guarantee that there was
a consensus among Members of both parties that increasing taxes was a
necessity. This bill has gone through the committee process over and
over again. It was just pointed out by the other side that this same
legislation has been rejected by the House a number of times. Well, to
be rejected by the
[[Page H2131]]
House a number of times, it had to get to the House floor a number of
times. It is the same bill that went through that committee process in
the last Congress.
Today is the time to cast this vote. Today is the time to vote on
this issue. I am grateful that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions)
in the Committee on Rules and the other committees have brought it to
the floor today as they have.
By making it more difficult for Congress to endlessly reach into the
pockets of working Americans, a two-thirds simple majority would
require Members to be more careful in the dollars they spend. We should
spend every dollar taken from American families with the utmost care,
making it harder for this Congress and more likely for future
Congresses to take that money, makes it more likely it will be spent
with greater care, be more treasured as it comes here because it is
coming right from working families.
In the 14 States which has implemented tax limitation standards,
taxes and spending grew at a slower rate, while the economy and jobs
grew at a faster rate than in the other States. That, Mr. Speaker, is
not by accident.
Although the economy is presently strong, Federal taxes are still the
highest they have been since World War II. The entire tax burden is the
highest it has been in the history of the country. It is important to
compliment this strong economic standard today by dealing with the
future of taxes in America as this bill does.
The most recent States to pass tax limitation measures have done so
with overwhelming voter approval. They would have met the two-thirds
requirement because they met requirements of over 70 percent of their
voters saying we want to see tax limits in our State.
Again, States with tax limitation supermajorities are adding economic
opportunity at a rate faster than the other States. Job creators
understand the stability that tax limitation brings to the economy. Mr.
Speaker, the Members of the House today have an opportunity to show
that we understand the importance of tax limitation for America's
economy and the importance of tax limitation for America's families.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support the
bill, to make a stand for American families today and to make a stand
for the future of America by putting this new supermajority requirement
on the books and in the Constitution.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for his engagement in this issue on the
rule. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
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. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 471, I
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 94) proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitation,
and for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House
Resolution 471, the joint resolution is considered read for amendment.
The text of House Joint Resolution 471 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 94
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds
of each House concurring therein), That the following article
is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as
part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years after
the date of its submission for ratification:
``Article --
``Section 1. Any bill, resolution, or other legislative
measure changing the internal revenue laws shall require for
final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of
the Members of that House voting and present, unless that
bill, resolution, or other legislative measure is determined
at the time of adoption, in a reasonable manner prescribed by
law, not to increase the internal revenue by more than a de
minimis amount. For the purposes of determining any increase
in the internal revenue under this section, there shall be
excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of an
effective rate of any tax. On any vote for which the
concurrence of two-thirds is required under this article, the
yeas and nays of the Members of either House shall be entered
on the Journal of that House.
``Section 2. The Congress may waive the requirements of
this article when a declaration of war is in effect. The
Congress may also waive this article when the United States
is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and
serious threat to national security and is so declared by a
joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number
of each House, which becomes law. Any increase in the
internal revenue enacted under such a waiver shall be
effective for not longer than two years.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the joint
resolution, it shall be in order to consider an amendment printed in
the Congressional Record, if offered by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Gephardt), or his designee, which shall be considered read and
debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 1 hour of debate on the
joint resolution.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and ask unanimous consent that he
be permitted to control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Scarborough) from the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me the
time, and I would like to move into general debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I stand before my colleagues to
support this bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for allowing me to speak on this measure and for introducing
this piece of critical legislation and bringing it before this body
today.
Mr. Speaker, America needs this tax limitation amendment. Why? Well,
this year, millions of Americans, hardworking, tax-paying Americans
will be plagued by ``intaxication.'' What is intaxication? Well, if it
were in the dictionary, intaxication would be defined by a euphoria
experienced by getting a tax refund, well, a euphoria which lasts only
until one realizes that it was one's money to start with.
This Congress has a duty to make it harder to raise taxes while
ensuring a more responsible Federal budget. Why? Because we owe that
type of accountability, we owe that responsibility to the hardworking
American taxpayer when we take their money.
Let me give my colleagues a little history in my own State of Nevada.
In 1994, I helped bring Nevada into the 21st Century with its own tax
limitation amendment requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote. Why was
that necessary? Because the left-wing liberal Democrats in the House in
Nevada would not allow for an amendment to be passed, like they are
doing here in this body. As a result, true democracy had to take its
course.
I was required to go out and get 85,000 signatures from the people
and citizens of the State of Nevada to bring that measure to a ballot
where the citizens of Nevada could vote on it. The real democracy, Mr.
Speaker, that bill, that legislation passed in Nevada by an
overwhelming majority of the voters. In 1994, it received 78 percent of
the vote. In 1996, it received 71 percent of the vote as an amendment
to the Nevada Constitution, requiring a two-thirds supermajority to
increase any State tax or fees.
The Federal Government needs to be put on the same fat-free diet that
my home State of Nevada has been on since 1996. We need to make it more
difficult to raise taxes on hardworking American men and women, and we
need to shift congressional focus to the bloated spending programs of
the Federal bureaucracy rather than paying
[[Page H2132]]
attention to the pockets of the American taxpayers.
Passage of this legislation would ensure that Congress focuses its
efforts to balance the budget, cut wasteful spending, and not raise
taxes to create unneeded Federal revenue.
Anyone who takes a close look at those States that have this same
type of supermajority restriction on raising taxes will find that those
States have experienced faster growing economies, a more rapid increase
in employment, lower taxes, and reduced growth in government spending.
No additional financial burdens should be placed on America's working
family without an overwhelming demonstration of need and support of
their elected officials before they raise taxes.
Let us stop the intoxication of intaxication plaguing America today.
I urge my colleagues to support this tax limitation amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of anything
constructive for the House to do, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
To begin, Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the overwhelming majority
of our colleagues, approximately 432 of them, for ignoring this
exercise in partisan silliness.
No one believes that this is anything more than a very feeble effort
from a party that is having difficulty in presenting a program to try
and look like it is doing something. No one thinks this is going
anywhere.
We are about to debate an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. Look who is here? At this point, it is now myself and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). We are here because we have to be
here. If one of us was not here, we would have to stop. So the barest
minimum number of people possible to keep this farce going are
impressed into it.
Frankly, I am a little resentful because we are having a serious
hearing in judiciary on the antitrust measure that I cannot be at.
{time} 1100
I notice my Republican colleagues in the Judiciary, understanding
this was coming, scripted it better; and they managed to get a
Committee on Rules member to sit in so they could all be present at the
hearing. The Committee on Rules presumably has nothing else to do at
this time.
But now let us get to the proposal. I did hear one Member as I was
coming in announced that what we are doing now is what James Madison
would have done if he only were as smart as we are. It is true, and it
is an inconvenient fact, because we do, as a body, like to pay tribute
to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers; and what we are saying here is,
boy, the Founding Fathers really blew one. Because this is not some
obscure issue. They knew about taxation. They knew about two-thirds.
People make one of the least logical arguments I have ever heard,
even in this sort of partisan silliness, when they say, well, the fact
that the Constitution calls for two-thirds in some cases shows that it
really should have called for two-thirds in this case. What that does
is establish that the people who wrote the Constitution knew how to
call for two-thirds when they thought the subject required it. They
said, in certain cases, it takes two-thirds. They then, obviously, made
a deliberate and conscious decision not to require two-thirds for
taxation.
Now, to get around that, I did hear one of my colleagues say, well,
if James Madison knew what we knew, he would have done what we have
done. I doubt it. The evidence that James Madison would have thought
exactly as he would have thought seems to me quite thin. What we have,
of course, is the inconvenient fact that James Madison, quite clearly,
thought the opposite. The people who wrote the Constitution decided
that it would be a majority.
And that is, of course, a perfectly sensible thing. We happen to
believe fundamentally that a majority of the people, as constituted,
and remember the Senate is not that majoritarian, but a majority of
those elected from the House on a popular basis and in the Senate on a
State basis, make the important decisions. And all of the important
ongoing governmental decisions are made by majorities.
Now, what has happened is this. The Republican Party used to be a
very majoritarian party in its rhetoric. But they have now discovered,
to their dismay, that the majority no longer loves them as much as they
thought. This really goes back to 1995 when they shut down the
Government and were jeered instead of cheered. So what we now have is
an announcement by the Republican party that we cannot trust the
majority of the American people, as the Constitution says they should
be represented; and for measures they do not like, they need two-
thirds.
Now, it is also the case that the Republican Party is offering a
procedural objection to taxes instead of a substantive one. For
example, the last time we raised taxes, as I recall, was 1993. We did
do some tax increases before that under Ronald Reagan and George Bush,
but the last time we raised them was in 1993, in the first year of the
Clinton administration. And I remember my Republican colleagues
objecting because we were raising taxes on middle-income people.
Now, most of the tax increases went there on people making well
upwards of $100,000 in 1993, not middle income even by Republican
standards; but there was an increase in the gasoline tax and they
pointed that out. Well, we recently had a spike in gasoline prices
because of OPEC, and I think a failure on the part of the
administration to act initially as promptly as they should have,
although I think they since have taken some effective action, so one
suggestion was let us now deal with that 4.3 cent increase in the gas
tax.
The Republican Party had a chance to do that. Where is the bill? The
Republican Party, having fulminated against the gasoline tax increase
of 1993 had the ideal opportunity to come forward with a reduction in
the gasoline tax, and a few of them talked about it. Where is the bill?
We did get a resolution threatening OPEC that we might call them names
if they did not do some things. I have not seen a bill to reduce that
gasoline tax.
The last time we raised taxes was in 1993. They will talk about how
terrible it was, but they will not do anything about it. And the reason
is that reality has had a very severe impact on the Republican Party
and on their ideology. On the one hand, they denounce government; on
the other hand, they seek opportunities to increase it.
Now, of course, we have the military budget, the single largest part
of the discretionary budget; and it is faith among the Republicans that
that is too small. We need vast increases, billions and billions of
dollars to increase the military budget. But that is not all. The
Republican Party has gone from denouncing the notion of helping older
people buy prescription drugs to embracing it. They say there are
differences in how much, but they want a new program. The Republican
Party is for a new program, which will cost government money.
A couple of weeks ago we took a step that I approved of and that many
Republicans approved of, and we put the Federal Government for the
first time into the business of helping local fire departments in a
systematic way. I am glad to do that, but it costs government money.
My Republican governor was just down here yesterday acknowledging the
fact that a major highway project that he and his Republican
predecessor thought were very important to Massachusetts would cost a
couple of billion dollars more than they thought. That will cost
government money.
For much of the time, my Republican colleagues join many Democratic
colleagues in talking about increasing the budget of the National
Institute of Health, increasing money for transportation, increasing
money for the military, buying prescription drugs. We passed a housing
bill last week overwhelmingly which talked about how important various
Federal housing programs are to help people get homeownership. These
cost money.
So in the abstract the Republican Party wants to look like the
antitax party. But in particular they want to spend government money,
just as many of the rest of us do, for good purposes. So what we get,
to resolve that contradiction, is an entirely silly effort. I should
not say it is an effort, because no one takes it seriously. We get this
gesture to amend the Constitution of
[[Page H2133]]
the United States and to wrench it away from democracy.
Now, this is not the first time the Republican Party has shown its
lack of faith in the voters. We had that previously with term limits.
