[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1563-H1567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 41, TAX LIMITATION 
                        CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 118 ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 118

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 41) 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 in the nature of a substitute 
     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 (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and distinguished member of 
the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 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.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 118 is a structured rule providing 
for the consideration of H.J. Res. 41, proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitation.
  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 
debated 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.
  Madam Speaker, another April 15 tax day has come and gone, leaving 
most Americans frustrated by the size and complexity of our tax system. 
I, too, am one of those who is confused and dazed and frustrated by 
this complexity of the system.
  The humor columnist Dave Barry described this season in these words: 
``It is income tax time again, Americans; time to gather up those 
receipts, get those tax forms, sharpen up that pencil, and stab 
yourself in the aorta.''
  Today, the average American pays more in taxes than he or she does in 
food, clothing, shelter, or transportation combined. For too long the 
tax burden imposed by the government has been going up, not down.
  The tax limitation amendment starts from this very simple premise: It 
should be harder, not easier, for the government to raise taxes. 
Raising taxes should be an absolute last resort, not an easy, quick fix 
for excessive government spending.
  Opponents may cynically dismiss this important legislation by saying 
that we have debated the tax limitation amendment before. Madam 
Speaker, we have indeed been here before; and we will hopefully 
continue to debate this issue on the House floor until we see its 
passage.
  I have observed with great interest the spirited debate surrounding 
the tax cut that now is taking place in the Halls of Congress. Over the 
last few months, debate about tax cuts have evolved from whether we 
should have a tax cut, to how much of a tax cut the American people 
should be given.
  No longer should we argue about whether or not reducing the tax 
burden is good for individuals as well as America's economy, because it 
is good. Instead, discussion is focused on the extent of a tax cut.
  We have seen the people across this Nation overwhelmingly support tax 
reduction. I am pleased that the consensus is finally being attained 
within this Congress to reflect the sentiment of the American people. 
In the same way a balanced budget took place years before the consensus 
was achieved, so we are fighting that battle today.
  I recall when I was running for Congress in 1994, people said we 
would never have a balanced budget; and indeed in 1993, I recall a 
Senator in the other body once 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. Thank goodness 2002 is a year away, but, Madam Speaker, we 
have now balanced the budget for 6 years.
  The annual floor consideration of the tax limitation amendment gives 
us the

[[Page H1564]]

opportunity to take a stand on the side of the taxpayer. By enacting 
the tax limitation amendment we protect the taxpayer and pledge that we 
as a Congress will focus inward on cutting waste, fraud and abuse, 
instead of immediately raiding the pockets of the American taxpayer.
  Passage of this rule today will allow the House to begin debate on 
one of the most serious matters to be considered by the Congress, 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 an agreement on 
potential problems our Nation faced. Our Constitution was drafted to 
address those problems. In many instances they wrote specific language 
protecting the people from what at times could be oppressive, 
intrusive, or an 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.
  Our founding fathers were so insightful and ingenious in their 
preparation of our Constitution that they provided within our system of 
checks and balances a Constitution which would clearly enumerate 
occasions where a supermajority would be appropriate as the 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 and to convict and impeach a Federal 
official; but a two-thirds vote of 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 support this constitutional provision.
  There has long been a bias towards raising taxes under our current 
system. The Federal budget is currently in balance in part due to the 
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 and take the easy way out by 
raising taxes.
  Making it more difficult to raise taxes balances the options 
available to Congress as it 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 could be created to eliminate waste and create 
efficiency, rather than simply turning to more deficit spending or 
increased 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.
  Medieval serfs gave 30 percent of their output to the lord of the 
manor. Egyptian peasants gave 20 percent of their toils in the fields 
to the Pharaoh. God required 10 percent from the people of Israel. Yet 
in America, Federal, State and local taxes eat up 40 percent of the 
average family income. Increasing further the burden on the taxpayer, 
sometimes the taxes are passed retroactively, sometimes they are passed 
from generation to generation, and sometimes they are forced upon us 
even after death, all from the Federal Government.
  So, today I stand before you with a bipartisan coalition to put forth 
a question of liberty. Will we make it harder for Congress to raise 
taxes on its own citizens? Will we require a two-thirds vote of both 
houses of Congress to pass a tax increase on to the American families 
and our children? Will we pass this amendment to the Constitution and 
require a supermajority, not just a simple majority, to raise taxes?

