[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.
____________________