What they said was, those voters, they do not understand. They cannot
deal with elections. We have to put term limits on because they cannot
understand it. Of course, for many Republicans the idea of term limits
in the abstract was far more attractive than the idea of term limits in
the particular, because among the people who will be voting for this
constitutional amendment today to limit the electorate's ability to
call for a tax increase will be people who will be defying their own
pledge to limit the electorate's ability to reelect them. They have
decided that does not work.
So we have what is, finally, fundamentally, a notion that democracy
is flawed; that in this country the compromises they made about
majority rule for the Senate, for instance two Senators per State, that
was not enough; that we have to go further and make a very drastic
change in the basic structure of government and say that when it comes
to deciding how much money should be spent for public purposes and how
much for private purposes, majority rule does not work.
Now, one last point. We hear this remarkably foolish notion that
there is a dispute between the money that goes to the Government and
the money that goes to the people. But all the money belongs to the
people. The people understand, and the Republican Party has been forced
to acknowledge it, that there are some purposes very important to the
people that they cannot accomplish unless they do them jointly.
A tax cut putting money in individuals' pockets does not expand
airports. A tax cut putting money in individuals' pockets will not
solve the problem of putting more police on the streets or aiding local
fire departments or increasing medical research through NIH. That is,
there are, in a civilized society, some very important purposes that
can best be accomplished by individuals spending their own money
personally, and that is what the market generates, and that is a good
thing; but there are also important purposes, particularly in a complex
urban society, that can only be done jointly. And that is why we come
together through government to deal with the environment, to deal with
public safety, to deal with elderly people and other people's children
who will not themselves be able to make it.
What this is is an announcement that democracy does not work; that
the fundamental scheme of government adopted in 1787 in the
Constitution is flawed; and, therefore, it has to be changed.
Fortunately, as the dearth of Members in this Chamber shows, no one
takes it seriously. It is a political gesture put forward by a party
that has no substantive legislative agenda. And I guess, given that,
this is as good a way to kill time as any.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts
pointing out, in his view, how this is just wasting time and it is the
majority party that has nothing better to do. I want the gentleman to
know that that is an argument that we hear over and over and over and
have heard this over and over and over. This is what we would be led to
believe about a balanced budget; whether we would have a balanced
budget or not. The other side simply said there is no need for a
balanced budget. America is great. Things are headed in the right
direction.
Well, it was the Republican Party that brought forth not only the
ideas but had the conviction to make sure that we would continue to
talk about a balanced budget, even when there were people who believed
it would never, ever happen.
I recall Senator Fritz Hollings, who is a marvelous Senator in the
other body, stated that if we ever had a balanced budget by the year
2002, he would take a high dive off the top of the capitol. A high
dive. It will never happen. There will never, ever be a balanced
budget. That is what we were told on the other side.
We were told about welfare reform that welfare reform should never
happen because welfare reform would put millions of people out in the
streets and babies and families sleeping on sidewalks. Well, lo and
behold, we had welfare reform, and we had welfare reform Republican-
style that is so successful that even President Clinton calls it his
own package today. Welfare reform that has led to not only changing
behavior of people who had been on welfare for generation after
generation, but welfare reform that has led to a 47 percent reduction
in the amount of people who have had their hands out.
Instead, we have found jobs available because the Republican Party
had the presence of mind to fight those who said we would never have a
balanced budget; we would never have an economy where we could employ
all the people who were on welfare.
And about IRS reform, they said, oh, there is nothing wrong with the
IRS. The Tax Code is great. We love that. That is the Democrat Party
mantra: no problem with America. We need to keep it the exact same way
that we have got it today.
Well, it was a few voices in the Republican Party, who are still
alive and well today, and with more than enough votes to pass these
bills, with more than enough votes to talk about our vision for
America, that want to make it more difficult to raise taxes in America.
Oh, my colleagues may say, the Constitution should address this.
Well, we did not even have any tax bills; we could not even tax until
the 16th amendment, until 1913. What happened in 1913, when we began
taxing in America? The IRS looks entirely different than it does today.
Why today do we need this? We need this two-thirds tax limitation
because we need to make it more difficult to raise taxes. We, today in
America, are at a precious time in our history. The precious time is
that the Republican Party has made it possible as a result of the
balanced budget, when the other side said no and it was a silly idea,
the other side said welfare reform is a silly idea and we should never
have it, the IRS Tax Code reform the other side said was a silly idea
and that we should not do it. That is what has unleashed the power of
the American energy.
And it is called the free market system; men and women who go to work
every day, who are making America work; and yet even today, when we
have a surplus, our President has proposed a $96 billion tax increase
in the year 2000. That is why we need to make sure that it requires
two-thirds of this body and two-thirds of the Senate to say, yes,
President Clinton and Vice President Gore, we want your ideas, we want
to raise taxes by $96 billion.
Well, I am sure we will hear it said over and over about what a great
plan the President's budget is; that President Clinton has the best
budget, great for everybody; yet not one Member of this body would even
sponsor the President's plan. Not one person would sponsor the
President's budget. There is a reason why. There is a reason why today
we are on the floor of the House of Representatives to say that we need
to make it harder to raise taxes in America.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) be allowed to control the
time on this side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The balance of the time on the minority side
will be controlled by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and thank the
gentleman for yielding me this time. I associate myself with his
remarks because he is right on target.
I want to put a few things down on the Record. In 1899, the Director
of the Patent Office said ``Everything that can be invented has been
invented.''
{time} 1115
In 1905, President Cleveland said, ``Sensible and responsible women
do not want to vote in America.''
Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society of England, said,
``Heavier
[[Page H2134]]
than air flying machines are impossible.''
In 1927, Harry M. Warner, Chief of Warner Brothers Studios, said,
``Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?''
In 1968, an engineer at IBM said, ``As far as computer systems are
concerned, what practical use will they really have?''
In 1977, the chairman of Digital Equipment Corporation said,
``There's no reason for anyone to ever want to have a computer in their
home.''
In 1987, the Western Union internal memo said, ``The telephone has
just too many shortcomings. Don't give up on our system.''
Edwin Drake said, ``People are literally going to drill in the earth
to try and find oil?''
The big one was Dr. Lee DeForest. He said, ``Man will never reach the
moon. Never.''
My colleagues, about the only thing I can say in my short speech is
this: I tried to change the burden of proof in a civil tax case and
required judicial consent before seizure; and I could not get it done
for 10 years, the Democrats would not hold a hearing.
I want to thank the Republicans for not only holding the hearings, I
want to give my colleagues the facts. In 1998 was the IRS reform law.
In 1997, the last year, the old law. In 1999, the first year, the new
law.
Now we compare them. In 1997, there were 3.1 million attachment of
wages and bank accounts. In 1999, 540,000. Property liens in 1997,
680,000. The new law, 1999, 168,000.
But listen to this. The American people should be listening
carefully. Requiring judicial consent before the IRS could take their
home or their farm or their business, that the Republicans put my
language in, in 1997, 10,037 Americans lost their homes, farms, and
businesses. In 1999, 161. From 10,000 from the back room to 161 when
the burden of proof was on the Government and had to have judicial
consent.
Do I support this bill? Does a bear sleep in the woods?
I think we should mandate a two-thirds requirement before we continue
to gouge and raise the American people's taxes, to boot, let an agency
become so powerful an IRS employee would not testify unless she was
behind a screen so we could not see her, with a voice scrambler so we
could not identify her voice, and a guarantee her family would not be
hurt.
God almighty.
Finally, let me say this: I think our Tax Code should be thrown out
with a flat 15 percent, true 15 percent national retail sales tax. I
will be testifying on the Tauzin/Traficant bill at 1 o'clock myself. It
will ultimately be the tax scheme in America.
I think the Democrats, although they do not want to hear this, should
get on board because they are getting moved further and further out of
the picture, they are not being very progressive.
So I want to thank the chairman for the time. I believe his comments
are right on target. I want to thank the Republican party for putting
the Traficant burden of proof language in the reform bill and the
judicial consent language in the reform bill, and I want to thank him
on behalf of all Americans whose homes, farms, and businesses were not
stolen.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Joint Resolution 94. I will
attempt to make my points with logic rather than volume.
This is the fifth time the House has taken up this particular
constitutional amendment. It seems that since the Republicans have
taken over control of the House, we have had over 100 constitutional
amendments introduced.
When we are sworn in every 2 years in January, we swear to uphold the
Constitution and nowhere do we say we come here to rewrite the
Constitution.
Let us look back and see why the Framing Fathers put into the
Constitution only three instances where a two-thirds vote would be
necessary to take any action in the Government.
One was to change the Constitution. They thought it was a very, very
important, sacred document and much thought should go into changing the
various articles of the Constitution and, if we intend to do that, let
us do it by a two-thirds vote.
They also provided that, if we were going to expel a Member from the
House, one who was elected by a majority, I should add, of the people
from his or her district, that should be done by a two-thirds vote.
The last and only other instance where they provided for a two-thirds
vote was overriding a presidential veto. And here again, the bill that
got to the President got there by a majority vote of both houses; and
if, in fact, we are going to disagree with the President's objections,
that we should do it by more than a majority. And so the Framers
indicated at that point, let us call for a two-thirds vote. Only those
three instances.
James Madison wisely observed in the Federalist Papers,
supermajorities would reverse the fundamental principle of a free
government. And he said, ``It would no longer be the majority that
would rule. The power would be transferred to the minority.'' Let me
repeat that. ``It would no longer be the majority that would rule. The
power would be transferred to the minority.'' And how correct he is.
For almost all actions in this House a majority vote is required. A
majority vote is required to give tax breaks at times to those large
and very vocal corporate citizens who do not deserve them. Those tax
breaks, my colleagues, if this were to pass and become part of the
Constitution, would only require that a minority could stop closing
that loophole. And the reason why is because, under that situation, to
close a tax loophole of, let us say, a foreign corporation operating
here but transferring the profits to a foreign land to avoid taxation,
if we were to close that loophole, it would take two-thirds. More
importantly, it would take a minority to stop it.
That is what this is all about, my colleagues. This is not to prevent
willy-nilly tax increases to be placed upon the American people. Know
full well that all of us in this Chamber and the Senate take that very
seriously and it is done at times when it needs to be done. And if it
is done without need and necessity, every 2 years we face the
electorate and they will let their views be known.
But for the Republicans to once again try to tamper with the
Constitution to provide a two-thirds vote for changing the tax laws in
this country and not to provide that same two-thirds vote to close
loopholes, which has the effect of bringing in more revenue, loopholes
which are unwarranted, which happen all too often in this House, for
that they could stop it with a small minority.
This constitutional amendment is not wise. It should not be supported
by the House. If the taxpayers object to any tax action by the
Committee on Ways and Means that I serve on or action by the full
House, they will let their views be known. Let no one be kidded about
that.
The gentleman who is controlling time on the other side indicated the
great things we did with the welfare reform. But I should point out to
him and to the other Members in the Chamber, if there are any, which
there are not, that that was done with a majority vote. And if, in
fact, that was so important, why do they not provide for a two-thirds
vote for actions of the House dealing with issues like welfare reform?
I would say that would be ridiculous. Because the stated principle of
this country is majority rules.
In the House Rules, when the Republicans took over in 1994, they
provided a supermajority, 60 percent, to pass any tax increases. That
is in the House Rules today, the rules that govern our activity in this
Chamber. And every time that has come before the House, every time
legislation has come before the House to raise taxes, and we have had
it in H.R. 2491 in 1996, in H.R. 2425 that same year, we have had it
again in 1996 in H.R. 3103, every time those increases came before us,
the Republicans waived the House Rules.