                              {time}  1030

  That is the question that we face today.
  This amendment will apply to all tax increases from the Federal 
Government, not just income tax hikes. The legislation recognizes that 
there may be times of extenuating circumstances, such as during a time 
of war or a national emergency, when taxes need to be raised. The tax 
limitation amendment would allow Congress to raise taxes in those 
circumstances. But, in the meantime, it would prevent the intrusive and 
penalizing tax increases that have been enacted with recklessness to 
fund unlimited government expansion over the last few decades.
  Madam Speaker, it is time the Federal Government joined the States 
and listened 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, which have occurred in 1982, 1987, 
1990, and 1993, all would have failed. These tax increases totaled $666 
billion. The bottom line of this debate is that we must make it more 
difficult to raise taxes.
  Those that support this amendment will do so because they believe 
that the American people deserve a right to also have it more difficult 
to take money from them. Those that oppose it will do so because they 
want to make it easier to raise taxes on the American people.
  Madam Speaker, this is a defining issue. Make no mistake about it. 
The Members who support this amendment are here to support hard-working 
taxpayers of America. Those Members who oppose it are here to defend 
the tax collectors of America. It is really that simple.
  We will hear rhetoric from opponents of this legislation criticizing 
jurisdiction procedures and a slew of other glossary terms, but nothing 
can hide the reality that America supports a two-thirds tax limitation 
constitutional amendment.
  Madam Speaker, like many Members of this body, I not only oppose 
raising taxes, I support making our Tax Code fairer, simpler, and 
flatter. Albert Einstein was once quoted as saying that the hardest 
thing to understand in the world is the income tax. The tax limitation 
amendment allows for tax reform, provided 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 
still pass with a simple majority. The tax limitation amendment allows 
for a simple majority to eliminate tax loopholes. The de minimis 
exemptions would allow nearly all loopholes to be closed without the 
supermajority requirement.
  Madam Speaker, we may hear from opponents that the government will be 
unable to function if a supermajority vote is required. However, I 
would encourage all Members to look at our States. Eleven States 
require a supermajority to raise taxes. The millions of Americans 
living in these States have shown that greater economic growth and 
better job creation by the tax limitation can be brought to all 
Americans, just the same as they have in those States. The amendment 
protects the American people. It makes it harder for the Federal 
Government to raise taxes on its own 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 our Founding Fathers intended for 
America to enjoy. The debate is about liberty. This debate is about 
requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes on America.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would remind my colleagues that this is 
a fair rule that was adopted by the Committee on Rules yesterday. It is 
a standard rule under which the proposal has been considered in years 
past, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, almost every year since my Republican colleagues took 
control of this body, Democrats on the Committee on Rules have had to 
come to the floor to speak against consideration of this proposal to 
amend the Constitution of the United States. Our feelings about the 
misguided intentions of this proposal have not changed, Madam Speaker. 
It appears that the Republicans in this body fear the will of the 
majority, and, therefore, they have to impose a supermajority, because 
they fear a simple majority.
  Accordingly, I rise to oppose this rule. I also rise to oppose this 
joint resolution which seeks to amend the Constitution to require a 
two-thirds vote of Congress in order to pass a revenue increase.

[[Page H1565]]

