[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1568-H1582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 118, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 41) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 118, the joint
resolution is considered read for amendment.
The text of House Joint Resolution 41 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 41
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. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will
control 60 minutes of debate on the joint resolution.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 41, the tax limitation
amendment, which was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) and ordered reported by the Committee on Judiciary on April
4. This important legislation would amend the Constitution by requiring
a two-thirds majority vote by Congress for any bill that increases the
internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount.
The effect of this amendment would not preclude Congress from
amending the internal revenue laws so long as the change in the law did
not increase revenue by more than a de minimis amount. For example, a
bill that both lowered and increased taxes, if it were revenue neutral
would not be subject to the two-thirds requirement, nor would it would
a bill intended to raise revenue by reducing taxes.
In addition, the two-thirds majority requirement would be waived when
a declaration of war is in effect or when both Houses of Congress pass
a resolution which becomes law stating that the United States is
engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious
threat to national security.
Mr. Speaker, 15 States have adopted similar tax limitation
amendments. According to statistics provided by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, these States have benefited from greater rates of increased
employment, greater economic growth, decreased government spending, and
decreased rates of tax growth.
Although similar amendments have been unsuccessfully considered by
the House over the past few years, the need for tax reform has never
been greater. According to the Congressional Budget Office, with the
exception of 1942, the overall amount of individual income tax revenues
is a higher percentage of our gross domestic product than any other
time in our history.
The bottom line is the taxes today are too high. Federal, State, and
local taxes consume about 40 percent of the income of the average
family. That is more than the average family spends on food, clothing,
and shelter combined.
As Congress debates meaningful tax relief for the American people, it
is also important to recognize that Congress's voracious appetite for
spending still endures. That is why I think it is more important than
ever for this Congress to reconsider and support a measure that will
make it more difficult for Congress to raise taxes in the future.
Inevitably, there will come a time when Congress wishes to spend more
but will not have budget surpluses to rely upon. There will be many who
will argue that, in order for Congress to spend more from here in
Washington, D.C., we will need to take more from the hard-working
citizens across our great Nation.
However, I believe this is the wrong approach, and there is another
way to meet our Nation's priorities. That is by taking our bill and
reducing wasteful spending, ferreting out fraud and eliminating
ineffective programs. Raising taxes should be a last-ditch option and
should occur only after careful consideration with broad consensus.
Mr. Speaker, a constitutional amendment is a big step; but I believe
our history of tax hikes illustrates that, in this case, it is
necessary and an important step that will bring needed discipline to
Congress and relief to America's people.
I urge the passage of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to the ladies and gentlemen of the House, I want to
begin by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for requesting that this
measure pass through the committee of jurisdiction since this is a
constitutional subject. In many years passed, that has not been the
case. So we begin in a very important way on that point.
Now, I have to presume that the subject of a constitutional matter is
being done seriously, that this is a serious discussion about amending
the Constitution of the United States. If it is, then I think it is
important, that for all of the Members that may not have the seniority
that comes from being here for many years, that they understand that
this is the sixth time that we have taken up this measure which has
been soundly rejected on each prior occasion, not by the Senate, but by
ourselves.
So every year, this exercise is one that is brought to the floor and
that we have to deal with it in good faith and using up the time of the
House of Representatives to determine whether we want to put a tax
limitation constitutional amendment in the Constitution.
Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules, has coined a phrase that this proposal may be
nothing more than elitism gone conservative; that this is a
conservative elitist idea; that the Republicans, as a party, know
better than the Founding Fathers and the people's will as reflected by
the majority of the Congress. They have a better idea.
We go through this every year. But not even within our body do we
find that there is a serious enough amount of support to move it to the
other body where we think we could predict what would happen there as
well.
So I oppose the amendment because it is bad for democratic procedure,
but it is also horrific for tax policy. By requiring a two-thirds
amendment, a majority to adopt certain legislation, we undercut the
majority rule and diminish the vote of every single Member of the
Congress.
Now, this matter was taken up when our Founders were together. The
framers wisely rejected a rule requiring a supermajority for basic
government functions. James Madison argued that, under a supermajority
requirement,
[[Page H1569]]
the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It
would no longer be the majority that would rule. The power would
instead have transferred to a minority.
It is on that basis that I apply the same logic now as James Madison
applied then in determining whether a supermajority would be
appropriate in the Constitution. The amendment is unsatisfactory
because it is an undemocratic one.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 41
and believe that this is actually a commonsense measure and one that
actually enforces some discipline on the Congress to reexamine
spending.
As we look at the budgets over recent history, Mr. Speaker, we see
that the spending has increased year to year to year by more than
inflation. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, it is increased by higher
than the average incomes of Pennsylvanians has increased and higher
than the incomes of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, it is only sensible for us as Members of Congress to
enforce some discipline on ourselves so that we do not drive Americans
to the poor house.
It is a sensible measure that should be supported by all the Members
to put this in place, but it is also sensible that to require a tax
increase we would have to have bipartisan agreement.
Clearly, Americans are of both parties and many other third parties.
Americans do not want to be forced to pay more taxes only because of
the decision of one-half plus one of the Congress. It only makes sense
for us to heed their wishes and be more careful with their dollars.