By waiving the House Rules, they cast them aside. We do not look at
them for that action. So consistency is not one of the Republican
virtues evidently. But, nevertheless, this constitutional amendment is
ill advised and it should not be supported by the Members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the minority pointing out all the
wonderful things that my party has done: a
[[Page H2135]]
balanced budget, welfare reform, IRS Tax Code reform. These were not
tax increases that required a supermajority. They were tax decreases
and things that would increase not only the efficiency of America but
bring more freedom for people.
I also would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), a
Democrat, for his bipartisan effort to ensure that not only the people
of Ohio but the people of this country understand that this is not a
Republican or Democrat issue, this is a simple matter: Do we want to
make it more difficult to raise taxes on American citizens? Do we want
to make it more difficult for America to have to pay more taxes? Do we
want to raise the bar to a level that would say this is not about
willy-nilly tax increases, this is about something serious because it
comes right out of their pocket?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the honorable gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to urge my
colleagues to support this tax limitation amendment, an important joint
resolution that will help rein in creeping big government.
To listen to the minority, we would think this is some radical idea
that is just from outer space. The fact of the matter is, this is a
good idea that has come to us from States around the country, as so
many of our good ideas and reforms that we have been trying to
implement at the Federal level do. It is not a radical idea. It is an
idea in practice in many States across the country, including my State
of Louisiana.
States, particularly in recent years, have approved all sorts of
restrictions on the ability of their legislatures to raise taxes.
Voters in these States have agreed with this overwhelmingly. They have
responded with overwhelming margins in terms of passing constitutional
amendments to heighten the bar, to raise the bar, to limit State
legislatures in terms of their ability to raise taxes, make it harder
for State legislatures and local governments to increase taxes.
The tax limitation amendment on the floor today embodies these
principles and this common practice in many States. I said it is in
practice in Louisiana. It has been for some time. We require a two-
thirds vote of the legislature to raise taxes. That is not a new idea.
It has been in practice for many years.
When I was in the State legislature over the past 7 years, we went a
step further and we adopted the same rule to even raise what can fairly
be categorized as fees. So we put the same two-thirds vote burden even
in terms of raising what could be fairly called a fee versus a tax. And
again, this is not a radical idea. It has been in practice, and it has
worked.
Now, some on the minority side would say, well, this is unfair
because it tilts the playing field, it favors tax decreases, which
would require a simple majority, and disfavors tax increases, which
would now require two-thirds majority.
Let me be very direct about that point. You bet it does. That is why
I am for the proposal. This is a good, solid reason behind the
proposal, in fact, to tilt the playing field because we have an
unacceptably high level of taxation in this country. What this vote
will largely be about is our level of taxation, the highest in
peacetime ever. Is that reasonable? Should we rush to increase it? Or
is it reasonable to say that should be the limit, and we should try to
go down from here?
{time} 1130
So when Democrats take to the floor and say we are creating a bias
against new taxes, we are creating a bias for tax cuts, I say amen,
yes, we are. That is a large reason I am for this proposal, and I think
it is very interesting and instructive that that is the reason many
Democrats will oppose it, and that is the reason many Republicans,
certainly including me, will speak for and vote for the proposal.
We also have to recognize that this is not being done in a vacuum.
This is not being done in some era of historically low taxes. It is
being done in a very specific context, an era of the highest peacetime
tax burden on American working families in history. That is something
we need to face and work toward reversing, the highest tax burden
peacetime on American working families. In that context, is it not fair
to say we are going to put this two-thirds vote into effect to not
raise taxes?
Finally, one of the most important things this tax limitation
amendment will do is to help bring this body together, to help bring
the American people together and achieve solid consensus on a very
important question of raising taxes. All too often very important
measures like tax increases are passed by the slimmest of majorities.
That really fractionalizes our House and the American people in the
national debate over these questions. Should something as significant
as increasing a historically high tax burden even further not require a
solid consensus? Should that not require a supermajority? Will that not
be good for our national debate and our body politic? I think a two-
thirds majority should be required, I think that would be good for this
institution and for the body politic and for the debate around the
country so that we only do that when we have a solid consensus in favor
of it.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The real reason we are here today debating this issue is that this is
an election year and we need a rollcall. We need a rollcall on who
supports increasing taxes with a two-thirds vote. To prove my point, I
ask the Speaker to look around the Chamber. Here the House is involved
in doing one of the more important, if not the most important,
functions that we were elected to do; and the interest level is so
high, no one bothered to come. Of the hundred or so authors of this
amendment, they are not lined up to come and defend it. They know as
well as you know, as well as I know, this is for show.
Like the swallows coming back to Capistrano, this constitutional
amendment is here because it is an election year. I ask my friends,
where is the constitutional amendment to provide a two-thirds vote to
decrease Social Security benefits that millions of Americans depend on?
Where is the constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to
cut Medicare? Where is your constitutional amendment to provide a two-
thirds vote to cut education funding for our kids? That is not here,
and it ain't coming here because that we can do by a majority vote. But
we need two-thirds to lock in tax loopholes for some people's corporate
friends. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my good friend from
Wisconsin, and he is wrong. They have not just done it in election
years. They have brought this thing out here every year at this time.
This is an annual event. It really is like the sparrows, or swallows.
Is it swallows or sparrows?
Mr. KLECZKA. Swallows.
Mr. McDERMOTT. We have got to take this seriously, do we not? These
guys really worry about somehow the money getting away from us, that it
is somehow flowing out. They have been in control for 5 years. When
they came in, they passed a House rule that said that if you are going
to do anything with taxes, it took a two-thirds vote, a three-fifths
vote or whatever it was.
It did not make any difference, because every time it came up, they
waived the rule. They waived their own rule. They said it is going to
take this much to pass any tax increase. But whenever they wanted to do
it, they waived the rule and said we will do it with a majority. They
did it so many times in the first session, the first 2 years they were
in power, that the next time they came in, they said, well, let us
revise the rule and make it really meaningless so that it only affects
two or three little parts of the code. That way we can put any tax
increase we want over here by a majority rule and in all the rest of
the Tax Code. We protected these couple over here.
They could not even comply with that in a bill that the President
vetoed last year. This is not a serious event. As I said yesterday,
what you really need to do is figure out looking at the calendar what
holy day is it or what saint's day is it or what holiday is it or what
important day is it for Americans
[[Page H2136]]
and you will figure out what the Republicans are going to bring out on
the floor.
When it was St. Valentine's Day, we brought out the valentine for
everybody, the marriage tax penalty bill passed here; and everybody got
a valentine from the House of Representatives. It has not passed the
Senate. It is probably going to pass maybe sometime in the future, but
nothing has happened to it since. We have not heard a word about it.
Now we are down to tax day. We get a rash of bills yesterday, the
taxpayers' bill of rights, and now we have got this thing out here for
a supermajority on raising taxes, because they know people are thinking
about filling out their income tax, all of us are doing it; and they
know that people are worried or think they are paying too much or
whatever, so let us go out there with something that will stir the
people up, and we will show them we really care about taxes. But when
it gets dark around here and they have to do something, they
immediately waive all the rules and slide through stuff all the time.
Now, the thing that I keep wondering about, I was looking at my
calendar last night trying to figure out what day are they going to
bring the Patients' Bill of Rights out here. You have got all the
people in this country, all the polls show they want something that
passed the House, passed the Senate, been sitting in a conference
committee, they want something that puts the control of their health
care back in their doctors' and their own hands, not the insurance
companies.
Any poll you run out there will be 80 percent for doing something
about the Patients' Bill of Rights bill. But I cannot figure out what
day it is going to be. I thought maybe Fourth of July; that would be
freedom from insurance companies. I do not know how they are going to
construct this, but they will find a day that that fits. The next
question I have is what day are they going to bring out the
prescription drug bill for seniors? There must be some day. It would
not be Labor Day, I guess. Memorial Day maybe. That is it, Memorial
Day. They will come out with it because they will think people want to
memorialize old people. I do not know how they are going to do it.
If you would not waste so much time on this kind of nonsense and
would come out here and deal with the issues that really affect
American people, you would be able to get somewhere. But this kind of
thing, we will take the vote. As I look around the floor, there are
four of us on the floor right now, out of 435. It is a big issue,
folks. You can tell how much people really care about this. One hundred
of them sign it and they will not even come over and talk about it. I
guess they are kind of ashamed of the foolishness of it.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, we have a sad situation in this country
where American citizens are renouncing their citizenship, taking their
wealth to foreign countries in a very, very obvious attempt to avoid
any taxation. If, in fact, this constitutional amendment would prevail
and be ratified by the States, what would the effect be on American
citizens renouncing their citizenship and us trying to stop that
outflow for tax avoidance?
Mr. McDERMOTT. We would have to have a two-thirds vote in here to get
anything done. We could not do it by the majority vote. A minority of
people, 33 percent of the people in this House could stop that from
happening. We could never correct that. The gentleman just points out
one of a million problems with this. But it is obviously not a serious
effort. It is going to go down here very shortly because most people
realize that it is just for show. And when the day comes, I believe it
will be about the 7th of November, you will wish you spent your time on
the floor working on the Patients' Bill of Rights and prescription
drugs and financing for schools and a whole raft of other real issues.
This is not a real issue. If it were, you would not waive your own
rule every time you bring an appropriations act out here. You have
broken every single point of order on putting caps on expenditures.
Every single one has waived the caps. The ability to constrain spending
is in your own hearts; and now you want to come out here and say, well,
this is what we do. The Bible says, by your deeds you shall know them.
And, in fact, your deeds say this is nonsense. Everyone ought to vote
against this.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Never has there been a more logical explanation to understand the
differences between the two parties. The Democrats today in the
minority stand up and say things that take time, ideas that take time
to mature are bad ideas, like raising the earning limits for seniors
that took 30 years before we could get that done. A balanced budget, 30
years of Democrat control to where we had $5.5 trillion worth of debt
in this country. Welfare reform. Bad ideas. These are the same words we
hear over and over and over again. IRS Tax Code reform. Silly. Who
would want that? I am pleased to say that the Republican Party wants
it. I am pleased to say that people back home want it. I am pleased to
say that today what we are doing is very important for people who
understand that it is too easy for Congress to raise taxes. I am proud
of what we are doing. It may take us 20 more years; it may take us 5
more years. But I will tell you that it is the right thing to do.
The speaker before talked about people leaving this country, leaving
this country because they do not want to pay taxes. That could be true.
I think it is that they realize they have got to pay too much in taxes.
The things that they had worked hard for all their life, that they then
could sit back and enjoy life is being taken from them by a tax code,
an unfair tax code, the threat of a Congress raising taxes to take more
and more from people who had earned the money.
That is why people are leaving. They are not leaving because it would
be more difficult to raise taxes. They are not leaving because they are
concerned about somebody taking less of their money. They are concerned
about someone coming and taking from them what they have worked hard
for.
{time} 1145
This is an important issue. This is a defining issue in Washington,
D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I am very, very proud and pleased to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Farmsville, North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a member of
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas, and also I rise in strong support of this tax limitation
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I am like most of my colleagues, both Republican and
Democrat; when I go back to my district, I do a lot of speaking at
civic clubs, I hold town meetings, and probably the most important
thing that I can say is that, like all of my colleagues on both sides
of the fence, I listen to the people I have the privilege to serve.
I can tell you that in the Third District of North Carolina, and I
believe throughout this country, the majority of the people that pay
taxes believe that they are overburdened with a tax system and with
taxes coming from Washington, D.C.; and many of these people throughout
this country and throughout my district feel that too many times those
in Washington, D.C. on both sides of the aisle really are not listening
to them.