  Madam Speaker, this House has considered and defeated this ill-
conceived measure five times in the past 6 years. The idea that the 
Constitution should be changed to accommodate this blatantly political 
scheme to defund the Federal Government was not only a bad idea in the 
104th Congress, it was also a bad idea in the 105th and the 106th 
Congress when this body failed to pass this very same constitutional 
amendment another four times. The House should reject it again today, 
because this proposal is still a very bad idea.
  Madam Speaker, over the past few months, this body has merrily gone 
about passing tax reductions that will, in all likelihood, squeeze the 
Federal Treasury dry. By doing so, those tax cuts will take away the 
ability of the Federal Government to live up to its basic 
responsibilities. If this resolution were to become a part of the 
Constitution, it would nail the coffin shut. While some on the other 
side of the aisle may cheer at that prospect, there are many in this 
body who recognize the importance of the government's ability to pay 
for such things like Social Security, Medicare, education, and our 
military defense.
  Madam Speaker, any Member who voted for those tax cuts should vote 
against this joint resolution. Every Member who has voted to drain the 
Federal Treasury dry should be required to stand up and take 
responsibility for his or her actions when the future of Social 
Security and Medicare are endangered, or when there is no money to make 
the educational reforms the President has promised to the country, or 
when there is no money for farm programs or improving our military or 
providing real and meaningful prescription drug coverage for seniors. 
This resolution should be rejected by every Member who takes seriously 
his or her responsibility as a representative of the people of his 
congressional district and as a Member of the United States House of 
Representatives.
  Madam Speaker, our Constitution has been amended only 27 times in the 
212 years since it was adopted. Amending our Constitution is very 
serious business and should be done only when absolutely necessary to 
promote the well-being of our country and its citizens. Over the past 6 
years, the Republican majority has used the Constitution as a political 
plaything and that is, quite frankly, a shameful record for Republicans 
to stand on. What we have before us today is no different.
  Our Nation's Founding Fathers carefully designed and drafted our 
Constitution, not to meet their own personal political agendas, but to 
ensure the foundation of our republic could endure and meet the needs 
of its citizens for centuries to come. The actions of the Republican 
majority in the past few months, combined with the proposal now before 
us, make a mockery of the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
  I find it ironic that my Republican colleagues continue to 
contemplate the imposition of a two-thirds supermajority requirement in 
order to pass revenue bills. If my colleagues will recall, at the 
beginning of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority changed 
the Rules of the House to impose a three-fifths majority requirement 
for any tax increase. Well, guess what? A funny thing happened on the 
way to idealogical purity. Whenever a bill containing a tax increase 
came along, the Republican majority conveniently used the Committee on 
Rules to waive that three-fifths requirement.

  The Republican majority waived this rule for the Contract with 
America, for the Medicare Preservation Act, the Balanced Budget 
Reconciliation Act, the Health Insurance Reform Act and, finally, the 
Welfare Reform conference report. In short, Madam Speaker, during the 
first Congress they were in the majority, Republicans waived their 
three-fifths requirement every single time it applied.
  In fact, the Republican majority found this rule change to be so 
unworkable and unenforceable that it had to be fixed in the 105th 
Congress rules package. If the Republican majority could not make that 
provision work in the House rules, how can they possibly make a tougher 
requirement work if it is embodied in the Constitution. The Committee 
on Rules will not be there to bail them out. I certainly hope my 
Republican friends understand that one cannot waive or rewrite a 
constitutional amendment if it is not ``convenient.''
  Furthermore, I wonder if Republicans need a lesson in basic civics. 
It is an easily understood principle that when one requires a 
supermajority vote for passage of a measure, control is effectively 
turned over to a small minority and that will be the case even when an 
idea is supported by the majority in Congress, and a majority of the 
American people. Some, Madam Speaker, might call that flirting with 
tyranny.
  James Madison in The Federalist Papers wisely argued against 
supermajority, stating ``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.''
  This proposed constitutional amendment will seriously undermine 
Congress' ability to pass major budgetary initiatives. It will allow a 
small minority in either the House or the Senate to stop widely-
supported, meaningful legislation containing any revenue measure. It 
would also lead to cuts and benefits in Social Security and Medicare, 
an increase in the retirement age, and will close the door on any 
possibility that a real and meaningful prescription drug benefit would 
be made available to seniors in this country. This proposal will 
sharply limit Congress' ability to close tax loopholes or enact tax 
reform measures. It is pure and simply a bad idea with no merit.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
reject this rule and this ill-served, ill-advised constitutional 
amendment. We do not need gimmicks, we need resolve. We do not need 
political grandstanding, we need the Congress to face up to its 
responsibilities as guardians of the people's trust. If the Republican 
majority really wants to dismantle the Federal Government, then let us 
do it honestly and aboveboard.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and this most ill-advised 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is great to be back in Washington after a 2-week break and find 
out that a lot of my colleagues view the inability to raise taxes 
easily as kind of like what a vampire would feel about light. They just 
do not like it. They do not like that threat of taking away the ability 
to go to the American people and take and take and take and take. We 
are trying to make it more difficult for that to happen. I am glad to 
see that we are back in Washington and able to show our differences.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 
118 and I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), as well as the chairman of the Committee on Rules and all 
the other members of the Committee on Rules, for their hard work on 
this fair rule.
  As the sponsor of H.J. Res. 41, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) has played a leadership role on issues such as tax fairness 
and simplification and deserves credit for his persistence and 
leadership in advancing the proposed constitutional amendment that is 
before the House today.
  Madam Speaker, this rule is similar to past rules providing for the 
consideration of proposed constitutional amendments. The rule provides 
for 2 hours of thorough debate and an opportunity for the minority to 
offer a substitute amendment. I believe this is a fair rule, which will 
provide ample time for debate and amendment, and I urge Members to 
support this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Cincinnati, Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is chairman of 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) for his leadership on this very important constitutional 
amendment.

[[Page H1566]]

  Madam Speaker, the amendment of money taken out of the pockets of 
Americans in taxes is simply too high, and it adds to the difficulties 
many families face in making ends meet. Congress must reduce the tax 
burden on every American right now, but at the very least, we must act 
to protect hard-working families from future excessive taxation, which 
has happened consistently over time. Congress has increased taxes, 
unfortunately, many times in this body. By making it more difficult to 
raise taxes, H.J. Res. 41 will do just that.
  Specifically, the tax limitation amendment would require any 
legislative measure changing the Internal Revenue laws to receive the 
support of two-thirds of the Members of each House voting and present, 
meaning that any tax increase would require a supermajority vote to 
become law. The amendment would not apply to legislative measures that 
are determined not to increase the Internal Revenue by more than a de 
minimis amount.
  This supermajority requirement could be waived when a declaration of 
war is in effect or a majority of Congress adopts a joint resolution, 
declaring that the United States is engaged in military conflict, which 
causes an imminent serious threat to national security.
  Additionally, in order to implement the amendment, Congress will 
ultimately need to adopt legislation defining terms and flushing out 
the necessary procedures. The tax limitation amendment will cover 
personal and corporate income taxes, estate and gift taxes, employment 
taxes, and excise taxes. The amendment would not apply to tariffs or 
user fees or voluntary payments, or bills that do not change the 
Internal Revenue laws, even if they have revenue implications.