I think that when we are today debating this issue, I am like the
gentleman from the other side, I wish there were more people on the
floor, and maybe during the day there will be others on both sides of
this issue coming to the floor, but I think today what we are saying to
the American people is that we are listening to you.
As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said, yes, maybe it will
take 2 or 3 more years, but the point is, yes, you are right to talk
about Social Security and these other issues, we do need to be debating
these issues and need to try to find solutions to problems. But I will
tell you that one of the problems is that the American people are
overburdened with taxation.
I have to say, being a former Democrat who became a Republican, that
I believe sincerely that it has been my party that has started these
debates on the floor. It has been my party that has introduced
legislation, and sometimes in a bipartisan way that we have passed
legislation, to bring tax relief to the American people.
[[Page H2137]]
I think today this is a unique opportunity to talk about this tax
limitation act because, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about amending the
Constitution and creating a two-thirds majority to pass tax increases
on the American people, we are basically giving it back to the American
people through their legislative process to say yes, we want an
amendment that will protect us and protect our families.
Mr. Speaker, the four largest Federal tax increases in the last 20
years would have failed had this amendment been in place. I think that
is worthy to be repeated.
The four largest Federal tax increases in the last 20 years would
have failed had this amendment been in place.
Mr. Speaker, most recently, in 1993, President Clinton and a
Democratic Congress passed the largest tax increase in America's
history. Now, I do not know if that would have passed or not, I doubt
if it would have, if this had been in place.
Mr. Speaker, we always are saying, both sides of the aisle, that this
is the people's House, that we are the people's representatives. Well,
I think we need to listen to the people, and the people in this country
are crying out for relief. They do feel and I feel also that they are
overburdened.
I think the citizens of this country have a right to know when the
House is debating a tax increase and that we need to debate it on the
floor of the House, and I think a two-thirds majority of both sides
voting to bring relief for passing a tax increase on the American
people is extremely important.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, Congress should never seek to raise taxes
on the American people without a two-thirds majority. That, again, is
my philosophy. Some will agree, some will disagree.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to read a quote from former President
Ronald Reagan from his 1985, I believe, State of the Union address. I
am going to repeat it after I read it one time.
Mr. Reagan said, ``Every dollar the Federal Government does not take
from us,'' meaning the American people, ``every decision it does not
make for us,'' meaning the American people, ``will make our economy
stronger, our lives more abundant, our future more free.''
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that those words by Mr. Reagan fully
explain why and how so many people throughout this country feel that
too many times the United States Congress is not listening to them, no
matter what the issue might be, whether it is taxes or another issue.
But when it comes to taxes, Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say it is the
Republican Party that has brought these debates on the floor to bring
relief to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote Mr. Reagan again. I am going to quote
Mr. Reagan when he said, ``Every dollar the Federal Government does not
take from us,'' us, the American people, ``every decision it does not
make for us,'' the American people, ``will make our economy stronger,
our lives more abundant, our future more free.''
Mr. Speaker, if we are truly the people's House and the people's
representatives, then we need to pass this amendment.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of
historical accuracy, I was going to ask if President Reagan said that
when he signed a big tax increase in 1982, which he deemed necessary
for economic purposes, or when a couple of years later he signed
another significant tax increase which raised Social Security taxes?
Those were two tax increases President Reagan signed. I do not think
either one of them got two-thirds, so they might not have been passed
under this. I wonder whether Mr. Reagan said that when he was signing
those two very significant tax increases. I voted against both of them,
by the way.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the framers of the Constitution
provided that Congress shall have the sole power to declare war, and
under that constitutional provision a majority, a majority, of both
Houses is required. If, in fact, there was a need to amend the
Constitution to provide for a two-thirds vote, surely do not you think
a declaration of war, and not taxes, should be the item that we would
be debating today? Do you think a declaration of war is less important
than the tax issue of this country? I think not.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people have come to realize that
every spring about this time, as sure as daylight savings time going
into effect and Easter and Passover coming along and kids anticipating
their graduation from school, that it is tax time on April 15, and what
they can expect is the same old complicated Tax Code. But they can be
reassured that Republicans will be out here talking about it.
All those American citizens that are out there now working on their
tax returns may not find a great deal of reassurance that after 6 years
in office, all that our Republican colleagues, after 6 years of holding
control in this House, all that our Republican colleagues have to offer
this morning is the same old recycled speeches they have been giving
and the same approach for the last 6 years.
I remember in one of the earlier sessions, I think it was back around
1995 or 1996, some fellow came out here and brought the whole Tax Code.
I think if he had piled that thing end to end it would have reached up
there to the clock.
Well, what have the Republicans done for the ordinary taxpayer that
is out there struggling through their returns to simplify that code?
Well, today, after 6 years of Republican leadership in this House, it
probably now stretches above the clock, because they have added an
additional 100 sections more or less to the Tax Code. Instead of
dealing with issues like simplifying our Tax Code and making it fairer
and more equitable to the ordinary middle-class taxpayer, they have
recycled whatever speech and proposal they considered at their last
political convention. So this is the second, third, maybe more years in
Congress that we have had this same sorry proposal out here to
consider.
Now, if you are out there working on your return and you are happy,
and you think that a Tax Code that stretches up to the clock and beyond
under Republican leadership is great, that it is fair, that it is
equitable, that everyone in our country, from the very largest
corporations to the person who is down at the lower end of the wage
scale that is figuring out a fairly simple tax return, if you think
they are all being treated fairly; if you think there are no special
interests that come to Washington and get special loopholes written
into the Tax Code so that they can dodge taxes, so that they can come
close to cheating on their taxes under the system; if you like every
aspect of the system that we have now, plus the additional 100 sections
that the Republicans have added to the Tax Code, today's proposal is a
perfect proposal for you. Because what they are seeking to do with this
old recycled, retread proposal that they drag out on the eve of tax-
paying day every season, what they are seeking to do is to freeze into
place the code that we have today. So if some lobbyist has come to
Washington and they have written themselves in a special loophole for
their special interests because they had the longest limousine and the
biggest political action committee and the most effective lobbyist,
well, their provision will be frozen in unless we can get not only a
majority of this Congress, but two-thirds of this Congress to come
forward and stand up to the special interest group, which we could not
get a majority to do in the past, but we have now got to have two-
thirds.
So if you like the system we have now, if you like all the loopholes
and the special interest provisions, you ought to be supporting this
proposal. It will freeze them in forever if this retread proposal were
actually designed and put into place in our Constitution.
If you think we need significant change in the way our system works,
well, then I would think you would be strongly opposed to this kind of
approach.
Now, over the course of the last 6 years we have often heard the same
[[Page H2138]]
people who came out and piled up the Tax Code tell us that they
disliked it so much that they were going to just grab down there and
pull it out by the roots. That is a good applause line at the kind of
convention that considers these old retread proposals like we have up
here this morning.
Well, they have been in office 6 years, and they had a hearing on
pulling the code out by the roots back in 1995. As I speak, there is
another hearing going on. There has been no proposal advanced for a
vote over that 6 years in the Committee on Ways and Means to pull it
out by the roots. There has been no proposal presented even this week
after 6 years of the Republicans being in charge here in the House. I
think they cannot figure out which root to pull out, where and what new
roots to put down to replace it.
So, instead, they keep coming up with the same old retread proposals,
that if we ever made the mistake of actually adopting them, would only
make the system worse than it is today and would assure that we could
not get change in the system.
Mr. Speaker, there are some specific proposals that some of us have
been advancing to try to address inequities in this Tax Code. What has
been most I think indicative of the kind of problem we have today is
that Republican leadership would rather focus on these meaningless
retreads, instead of focusing on real issues, such as the way that
corporate tax shelters manage to avoid what many have estimated is $10
billion a year in taxes and closing that up and seeing that they get
treated the way that middle-class taxpayers get treated. The Republican
leadership has said there is no need to address corporate tax shelters.
The situation is so bad that it has made the front page of Forbes
magazine. This is not some strange off-beat journal. This is the
magazine that calls itself ``the capitalist's tool.'' They wrote about
the problem of tax shelter hustlers, describing on the magazine cover
this fellow in the fedora, ``respectable accountants are peddling dicey
corporate tax loopholes.'' Ten billion dollars a year is the estimate
of lost tax revenues from tax shelters.
And the response of the Republican leadership, when they could be out
here today doing something about that, is to squelch any real reform.
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Republican
majority leader are saying that tax avoidance is about as American as
apple pie, and encourage the continuation of this kind of misconduct.
The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Lawrence Summers, has suggested
that this is the most serious compliance problem that we have in
America today, this problem of tax hustlers. It is usually some former
employee here on Capitol Hill that goes out to work for some big
accounting firm, and they make a fortune selling and teaching people
how to dodge, cheat, join in on tax scams.
And I think it is an outrage. I think it is the kind of outrage that
has grown to such a substantial extent that we now even have the
lawyers that represent some of the corporations that are dodging their
taxes coming before the Congress in the form of the American Bar
Association tax section, the tax section of the New York State bar, and
urging us to do something. They recognize what a do-nothing Congress
this is and how it will not respond, and they come forward and say
``please address this problem.'' But this Republican leadership has
retreads like this instead.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I am on the Committee
on Ways and Means with the gentleman, and I do not remember us ever
having a hearing on this.
{time} 1200
I do not remember us ever having a hearing, have us ever come and
testify about this. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a
hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DOGGETT. On this particular amendment?
Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes, on this particular amendment.
Mr. DOGGETT. They had a hearing at their political convention on it,
so they really do not need to have substantive hearings on it, because
this is a political gimmick. It is a gimmick, not really a serious
proposal about how to resolve the concerns American taxpayers have.
Mr. McDERMOTT. So when they put the sham together, they do not even
bother putting the dressing around it and having a hearing?
Mr. DOGGETT. I think that is right. In other words, most proposals
dealing with the Tax Code would bring in the experts; would do the kind
of thing that I sought to do with these tax shelter hustlers, bring in
the academic experts, the people out in the field, as well as just some
ordinary citizens from across the country, to point out what an outrage
this is.
But on this proposal, this has been more of a political gamesmanship
kind of thing. They have not had a hearing because I guess other than
recycling this old political rhetoric, there really would not be much
to hear.
Mr. McDERMOTT. That is why we call it a retread. It has been through
here, and they are trying to do it again. I think we will see it next
year.
Mr. DOGGETT. Next year we will have substantial change. I believe
that next year, since this particular Congress once again will not even
honor the recommendations of its Joint Tax Committee to address
corporate tax shelters, ignores the recommendations of the Secretary of
the Treasury that this is the biggest tax compliance problem we have in
America today, ignores the estimates that $10 billion a year is being
lost in these cheating tax dodge schemes, I believe the next Congress
is going to have enough new Members that people will say, enough is
enough. We have had 6 years of do nothing, do little, avoidance of
these problems.
Just as these kinds of folks encourage tax avoidance, we have had a
leadership that has problem avoidance. They want to avoid the problems.
I know it appeals to the same special interests that get these tax
shelter hustler proposals.
But I believe the American people that are out there working on their
taxes, certainly everybody would like to pay less, but they would like
to at least be sure that other people are being dealt with fairly.
Clearly these people are not dealing fairly.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here we continue with the wonderful debate, which is
what this amendment is all about, an opportunity for us to debate in
the open, on the floor of the House of Representatives, the question of
whether we are going to make it more difficult for Congress to raise
taxes, raise taxes on the American taxpayer or not. It is a question of
whether Washington, D.C. is going to make it more difficult to raise
taxes or whether we are going to keep the status quo.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle once again talk about
all the things that this Republican Congress has not done, all the
things that we have had an opportunity to do. I would remind my
colleagues that, in fact, these same words were said about a balanced
budget.