                              {time}  1045

  Madam Speaker, 14 States currently have tax limitation provisions for 
tax increases. Out of those, 12 States require a supermajority for any 
tax increase.
  We need this amendment to help stem the tax-and-spend policies which 
have too often ruled Washington. Much of what goes on in this town 
involves the taking and spending of other people's money. Average 
Americans now have to spend most of their time working just to cover 
their tax burden; and, hopefully, have enough left over to maintain a 
reasonable standard of living for themselves and for their families. 
That is just inappropriate.
  Madam Speaker, in the 1950s, the Federal Government took only about 5 
percent of the average American family's money. That was after fighting 
World War II and the Korean War. Since then in peacetime with a 
generally strong economy, that figure has increased five-fold. Now 25 
percent of what the average family earns comes here to Washington, D.C.
  Today the Federal Government takes about a quarter of what we earn, 
and I am not sure anyone around here with a straight face could even 
suggest that government has gotten 500 percent better. Since 1992 
alone, the Federal Government has raised taxes at the gas pump, on 
working seniors receiving Social Security, and on mom-and-pop small 
businesses. Yet the average family's real after-tax income has not 
really increased over the years. At best, working families are just 
treading water, and the Government keeps trying to soak them in order 
to fund more and more, oftentimes very wasteful, programs which come 
out of Washington.
  The tax limitation amendment would require Congress to focus on 
options other than raising taxes to manage the Federal budget, help to 
impose fiscal discipline and to constrain the growth of government, 
something we definitely need in this town. That is why I think H.J. 
Res. 41 makes a worthy addition to the Nation's most sacred document.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support this proposed constitutional 
amendment, and would urge my colleagues to support the rule. I want to 
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for putting forward 
this constitutional amendment which is long overdue.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, part of the opportunity that we had to have this bill 
on the floor today was that we had to go through the Committee on 
Rules. The Committee on Rules is the body which deliberates on what is 
on the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I have to say that I strongly support this rule, but I 
would be less than forthright if I were to come here and say that I am 
an enthusiastic supporter of this measure. We have two gentlemen from 
Dallas, so I can say that I agree with the gentleman from Dallas on 
this one, and you can choose which one.
  It is very painful for me to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), but frankly much of what the 
gentleman has just said, I agree with. Not everything; but much of it.
  Madam Speaker, the reason I say that is, when it comes to the issue 
of reducing the tax burden on working families, I take a back seat to 
no one. I have had the privilege of serving 10 terms in the House of 
Representatives. I am now in my 11th term, and I have never voted for a 
tax increase since I have been here.
  One of the proudest votes that I cast was the first one in August 
1981 when I was proud to join with a number of Democrats who helped 
Ronald Reagan pass the Economic Recovery Tax Act, which brought about 
marginal rate reduction, something we are seeking today. We want to 
have a bipartisan compromise working with our friends in the other body 
to make sure that we reduce that tax burden because, as the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has pointed out, and as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has pointed out, and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) has pointed out, the tax burden is extraordinarily 
high. We all know that we have not had such a burden since 1934 during 
the Second World War, and we need to cut taxes.
  I happen to believe that reducing taxes to stimulate economic growth 
is very important. I want a capital gains tax reduction because we will 
increase the flow of revenues to the Treasury if we can deal with that 
lock-in effect.
  I want marginal rate reduction because I believe that will encourage 
savings, investment and productivity. I have said I have now completed 
2 decades here and have never voted for a tax increase, and will 
continue to vote for tax cuts, but that is not the issue that we are 
debating here. The issue to me is are we going to be so arrogant that 
we are going to say to the American people that we are going to protect 
you from your future leaders. If you are going to select someone to 
represent you in the House of Representatives, a body based on that 
Madisonian model that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) was 
referring to, was established as a majoritarian institution, we are 
going to say that we are no longer going to be a majoritarian 
institution, we are going to say that Members who serve in this 
institution cannot rule by majority, that is basically what this 
measure is saying.
  Madam Speaker, I do not want to be so arrogant. I do not want to be 
an elitist conservative standing here saying, you know, the people who 
have selected me, giving me the honor of serving here, maybe will not 
be so intelligent in the future to select somebody who wants to reduce 
the tax burden on working Americans and make sure that we do everything 
that we possibly can to make sure that we do not have any kind of tax 
increases, that they cannot select somebody who believes that is the 
right thing to do.
  I think it is the wrong thing to do. I believe that a majority of 
this institution believes that it is wrong to increase taxes, and I 
believe the majority of the institution believes that it is the right 
thing to do to cut the tax burden on working Americans. But I think it 
is the wrong thing for us to say that we have to put into place a 
supermajority.

[[Page H1567]]