I remember running for Congress back in 1994, and people were saying
to me over and over and over again, We will never have a balanced
budget. It will never happen in my lifetime.
Well, there were people who did believe it. The naysayers who were
there today are people who understand that this economy that we have in
America, the opportunity, the growing economic development that we
have, jobs in communities, schools that are producing not only brighter
and better students but students who have technology at their
fingertips, this is a part of what happens when we have a grand and
bold idea, an idea that has always on the other side been talked about
in negative ways: It would never happen. A balanced budget is silly. No
need to do that.
Welfare reform, the same way. We talked about welfare reform on the
floor of this House of Representatives, and day after day after day it
was the other side, it was the minority party, who said, we do not need
welfare reform. It will not amount to anything. As a matter of fact, it
will harm the children of America.
IRS Tax Code reform. We hear the gentleman from Texas say that the
Republicans have done nothing with what they had. In fact, what we have
done is
[[Page H2139]]
done things that are for the taxpayer: A $500 per child tax credit, a
$500 per child tax credit that matters. Every single time an American
who has a child goes to fill out their tax form, they get a $500 per
child tax credit. It is going to happen again this Saturday as
Americans are filling out their forms, they will get that.
Cutting capital gains. We heard, Cutting capital gains? A dangerous,
risky proposition. We should not do that. Mr. Speaker, I would submit
that the 1997 capital gains tax cut that Republicans voted on and
supported that was signed by the President has meant that America has a
booming economy.
Oh, the minority said, do Members realize that the tax collector, the
United States government, will have $9 billion less in their coffers?
Well, once again the minority party is concerned about the tax
collector. It was the Republican party who was concerned about the
taxpayer.
What happened? What happened was that the tax collector got $90
billion additional dollars in the Treasury, just like Republicans,
through the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer),
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, said that we will make a
substantial investment in America because we are going to lower the
risk. We are going to encourage people to participate in that which we
are doing. We are going to take people and move them from welfare to
work. We are going to enrich communities because we are going to allow
dollars to be invested in America.
Oh, but there is more. This Republican do-nothing Congress raised the
exemption for death taxes. That is not do-nothing, that is a realistic
opportunity for people upon their death to know that their estate,
instead of being broken up and splintered to the wind, thrown to the
wind, and family businesses, small businesses and land, agricultural
producers of food for not only this country but the world being broken
up just because of a Tax Code, we heard, Oh, no, cannot do that. Bad
idea. That is for rich people.
The education savings accounts, it was the Republican party who stood
up against the naysayers of the Democrat party saying, This is bad for
America, it is bad for public education to have education savings
accounts.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Members that as the father of two little
boys, one who is a 10-year-old who is a straight A student, who has
taken advantage of books and education and computers and technology,
the opportunity for him to be no different than other children who want
to learn and read, for parents who get up and go to work every day and
work hard to save money for that education for that child is important;
also the parent of a 6-year-old Downs syndrome little boy, which my
wife and I are, I know that our son needs more investment in not only
his education but his development, just to make sure that he can stand
on his own two feet and have an opportunity to make a go of it by
himself.
That is why we offer the education savings account. That is why we
cut capital gains. That is why we had a $500 per child tax credit. That
is why we raised the exemption for death taxes. That is why just 2
weeks ago this House voted 422 to nothing on what had been
controversial years before, to say we should raise the earning limits
for seniors. We should not deny senior citizens who choose to work,
which allows them not only to be in business but also to be healthier
and happier, not to lose their social security because the Tax Code
said that was the right way.
I am proud of my party. I am proud of my party and people back home
and groups that will work to say, We need to make it more difficult to
raise taxes. We need to make it more difficult, and it is a simple
matter. That is what this amendment is all about.
I will confess, we may not get the amount of votes that we need
today. We will get a majority of the votes, but we will not get enough.
But the dream lives on forever. We intend to continue with this. Yes,
it is done at tax time. It is done at a time when people understand
that there is a voice, not a voice in the wilderness but a voice on the
floor of the House of Representatives, the people's body.
We are going to get 240 votes on this today. We are going to stand up
and talk about how it should be more difficult to raise taxes. I am
proud of what my party stands for. I know what the other side stands
for.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find it kind of intriguing that the Republicans are
trying to rewrite history, for if we go back to when this
administration took over, they inherited a debt approaching $280
billion a year from the Bush administration. It was in 1993 that this
Congress bit the bullet and passed a deficit reduction bill which
massively cut spending, and it did adjust some taxes, but the effect of
that legislation was to bring this country where we are today, enjoying
the greatest economic growth in its history.
If it makes Republicans feel good and they want to take credit for
it, let them do it. But let us not rewrite history, because this
administration, when it took over, inherited an annual debt approaching
if not exceeding some $280 billion a year in red ink.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the kindest characterization of this proposal
would be to say that it is disingenuous. It is obviously disingenuous,
because the party that is offering it here, the majority party in this
House, several years ago adopted an internal resolution that required a
two-thirds majority to raise revenues by any vote taken by the House of
Representatives.
What have we seen in the carrying out of the adoption of that change
in the rules here? What we have seen is that virtually every time the
issue has come up, the leadership of the House has waived the
requirement. So one can only conclude that this proposal for a super
majority, anti-democratic super majority to raise revenues, is one that
is not really believed in by those people who are offering it, because
every time they have had an opportunity to put it into place they have
abandoned it. They have walked away from it. It seems quite clear that
they do not even believe in it themselves.
Why would we want to do this? Why would we put fiscal policy in a
Constitution when every sound economic principle everywhere says that
that would be a foolish thing to do? Why would we want to do it? How
would we react to emergencies? How would we respond to a crisis in
agriculture? How would we respond to national emergencies of various
kinds? How would we respond to natural calamities when we needed to
respond aggressively and forthrightly and attentively to those problems
when people were in serious trouble?
Look what is happening in the farm belt all across America. Look what
is happening to agriculture as a result of the 1996 farm bill and the
destructive impact that that has had upon ranchers and farmers all
across the country. We are not even responding to that adequately now
under the leadership of the Republican party in this House. Imagine how
much more difficult it would be if we required a two-thirds majority.
They have turned their backs on ranchers and farmers. Now they want
to get even further away from them and other people who would face
difficult circumstances in our country by implanting this super
majority, this anti-democratic super majority provision in the
Constitution as an amendment to the United States Constitution. It is
an absurd proposal.
Why are they advancing the proposal? Ostensibly they are advancing
the proposal because they would like everyone to think that taxes are
too high, that Federal taxes are too high. Of course, everyone who is
struggling with their income tax form these days is prepared to believe
that, or many people are prepared to believe it, I assume.
But the fact of the matter is that the situation is quite different
from that. Let us just take a look at certain people in our economy and
how the income tax code relates to them.
The median income in America today is about $46,700. That is the
median income; half below, half above. The average Federal income tax
rate for a family of four at the median income in 1999, last year, is
7.5 percent. In 1981, it
[[Page H2140]]
was 11.8 percent. The fact of the matter is that the tax rate for
people at the median income is lower now than it was in 1981, and in
fact, is the lowest it has been since 1966.
If one is making half of the median income, he is in effect at a
negative income tax as a result of the changes in the earned income tax
credit that were put into place by the Clinton administration as a
result of the 1993 budget proposal. As a matter of fact, that budget
proposal also made some adjustments downward for people at the lower-
income ranges, as well. So the situation for people at the median
income is better today than it was in 1981. People making half of the
median income are not paying any income taxes whatsoever.
What about people making a little bit more money? Suppose someone is
making twice the median income. Suppose they are making somewhere in
excess of $90,000 a year for a family of four. The fact of the matter
is that the median income for them is now 14.1 percent. What was it in
1981? It was 19.1 percent.
{time} 1215
The median income for a family of four and the tax rate for the
median income, people making twice the median income is lower than it
was in 1981. Even after tax income, the after-tax rate for people at
the top 1 percent is even lower than it was in 1987. The fact of the
matter is that taxes are taking less of a bite of the income, Federal
taxes, Federal income taxes, taking less of a bite out of the income of
Americans than they were back in 1981.
This proposal is not just disingenuous. It is not just a proposal in
which the proponents of it do not really believe themselves. They have
abandoned it every time it is come up. They know very well it is not
going to pass. It is not going to get two-thirds of the majority of
this House voting for it.
It is simply put up here for partisan political reasons in the hope
that they can deceive a few people here and there around the country,
that the Republican Party really wants to see taxes cut, that they
really believe in lower taxes.
When it was pointed out here just a few moments ago with the tax
shelter hustlers, the front page of Forbes magazine what they really
want to do, what they really want to do is protect the privileges of
the very, very wealthy.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, certainly it is important to point out they
will freeze into place all of these special interests provisions, all
of these loopholes. The gentleman focused, I think, very eloquently on
the effects of their proposal and has also noted that what we mainly
have been dealing with here, as is the case around every tax filing
day, is hot air from the Republicans.
I would like to redirect the gentleman's attention from hot air to
dirty air and another section that would be frozen into place, and that
is section 527, which the gentleman joined with me last week in
sponsoring legislation to address. Being from New York State, did the
gentleman have occasion to see the ads that some Texans ran against
Senator McCain there in New York State?
Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, I believe I did.
Mr. DOGGETT. Even though Texas has some problems, having outdistanced
Los Angeles, which is one of the cities that has the dirtiest air in
the country in many areas, the claim was that one candidate was not
enough of an environmentalist, but instead of doing that as a direct
campaign, they used a 527 organization where the gentleman could not
even find out who put the ad on television.
Mr. HINCHEY. Yes.
Mr. DOGGETT. Instead of doing the kind of hot air measure that we
have here today, I believe the gentleman joined with me in saying that
that was wrong and that taxpayers ought to have a right to be able to
find out whether it is some Texas friend of one of the other
presidential candidates or whether it is Chinese money or Iraqi money
or Cuban money or just some homegrown special interests that wants to
pour money into these kind of Swiss bank accounts of the political
season this year to make unlimited expenditures, but never tell the
taxpayers who is funding these kinds of hate campaigns that the
gentleman must have seen in New York State.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, we did see them in New York State, and
there were advertisements that were put forth principally on Long
Island; and they, of course, were deceitful. They were deceitful in a
variety of ways. First of all, they pretended that the proponent of
those ads, the beneficiary of those ads, was one who had a sound record
in environmental protection when we know that the environmental record
of Governor George W. Bush in Texas is an abysmal record.
In the air quality arena alone, for example, the city of Houston now
has surpassed Los Angeles with the worst air quality in the country, as
a result of the fact that Governor Bush has vetoed every attempt to
pass sound environmental control legislation in the State and turned
his back on environmental quality in the State generally.
Furthermore, the ads that the gentleman is talking about now, which
were allowed as part of the Tax Code, those ads that the gentleman very
appropriately brought to our attention today and which are allowed in a
section of the Tax Code are totally deceitful and point out the reason
why we need campaign finance reform and point out the illegitimacy of
this proposal.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we said, look, whether those ads are put on
by a Democrat, a pro-environmental group or an anti-environmental
group, let us at least tell the taxpayers who is financing them. And
this Republican leadership, the same Republican leadership that could
have just sent all of us and the American people a cassette with the
speeches that they gave last session or the session before that or the
session before that or the session before that on this same sorry
proposal.
They said they did not have time to consider that. They basically
said that the only way they can get through this election was to
continue taking unlimited amounts of secret money, including foreign
money, that can be dumped into these political Swiss bank accounts
called 527's and continue to stuff misinformation into our mailboxes
and run hate on to the airwaves. They refused to consider the proposal
that the gentleman personally has sponsored, did they not?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey), who is my good friend, during the time on the floor the
gentleman wanted us to question why we are advancing this idea, what
possibly could Republicans be for. Why are we advancing this idea? It
is quite simple. We would like to make it more difficult to raise taxes
on the American taxpayer.
Secondly, the gentleman asked, oh, my gosh if we had this, how would
we respond to emergencies? The obvious implication is, could not raise
taxes, could not raise taxes in the event of an emergency.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting that if we follow this,
then we would have to respond to a crisis or any crisis in the
following manner: number one, we would have to raise taxes; that is the
first thing the Democrat Party wants to do. Number two, raise spending.
Go spend it, go spend all of the taxpayers money, spend more and more
and more. Number three, increase inefficiency, bigger government. Give
it to the government, bring it to Washington, D.C.
My proposition is quite the opposite. My proposition is that it
should be more about efficiency. Under a post-tax limitation amendment,
the first thing that would happen is, government would have to increase
efficiency. Government would have to look inward to itself.
It would have to do the same thing that I do at home with my wife and
my family. We would have to live within a budget; could not raise taxes
as easily; have to work within what we have; have to make some hard
decisions; have to prioritize. It would increase efficiency because it
would require the Government and the Congress to make tough decisions.
Today, the path of least resistance, let us raise taxes, let us raise
spending, let us just go do the same old Washington dance.
Secondly, under a post-tax limitation amendment, it would mean that
we
[[Page H2141]]
would have to then look at raising spending. How are we going to do
that? Well, we would do that if there is an emergency because we had
already squeezed the lemon dry. We could already prove to people back
home we have looked inward, we have been efficient. Now what we have to
do is to raise spending.
Remember, we are in a surplus condition. We do need to use more
efficiently the money that has been given to us. Lastly, the thing that
would be required, which is what the taxpayers, I believe, sent all of
us to Congress to do, and that is lastly then to consider the last
option or the least easy option, raise taxes.
This, to me, is what it is all about, that the Congress of the United
States should have to come on the floor of the House of Representatives
to debate the issues, to talk about efficiency, to do the right thing
for the taxpayer back home; but the easiest thing should not be to
raise taxes. That is where the minority party, that is where they fall
virtually every time. That is where they are falling today. That is the
difference between these two parties in Washington, D.C. Somebody that
says let us just raise taxes, let us go raise taxes on the people who
have the money, let us go raise taxes on people who have been
successful, people who create our economy, people who provide jobs, we
are going to make it more difficult. That is what this argument is
about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to come down here and speak on behalf of
this amendment. I say with tongue in cheek that the Republicans
celebrate July 4 and the Democrat Party celebrates April 15.
For most Americans, April 15 is a dreaded day. It is a feared day, a
day in which taxpayers across the country are concentrating and
reflecting on America's most frustrating and complex tax system. I do
not know how many millions of pages there are, but it is enough.
So it is altogether appropriate, just before the April 15, we should
reflect on our Nation's Tax Code and the problems it imposes upon
taxpayers in America. So today we will be considering a most meaningful
piece of legislation addressing the shortcoming of the system, the tax
limitation amendment which will force Congress to garner a
supermajority before approving any tax increase.
Later we will have this opportunity to vote for the bill, to scrap
the Tax Code so we can replace this burdensome tax system with
something far more fair and equitable.
Tax limitation would require in this House and in the Senate, if
adopted, that there be a real consensus to raise taxes. It would take a
two-thirds vote, which means we will not have a recurrence of one of
the largest tax increases in American history in 1993 with President
Clinton and Vice President Gore's proposal.
When I look at this, I go back and think about our Founding Fathers.
These honorable leaders had the foresight to mandate a two-thirds
majority vote on certain priority issues in this country. James
Madison, a vocal supporter of majority rule, argued that the greatest
threat to liberty in a republic came from unrestrained majority rule,
and that is why they proposed two-thirds majority for conviction in
impeachment trials, expulsion of a Member of Congress, override of a
presidential veto, a quorum of two-thirds of the Senate to elect a
President, to consent to a treaty and proposing constitutional
amendments.
So if it is good enough for those, I think certainly it would be good
enough for deciding whether we are having taxes here.
There were seven of these that were already in the Constitution when
they wrote the document and since then they have added three more.
My colleague, Daniel Webster, obviously a great renowned legend of
this great body, said, quote, ``the power to tax is the power to
destroy.''
We voted yesterday against $116 billion in higher taxes and user fees
as proposed in the administration's budget. Americans are simply taxed
too much. It is both the Federal, State, and local level where it adds
up to almost 40 percent; and, of course, there are many areas that we
are taxed and we do not even know it.
Gasoline tax is one of them, corporate income tax, excise tax, State
and local, as I mentioned. Though the average American family is paying
somewhat less in Federal income tax, as I pointed out, the overall tax
burden is approaching 40 percent. So this amendment is needed,
something that many States are already doing.
I am glad the Federal Government is stepping up to the plate, and I
urge strong support on both sides of the aisle to align yourself with
what the States are doing, align yourself with the people and move
forward to pass this amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
{time} 1230
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), the member of the powerful Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the constitutional amendment
requiring a two-thirds majority to raise taxes on hardworking American
families. The tax limitation amendment is powerful, yet responsible. By
requiring two-thirds majority approval for any tax increase, this
Congress is showing its deep concern for the constant imbalance of
raising taxes in order to increase spending. We are attempting to
ensure that the American people will not be subject to the whimsical
and shortsighted notions of Congress to raise taxes at the drop of a
hat.
Presently 14 States across this country require a supermajority in
their legislatures to raise taxes. What has been the result? Their
State taxes grow much slower and State spending is reduced.
Additionally, these States have seen their economies grow at a rate of
almost one-third faster than the 36 States that have not adopted
supermajority requirements for tax increases. One-third faster than the
States that have not adopted supermajority requirements.
A strong majority of American tax-paying families support this
effort, which will assure that future Congresses have support of the
American public before they attempt to raise taxes.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that today's taxes are too high.
Americans pay more in taxes than they do for food, clothing, and
shelter. Efforts to reduce these burdens on Americans is much too
little. It is an economic fact that the Big-Government crowd would like
to ignore.
It frustrates me to witness some of the largest tax increases this
Nation has ever seen to pass with only one or two votes, and it
frustrates me further to know that this body can vote to increase taxes
on all Americans when all of America does not support such action.
So today I am asking my colleagues to take a long, hard look at the
remarkable possibilities this legislation offers and offer their
support for this amendment. Members who oppose this legislation are
telling the American public that it does not bother this Congress to
saddle our Nation, our Nation's taxpayers with economic policies that
penalize rather than reward. Our action today will show a great deal
about the direction of this Congress and this country and, most
importantly, about the future of our children.
I want to leave behind a legacy of a strong economy, a strong future
for our children, and not one burdened heavily with taxes, stifling
growth, limiting opportunity. By requiring a supermajority to raise
taxes, we will prevent further knee-jerk reactions by big government
supporters who care more about the outcome of arcane Federal programs
than the hard work of everyday people that I and this amendment
support.
So ask my fellow Members to support the legislation today.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) just stated that
all of America does not support tax increases, and that is clearly
true.
[[Page H2142]]
Last year, the Republicans in the House produced a massive tax cut
bill. They passed it. They went home for the August break, came back,
and that was the last we heard about of it because all of the American
public did not support the direction of that tax cut bill because they
felt that reducing the Federal debt was more important. Saving Social
Security, and modernizing Medicare was more important.
I should also point out to the gentleman from Kansas that all of his
district did not support his coming here. Who did? A majority did. So
if a majority is good enough to get him here to Congress, if a majority
is good enough to have this Congress declare war, I would think tax
policy in this country should be made by that same majority.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I really had about made up my mind not to come over and
even debate this amendment today. It is quite obvious that this is not
a serious effort to amend the Constitution. What it is, instead, is a
serious effort to make a political statement about taxation.
We have, every year now for the last 3 or 4 years, had this same
proposal on the floor. There are not even any pretenses this year,
because I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution
of the Committee on the Judiciary. This amendment did not even come
through the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the
Judiciary this year to be considered.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, what was the committee vote on the
Committee on the Judiciary to recommend this resolution to passage?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Well, beyond the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, the bill did not even go through the full Committee on
the Judiciary this year. It has in prior years. But if my colleagues
are seriously saying that they are serious legislators and Members of
Congress, and they take their job seriously, and they are going to
amend the most sacred and profound document of our country, the United
States Constitution, do they bring a proposed constitutional amendment
to the floor of the United States House of Representatives without even
going through the Subcommittee on the Constitution whose job it is to
deliberate and decide on the merits of constitutional amendments? Do
they circumvent the entire Committee on the Judiciary and go around
that committee and bring it to the floor? Or do they go through the
regular process?
So that in and of itself is an indication that this is a political
exercise designed to score political points and having nothing to do
with the merits of whether there should be a constitutional amendment.
Now, we have gone through this time after time after time. In the
past, I have tried to bring constructive amendments to the legislation.
It was not a constitutional amendment when it was done before. It was
legislation that one could try to amend and try to bring some rationale
to.
But this year, it is a whole new proposal. It is a constitutional
proposal. But it went around all of the processes. It is hard for any
of us to take this seriously other than we must be getting close to
April 15, tax day in this country, and the Republicans must be very
interested in making political points about the level of taxation in
this country, which is fine. I mean, they can make those political
points. Nobody likes taxes. But we have to have some priorities in this
country.
If my colleagues are going to be serious about a constitutional
amendment that raises taxes, what about a constitutional amendment that
deals with cutting taxes? Why should there be a different standard when
we are talking about doing away with loopholes in a Tax Code then we
would if we were raising taxes.
But this constitutional amendment would not give us any authority to
have a supermajority. So this is not serious. It undermines the basic
principle that our country is founded on, which is one person, one
vote. It undermines my representational authority for the\1/435\th of
the people of this country that I represent, because, all of a sudden,
to get something done, we would require a two-thirds majority vote
rather than a simple majority.
If this were being taken seriously, it would have gone through the
regular process. So I do not even know why I came to debate this. We
are not engaging in any serious congressional activity. It is obvious
from that, from the number of people on the floor. So I will yield back
the balance of my time so that my colleagues on the Republican side can
go ahead and make their political point.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a friend of the taxpayer, a gentleman who is a
staunch supporter, a good conservative, chairman of the CATs,
Conservative Action Team here.
(Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax
limitation amendment. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for bringing this amendment forward. I want to commend the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), his cosponsor. I want to commend the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who has led this fight year in and
year out.
1993 was not that long ago. Indeed, it seems to me like 1993 was just
the snap of a fingers or a blink of an eye ago. It was just a few short
years ago that we were standing here in 1993. Yet, why is that year
significant to this debate? Because if we were to return the tax burden
on the average American family to the level of that tax burden just 7
years ago, in 1993, as a percentage of our economy, every American
family would get a tax break, would get tax relief of $2,500 a year.
That is how much taxes have gone up as a proportion of our economy in
just 7 short years, $2,500 for the average family across America of
four people.
Now, what does $2,500 mean? It means an extra $200 a month in their
budget. The reality is, in this city, in this Congress, government has
grown year in and year out, in good times and in bad times, the last 40
years straight. I believe the American people deserve a break.
Let me talk to that point. What would $2,500 a year for the average
family of four or $200 a month for the average family of four mean?
Well, in 1996, we were engaged in a debate about tax relief on the
floor of this House.