  To me this is part of the minority mentality. I think that the idea 
of establishing supermajorities is something that, again, James Madison 
spent a lot of time anguishing over; and we do have supermajorities for 
a couple of things that are very important: overriding a Presidential 
veto, dealing with a constitutional amendment. A supermajority is 
required to do those. I believe that we should limit supermajorities to 
that.
  Madam Speaker, I support moving ahead with this debate. I will be 
voting in favor of the rule when we consider it in just a few minutes. 
But when it comes to a vote on this measure, I will continue to fight 
hard to reduce the tax burden on working Americans. But I will also 
continue to fight hard to support the U.S. Constitution as those very, 
very inspired framers envisaged it. I will, therefore, be voting 
against this measure when it comes to a vote.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for his fine 
statement. We are in agreement that the majority should rule in this 
country, not two-thirds.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose this constitutional amendment for the same 
reason that the chairman of the Committee on Rules will oppose it. We 
should never be fearful of the majority.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I think the words which have been spoken today are 
very true; and I, too, am not afraid of the majority. I am not afraid 
of what we do. I am not afraid of how we act. I am not afraid of the 
ideas that we present forward.
  But just as we began talking about a balanced budget years ago, and 
the need for a balanced budget and the need for us to create fairness 
in our Tax Code and the need for us to talk about returning power from 
Washington back to people, is all predicated on a balance, a desire of 
the people to have balance. So we will have this debate every year 
until we get it done. We will continue to provide a view and a vision 
that if America and Members of Congress who come up talk about a 
balance, that is we balance out, that we believe that people should be 
more powerful than government, that we believe that people who get up 
and go to work every day should have an equal right to keep their money 
against an intrusive Federal government, then that means that we will 
begin debating issues that decide how easy or how difficult it is to 
raise taxes.
  Part of this debate also means that we have Members who have been 
here for a long time and some for a short time. One of the long-serving 
Members, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), from the Fourth District 
of Texas, he came to Washington also with a vision and view that he 
respected the Constitution, but wants to make it more difficult based 
upon what he sees today.
  But the debate goes on and the ideas will always be presented. Today, 
as our next speaker we are going to have a gentleman who is one of the 
newest Members of Congress. He came from a State where he recognized 
and saw where a balance and an opportunity to make it more difficult to 
raise taxes was important. He has listened to the debate for years and 
has become a leader in this endeavor as a message to America that we 
must make it more difficult to raise taxes.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Culberson), who is the lead cosponsor of this bill.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Speaker, April 25, 2001, is a very important day 
demonstrating to every American taxpayer who is tired of paying higher 
taxes the immense importance and the tremendous achievements of the 
Republican Congress, the importance of having a Republican President in 
the White House.
  I can testify from personal experience having served 14 years in the 
Texas legislature that the Democrat majority in the legislature did not 
even permit this important piece of legislation to come to the floor of 
the Texas House. It is only because of the Republican majority in 
Congress that today we stand within 10 years of paying off the national 
debt, that today we have passed through the House and the Senate a 
significant tax cut that all Americans will see in their paychecks 
retroactively, whereas the previous President increased taxes 
retroactively. A Republican President and a Republican Congress will 
cut our taxes retroactively, which we will see in our paychecks through 
our withholding. And the Republican Congress has brought forward today 
for the American people to see firsthand what we as Republicans hold 
near and dear as a core principle that the Congress should make as an 
absolute last resort tax increases. Tax increases should only be done 
as a last resort when it is absolutely necessary and all other options 
are exhausted.
  Madam Speaker, that is the core principle at work behind this 
amendment, that a two-thirds supermajority would be required before the 
Congress could raise taxes. A two-thirds majority of the House, a two-
thirds majority of the Senate. To me personally, I think it is a point 
of great pride that our distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, who has throughout his career opposed tax increases, has labored 
long and hard to control Federal spending and worked hard to allow 
individual Americans to keep more of their money that they earn in 
their own pocketbooks, to invest and spend as they see fit, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) who respects and has such deep 
roots in the history of this country and understands the Federalist 
Papers and the works of James Madison. I share his admiration of James 
Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the founders. It is a terrific day for 
the country that we can debate this important amendment honestly, all 
built around the core Republican principle that we share that taxes 
should only be raised as a last resort, and we are debating simply the 
mechanism, or the procedure, by which we would make it more difficult 
or help ensure that this Congress and future Congresses only looks to 
tax increases as a last resort.

                              {time}  1100

  As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has pointed out, those 
States which have adopted two-thirds supermajority requirements have 
consistently seen an increase in economic growth, about 10 percent 
higher than those States that do not have tax limitation amendments. 
Job growth in those States that have the two-thirds supermajority 
requirement typically see job growth about 20 percent higher.
  Above all, it is important for every American listening to this 
debate today to remember that it is the Republican Congress that has 
presented this idea to us, consistent with our core Republican 
philosophy that the power to tax is the power to destroy and should 
only be exercised as a last resort. This is consistent with everything 
we do in this Congress.
  I am very proud to rise in support of the rule and of this amendment. 
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for bringing it to us 
today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) has 15 seconds remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has yielded back his time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As a result of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) yielding back his 
time, it is intuitively obvious to me that I am out of time.
  Madam Speaker, I ask for all Members to support this fair and open 
rule. This is a rule that is good for America and good for American 
taxpayers.
  Madam 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.

                          ____________________