Many of my colleagues said, well, the American people do not really
want tax relief. So I went home, and I said to my scheduler, I want to
spend an hour in front of a grocery store or drug store on one side of
my district talking to people, and I want to spend an hour in front of
a grocery store or drug store on the other side of my district talking
to people.
I went first to the east side of my district. The east side of my
district is middle- to upper middle-income Americans. I stood there on
the corner, and I talked to them about this issue. The first problem I
had was to convince them that I really was the Congressman in that
area.
But once I got beyond that, their second concern was, look,
politicians will never cut taxes. You do not believe in cutting taxes.
You will never give this. This is just political talk.
When I explained to them, no, we were really serious about this. On
the east side of my district, they said, Congressman, sure we could use
some tax relief. It is important to us. Almost 70 percent of them said
to me, Absolutely. Give me some tax relief.
But the important part of this discussion was what occurred on the
west side of my district. On the west side of my district, we are
talking middle- to lower middle-income and below. I stood in front of a
drug store on the west side of my District, and voter after voter after
voter after voter, citizen after citizen that I got to engage in this
discussion, once I get beyond the, no, you will never really give us
any tax relief, and got into the substance, they said, Congressman, if
you could give us any break at all, it would make a huge difference in
our lives.
The people who are struggling to get by, those Americans who can
barely pay their bills, who wake up each morning and struggle to get
their kids
[[Page H2143]]
fed and get them off to school, and the husband goes off to work and
the wife also has to go back off to work, and they go through their
day, and they come home, and they get their kids, and they struggle to
get them to Little League or piano practice and get the homework done
and get them back in bed, those Americans just barely getting by said
to me, Congressman, if you could just give me a little bit of a break.
What have we done to those Americans in the last 7 years? We have
added $2,500 to their tax burden. We have increased their tax burden on
those poor, working, struggling-to-get-by families by $200 a month.
Now, what does this amendment say? Does this amendment say, let us
give them a break and give them that $200 back, let us work, give them
a chance? It simply says let us make it a little harder to raise taxes
again. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) would have
gone to that same town and asked the people on the west side of town
what the major priorities in Congress are, they would have probably
told him, Mr. Congressman, we need more money for defense. We have to
increase the readiness of our armed services. And, by the way, Mr.
Congressman, the bridge on Main Street is in need of repair. And we
sure could use that 90 percent Federal funding for that new bridge.
Then as my colleague went to the east side of town and talked to the
poor individuals, they would have probably said, Yes, we could use some
relief. But, Mr. Congressman, my son or my daughter wants to go to
college, and, boy, if you could increase the Pell Grants for that child
of mine, that would sure be neat. The earned-income tax credit, that
could use a look-see again by the Congress. Yes, that will cost some
money.
{time} 1245
And the point I am trying to make, my colleagues, is that all these
needs and desires of the American public cost money.
My Republican colleagues seem to think that defense money comes from
heaven and not from taxpayers and any other social program, like
Medicare and drug benefits and other things that we fight for on this
floor, that comes from the taxpayer. And the truth of the matter is
that all those expenditures are funded by the taxpayers.
So, sure, we would all like to decrease taxes; but when we ask our
constituents what program will they forego, we will find out that
budget cutting is not the easiest in the world. We are going to put in
big money for the National Institutes of Health, which we should do, to
study children's diabetes and cancer and all sorts of other diseases.
But those programs are funded off these nasty things we are talking
about called taxes.
There is an old saying, ``Don't cut you, don't cut me, cut the man
behind the tree.'' We cannot find the man behind the tree nor the tree.
So my colleagues should not come before the body and say, boy, we need
two-thirds to have any tax increase. If that is so, then we should have
two-thirds to have any spending increases too for their favorite
programs and my favorite programs. That would be fair. But that is not
what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Neal).
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, Mr. Speaker.
We went through this exercise on the balanced budget amendment for
many years. The other side failed to understand the difference between
promising to balance the budget and actually doing it. As it turned
out, all they had to do to balance the budget was to support President
Bush in 1990 and President Clinton in 1993. For the most part, they did
not; but we balanced the budget over their objections.
The other side continues to misplace the distinction between promise
and reality. They argue they need a constitutional amendment not to
raise taxes, when all they simply need to do is not to raise taxes. In
fact, the House voted yesterday 420 to 1 not to raise taxes. But I
guess for the authors of this amendment that vote was too close.
This is tax frolic week, or tax press release week. To give another
example of the deep thought that has gone into this week, tomorrow we
take up a bill to repeal the Federal income tax with a promise to
replace it in the future. We have to promise at that point, not knowing
where we are going, that we are going to come up with a substitute,
perhaps a flat tax to benefit the wealthy, or a 60 percent retail sales
tax. But if both this bill and tomorrow's bill were to pass, it would
require a two-thirds vote of Congress to replace the repealed Federal
income tax.
Twenty years ago, I was standing in a classroom telling students of
my reverence for the Constitution. What would I say to them about the
shenanigans occurring here today? I would not even want to face them.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote in the House in
only three instances: overriding a President's veto, submission of a
constitutional amendment to the States, and expelling a Member from
this House. Those are matters that are much more weighty than the one
that faces us today.
Mr. Speaker, the Founding Fathers examined majority rule and what it
meant. They rejected the notion that one-third of the Members of this
institution should be in a position to determine the fate of
legislation. They, led by Mr. Madison, reviewed the question of what
constituted a majority in a legislative body. They concluded, based
upon the bad experience of the Nation under the Articles of the
Confederation, where nine of 13 States were positioned to raise
eventual revenue, that it was simply a bad idea.
Upholding the current Constitution is truly, truly the conservative
position in this debate. Holding the country hostage to the tyranny of
the minority of one-third is, indeed, the radical position. But,
apparently, Mr. Speaker, it makes better sense for a good press release
than to stand with the Constitution.
So let us proceed. Crank out the press releases, go home for a 2-week
break, and then, when we come back, let us do something real and
substantive for a change.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair advise each side how much
time is remaining on this issue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) has 3 minutes remaining; the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hall), and it would not be right if I did not thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton), who has really been the crusader on this issue for
a long, long time, and one I think that we ought to get straight and
pass.
Since the beginning of the year, this Republican majority has
succeeded in passing several tax cuts for the American people. We
believe that couples should no longer be punished by the Tax Code
because they are simply married.
We enacted legislation that prevents senior citizens from being taxed
excessively, and particularly when they continue to be positive
contributors to society. And we had bipartisan support for that.
We passed tax reduction legislation to help ensure that small
businesses and family farms remain in the family.
But while we shall continue to offer tax cuts every year, today we
have a historic opportunity to take a great leap forward by limiting
tax increases forever. Passage of this act would require two-thirds of
Congress to raise taxes. It is too easy, too easy, for this government
to pass unnecessary tax increases on the hardworking people of this
country. I repeat that: it is too easy.
If President Clinton, for example, had got his way this year in his
budget, he would have increased taxes by $237 billion over the next 10
years. Why, Mr. Speaker, is the President trying to
[[Page H2144]]
raise taxes in an era of budget surpluses? Why? Instead of raising
taxes, should we not find ways to give the surplus, part of it at
least, back to the people who have overpaid?
With a surplus on hand, and CBO projecting future surpluses, there is
no need for any new tax increases. Congress should be focusing on
forcing Federal bureaucrats to cut waste, fraud and abuse and spend
their budgets wisely. For too long the Federal Government has raised
taxes on a whim. This bill is the best way to ensure that taxes are
increased only when it is absolutely necessary.
Currently, 14 States, as has been previously mentioned, have tax
limitation provisions, and it has been demonstrated that States with
limitation provisions have seen a reduction in the growth of spending.
For a needed tax increase, a two-thirds majority would not be that
difficult to obtain. We simply want to give the public the security
that the Federal Government will not raise unnecessary and hasty tax
increases.
I think it is about time that we restore the public's faith in
government. Instead of only saying we are against new taxes, let us
actually show them. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and
protect Americans from the Washington big spenders.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton), representing the Sixth District of Texas, who
brought this effort to the floor of the House of Representatives, and
who is one of the most articulate spokesmen for the Tax Limitation
Amendment.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
tax limitation constitutional amendment. I want to commend the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), representing the Fifth District of
Texas, for his excellent leadership this year.
I have been able to listen to some of the debate this year. Certainly
I have led the debate in prior years for the proponents of it. I have a
few simple things to say in the 2\1/2\ minutes that I have remaining.
First of all, my constituents want tax limitation. I have never
attended a town meeting, a public forum of any sort where this issue
came up that less than 90 percent of the people there did not say they
wanted this in the strongest possible terms.
I just did my taxes. I sent a check in to the Internal Revenue
Service early this week. I know for a fact that our taxes are too high.
In spite of the robust economy that we have, taxation of the American
people is at an all-time high. If we include State and local taxes,
there are people in our country today that are in a tax bracket
approaching 60 percent of their income. At the Federal level, taxation
is well over 20 percent. And that is just on income taxes and does not
include Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes.
The Tax Limitation Amendment is fairly straightforward. It would take
a two-thirds vote to pass a tax increase. Two-thirds is a larger
fraction than one-half. It does not say we cannot have tax increases,
it does not say tax increases will never be necessary; but it says
there should be a national consensus of a supermajority that a tax
increase is definitely needed. We should look at spending decreases; we
should look at efficiency before we look at increasing taxes.
I would remind Members in this body that the original Constitution
had 100 percent, a 100 percent prohibition against income tax
increases, because income taxes were unconstitutional until early in
this century when the 19th amendment made it constitutional to pass an
income tax. Since that time, the marginal tax rate on the American
public has gone from 1 percent to 38 percent. That is a 3,800 percent
increase.
So to put it simply, a tax limitation works. There is no better time
to pass a constitutional amendment making it harder to raise taxes than
right now when we are in a budget surplus. The opponents of the
amendment do not say that it would not work. They are opposed to it
precisely for the reason that it would work.
I hope we can get a two-thirds vote necessary to pass this to the
Senate today. If for some reason we are not successful, this amendment
will come back. The more the American people know about it, the more it
becomes a part of the lexicon of the political process, and the greater
the likelihood that we will pass this.
Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Shadegg), and others for their strong leadership on this. I will vote
for it and encourage every Member of this body to vote for it.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka)
has 3 minutes.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I think we have had what I would call a
spirited debate today, but one has to wonder why this proposal comes up
every April. Congress comes in session in January. We stay around until
October. Why do we not have a vote on this particular issue in July or
February? For the last 5 years it has always come up in April.
But when in April? Well, they try to schedule it April 15. Well, my
gosh, why April 15? Well, that is the day that we have to file our
taxes, the last day we have to file our taxes. Why did they do it this
date this year? They got snookered. April 15 is on a Saturday, and they
cannot keep Members of Congress here on a Saturday.
So this is more for show, my friends, than for goal, as evidenced by
the vote we are going to have very shortly, which will provide that
this constitutional amendment will not pass, nor should it. Nor should
it. If, in fact, a majority in Congress can send our young men and
women to war; if a majority in Congress can cut benefits for education,
Social Security, Medicare; if a majority can do all these things, then
why not also deal with tax policy in the same manner?
{time} 1300
My colleagues on the other side know that is correct. And if this
were a secret ballot, this thing would go down to the person, it would
fail 435-0. But that is not the case. It is April 15. We have to make a
statement about taxes.
And tomorrow we have a better one for my colleagues. Tomorrow we are
going to repeal the entire Tax Code. We are going to repeal the Tax
Code tomorrow. And what are we going to replace it with? I do not know.
We do not have a plan for that yet. That is how phoney this business
is.
We had a hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means on a bill
sponsored by one of their Members and one on our side. It provided for
a national sales tax. The thing got worse as we questioned the
witnesses. It started out with a 30-percent sales tax on every good and
service, including clothes, prescription drugs. And by the time we got
done talking to the Joint Committee on Taxation, to be revenue neutral,
that national sales tax would be 60 percent.
So we are going to trust them with tax policy around here to tax my
constituents 60 percent on their drug costs, when now they are going to
Canada to get a break?
This constitutional amendment, Mr. Speaker, is not necessary, and I
urge my colleagues to not support it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I pass to the remaining and closing speaker that
we have, I would like to thank three people: Marty McGuinness from my
staff; Steve Waguespack, who is from the staff of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton); and Elizabeth Kowal from the staff of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall).
Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from the
Fourth District of Texas (Mr. Hall), a gentleman who is a close friend
of mine and the cosponsor and co-lead of this joint resolution.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do think it has been a spirited
debate. I have not heard all of it. If I repeat some of the things of
those who propose this, forgive me for it. But I would like to answer
some of the questions that have been asked.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) made a very good speech
and asked why are we having it at this particular time. Well, that
answer is pretty simple. We asked for it at this time
[[Page H2145]]
because this is the time when most of the people of the United States
are thinking about how high their taxes are. I think it is good to try
to get their attention.
I believe, though, that we may be starting at the wrong level, we may
be starting up here, when we really ought to be starting in our
precincts and in our counties in our States at home. If we only close
the gap today, or if we come close to closing the gap, or whatever
votes we get today, we are going to count them for next year; and we
are going to be in there trying to get it to emanate from the
grassroots.
Because I think if we get the grass-roots people and ask them the
question, do they think it ought to be a little bit tougher to vote
taxes on hardworking Americans, I think about all of them would say,
absolutely yes.
It has also been suggested that this was politics. Everything we do
up here has some politics to it. I would always say to my colleagues
that it is not bad politics to be telling hardworking Americans that we
are going to make it a little tougher to tax them. I think that is good
politics. If it is politics, it is doggone good politics where I come
from.
I cannot go anywhere in my district and talk to anybody there that
does not complain about the taxes. Now, ask them, go home,
conservative, Democrat, liberal, whatever, ask them, would they like
for it to be a little more difficult for the United States Congress to
tax them and take money out of their left hip pocket? I guarantee my
colleagues that nine out of nine and probably a hundred out of a
hundred are going to tell us, absolutely yes.
So I am here to express my support for the tax limitation agreement.
We would not have had the sad 1986 Tax Reform Act if it had taken two-
thirds, a reform act that set this country back to where we are just
now getting over it. A lot of things would not have happened if it
would have taken two-thirds.
There is a lot of difference in asking two-thirds vote to tax people
and asking two-thirds vote to support various programs. I agree with
the gentleman on the fact that it should only take a majority on
supporting some of these programs. But when we go to taxing the
American people, a direct tax from us to them, from our mouth to their
left hip pocket, I think it ought to take two-thirds of us. I believe
most of the people in this country, all of the good-thinking people in
this country, would say, yes, make it a little tougher up there in
Washington, D.C., for them to take our money away from us.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the H.J. Res.
94 and commend my colleagues from Texas for advancing this important
legislation. Requiring a two-thirds supermajority for tax increases is
one of the most critical hurdles we can erect to check future growth in
government.
This supermajority requirement for tax increases is a tested model
that has proven effective. Fourteen states now have tax limitation
amendments in place and have shown great progress in restraining taxes
and spending. It is no accident that those states are among the most
impressive economic growth states in the nation.
Alternatively, as a resident of upstate New York where we suffer one
of the highest tax burdens in the nation, I have seen firsthand how big
government and escalating tax rates stifle economic growth. For many
decades, Democratic leadership in New York enacted tax increase after
tax increase and government expanded practically unchecked.
Upstate New York is not sharing in the nation's economic prosperity
and is in fact seeing its population leave for opportunities in other
regions of the country. This is painful for me as a father of three who
would like to see opportunities for my children to spend their lives in
upstate New York. If upstate New York were a state by itself, it would
rank near the bottom in terms of economic growth. I believe it is the
tax climate that has driven job growth away from our region.
Therefore, this amendment before us today is extremely important
effort to show that government can check itself. Mr. Speaker, this is
important legislation. I thank my friend, Mr. Sessions, for his hard
work on this issue and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
4163, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. This legislation brings much-needed
simplification to our tax code and ensures that a taxpayer's privacy
will be protected.
Taxpayers should be assured that the information they provide to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will be kept secure and confidential.
Information on earnings, property and other income should be kept
private, and this bill ensures that it will be. The Taxpayer Bill of
Rights requires IRS supervisors, not rank-and-file workers, to
determine if there are sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation
into an individual's tax return.
The bill also requires states to conduct annual on-site
investigations of contractors who receive federal tax information and
process it for state agencies to ensure that this information is being
safeguarded. Further, this legislation requires the IRS to notify
taxpayers in all instances in which the IRS has unlawfully obtained a
taxpayer's return or other information.
The legislation contains other important consumer protections,
including a provision that tightens the requirements for banks to get
access to a taxpayer's records. And, it requires that all third parties
keep this information confidential.
H.R. 4163 helps taxpayers who are self-employed by simplifying the
formula for estimated taxes. By allowing taxpayers to use one interest
rate in calculating estimated tax, much time and effort will be saved.
In addition, the bill's increase, from $1,000 to $2,000, in the
threshold over which penalties must be paid for failure to pay
estimated tax will help thousands of self-employed persons each year
who miscalculate their taxes.
I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative. As tax day
approaches, this is the least we can do to reduce the regulatory burden
the IRS imposes on the American taxpayer.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I fully support H.J. Res. 94, which calls
for an amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting passage
of tax increases without a two-thirds majority in each house of
Congress, except in emergency cases such as a military conflict. I am a
cosponsor of this legislation, I have voted for similar legislation in
the past, and I remain committed to passing the strongest tax
limitation amendment possible.
Opponents claim, and will continue to claim, that constitutional
amendments on taxing and spending make it harder to operate government
as we know it. That is exactly the point--fiscal reality proves to us
that we need an instrument, a tool, to control government spending and
limit raising taxes.
The Federal Government has run deficits for 56 of the last 66 years
leading to a $5.4 trillion national debt. This is not a short-termed
trend. It points to a fundamental flaw in the political system that
makes a constitutional solution both necessary and appropriate. We need
to pass H.J. Res. 94 to renew our commitment to fiscal discipline.
Otherwise, irresponsible spending and higher federal taxes will
continue to own us, cripple our economy and mortgage our children's
future. Congress needs the legal and moral authority of a
Constitutional amendment making it more difficult to raise taxes.
This is not a radical idea as some have suggested. In fact, 14 states
have enacted tax limitation measures. Since 1980, the state I
represent, Delaware, has required a three-fifths vote to raise any tax.
As a result, balanced budgets are the rule, not the exception, in
Delaware.
Yesterday, the House rejected the $116 billion in new taxes and fees
proposed in President Clinton's FY2001 budget by a vote of 420 to 1. I
believe that vote represents an endorsement of the idea that higher
taxes are not needed when the Federal Government is operating a budget
surplus. Today, we need to go the next step and make it more difficult
to raise taxes anytime other than during a military emergency. I urge
those same 420 members to support this resolution today.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in principled opposition
to House Joint Resolution 94, the so-called tax limitation amendment.
Certainly it would be more politically expedient to simply go along and
vote in support of a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds
approval by Congress for any tax increases. However, as a matter of
principle and conscience, this Member cannot do that.
As this Member stated when a similar amendment was considered by the
House in the past, there is a great burden of proof to deviate from the
basic principle of our democracy--the principle of majority rule.
Unfortunately, this Member does not believe the proposed amendment to
the U.S. Constitution is consistent or complementary to this important
principle.
There should be no question of this Member's continued and
enthusiastic support for a balanced budget and a constitutional
amendment requiring such a balanced budget. In the judgment of this
Member, tax increases should not be employed to achieve a balanced
budget; balanced budgets should be achieved by economic growth and, as
appropriate, tax cuts. This is why this Member in the past has
supported the inclusion of a super majority requirement for tax
increases in the rules of the House. However, to go beyond that and
amend the Constitution is, in this Member's
[[Page H2146]]
opinion, inappropriate and, therefore, the reason why this Member will
vote against House Joint Resolution 94.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the House has
considered proposals like this several times in recent years. So I can
see why the debate abut it sounds so rehearsed. I get the impression
that many Members have heard all the arguments before, and I suspect
that the debate will not change many minds about the proposal.
But as a new Member I must say this resolution strikes me as one of
the oddest pieces of legislation that I've encountered yet--and I think
it's one of the worst.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's clear that the language of the proposal is
an invitation to litigation--in other words, to getting the courts
involved even further in the law-making process. To say that Congress
can define when a constitutional requirement would apply, provided that
the Congressional decision is ``reasonable,'' is to ask for lawsuits
challenging whatever definition might be adopted. Aren't there enough
lawsuits already over the tax laws? Do we need to invite more?
But more important than the technical aspects of this proposal, I
think it is bad because it moves away from the basic principle of
democracy--majority rule.
Under this proposal, there would be another category of bills that
would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate.
That's bad enough as it applies here in the House, but consider what
that means in the Senate. There, if any 34 Senators are opposed to
something that take a two-thirds vote, it cannot be passed. And, of
course, each state has the same representation regardless of
population.
Consider what that means if the Senators in opposition are those from
the 17 States with the fewest residents.
We don't yet have this year's census numbers, of course, but the most
recent estimates that I have seen show that the total population of the
17 least-populous states is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million
people. That's a respectable number, but remember that the population
of the country is 270 million or more.
So, what this resolution would do would be to give Senators
representing about 7 percent of the American people more power to block
something even if it has sweeping support in the rest of the country.
Right now, that kind of supermajority is needed under the
constitution to ratify treaties, propose Constitutional amendments, and
to do a few other things.
But this resolution does not deal with things of that kind. It deals
only with certain tax bills--bills that under the constitution have to
originate here, in the House. Those are the bills that would be covered
by this increase in the power of Senators who could represent a small
minority of the American people.
Why would we want to do that? Are the proponents of this
constitutional amendment so afraid of majority rule on the subject of
``internal revenue''? Why else would they be so eager to reduce the
stature of this body, the House of Representatives, as compared with
our colleagues in the Senate.
Remember, that's what this is all about--``internal revenue,''
however that term might be defined by Congress or by the courts. When
Congress debates taxes, it is deciding what funds are to be raised
under Congress's Constitutional authority to ``pay the debts and
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United
States.'' Those are serious and important decisions, to be sure, but
what is wrong with continuing to have them made under the principle of
majority rule--meaning by the members of Congress who represent the
majority of the American people?
So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this proposed change in the
Constitution. Our country has gotten along well without it for two
centuries. It is not needed. It would not solve any problem--in fact,
it probably would create new ones--and it would weaken the basic
principle of democratic government, majority rule. It should not be
approved.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 471, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
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. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 192, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 119]
YEAS--234
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--192
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
[[Page H2147]]
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--8
Cook
Cummings
DeGette
Dixon
Gephardt
Houghton
Kaptur
Watkins
{time} 1326
Mr. OLVER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MANZULLO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the joint
resolution was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 119, I was on the floor and
pressed the ``yea'' button, but I was not recorded.
I would like to be recorded as a ``yea.''
____________________