This measure would only enforce that discipline on us. It would make us
more responsive to Americans. It would also make them more sensitive to
their families' pocketbooks.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, apparently, Members of the Congress now all very
simplistically refute James Madison. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Hart), the previous speaker, a very important and valuable member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, just told us in effect, who cares
what Madison was thinking? I mean, that was then, and this is now.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. Of course I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I recall one of the compromises that
got the Constitution through the convention in the States was one that
permitted slaves to be imported for the first 20 years of the
Constitution and did not specifically omit slavery. Now, was Madison
enlightened at that time, or did we need to amend the Constitution to
get rid of something that my State fought to get rid of in the Civil
War?
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is an interesting
question that the chairman poses. If he would entertain hearings on my
reparations bill, H.R. 40, which has been pending since 1989, I would
be delighted with other witnesses to go in to him with a discussion of
what the Members of States from the South who were all slave holding
States did.
Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to imply that James Madison or even
Thomas Jefferson, perish the thought, was right every time on every
issue. But I am referring to the question of whether a supermajority
requirement on this subject should be put into the Constitution.
Now, James Madison made many mistakes. By the way, so did all the
other Founding Fathers. I mean, do you want to start with George
Washington and come forward?
{time} 1115
The compromise to include slavery was only made, sir, because it was
the only way we could form a Nation. The southern leaders all said that
without that compromise they would not do it. What I am saying here is
that on the requirement for a supermajority James Madison was entirely
correct then and those who cite him, including myself, are entirely
correct now.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield further, with all due
respect to my good friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I
am certainly happy, Mr. Speaker, that he was not around to promote his
earlier argument about Madison's enlightenment at the time the Congress
debated the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments 140 years ago. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CONYERS. Could I just point out a little bit of history? I do not
think Madison was around when the 15th amendment was being debated,
sir. I do not think Madison was around when the 14th amendment was
being debated. I do not think he was around when the 13th amendment was
being debated. But let us take Madison out of the picture. Apparently
there is some problem with Madison. Let us go to the present day. I
never thought I would find myself on the floor defending James
Madison's positions, but let us talk about what would happen if this
amendment were to actually come into our Constitution. The amendment
would permanently enshrine some $450 billion of special corporate tax
favors into the Constitution, nearly three times as much as all the
means-tested entitlement programs combined, something we have been
trying to deal with for many years. Now, Madison does not have anything
to do with that. That is a present day, 21st century problem.
Another point that we may want to take into present consideration, it
would be impossible to change the law to require foreign corporations
to pay their fair share of taxes on income earned in this country or to
repeal the loopholes which encourage United States corporations to
relocate overseas. Now, Madison aside, do we really want to do that? Or
is this an example of conservative elitism carried to an extreme?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I am very interested in the argument of the gentleman from Michigan.
Under this constitutional amendment, we could repeal a tax loophole
that gave these outrageous benefits to the corporation he mentioned by
a majority vote as long as the revenue that was raised was distributed
to the American people. If there was just a flat out repeal, it would
take a two-thirds vote. This would make it easier to give tax relief to
the American people in repealing these loopholes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J.Res. 41, the
tax limitation amendment. I spent Easter with my daughter and her
family out in San Francisco. While we were there, her husband was
filling out his tax return. This, remember, is a young family. They
have two children. They cannot afford to buy a home. They are renting a
home. They have a good job but they are starting out as a young family.
When he finished filling out his tax return, he said, you know, we
spent almost half of what we earned last year in taxes. That is what
the average American worker does, spends about half. Taxes are the
highest they have ever been. In January of 2000, the Census Bureau
reported that the average family paid more than $9,000 in Federal
income tax, twice what it paid 15 years ago. Americans pay more in
taxes than they spend on food, clothing and housing combined. Americans
work more than 4 months, almost 5 months, just to pay their tax bill.
A continuation of higher taxes should be better controlled. Congress
needs to protect the taxpayer from higher taxes. The trend of big
government and higher taxes to maintain it must cease. The government
does not have the right to take more than it needs just because it has
the power to do so. The requirement of a clear consensus to ensure
limited increases in taxes is needed. We need to prohibit irresponsible
tax hikes.
It should not be easy to take freedom away from people. When you tax
too much, you are taking freedom from people, freedom to earn money and
spend it as they want to and to educate their children and to save it
and do the things they want to with it. It should not be easy to do
that.
[[Page H1570]]
Fifteen States currently require some type of supermajority vote for
the legislature to raise taxes. In those States, citizens are protected
from higher State tax burdens. It is time for the government to follow
their example to benefit all taxpayers. The amendment would not prevent
raising taxes. Rather, it encourages Congress to look at alternatives
before implementing tax hikes. A consensus will force Congress to
consider genuine need.
For these reasons and more, I encourage my colleagues to support this
constitutional amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Here is a new piece of historic information just in about James
Madison that may appeal to my colleagues. Actually, they tried a
supermajority, and I think they will all find this very interesting.
Because under the Articles of Confederation in the 1780s, there was a
provision for a supermajority. Adopting a supermajority tax requirement
would repeat the very same mistakes made in the 1780s under the
Articles of Confederation between the Declaration of Independence and
the adoption of a constitution. Under these articles, it required a
vote of nine of the 13 States to raise revenue, a supermajority. It is
because the system worked so poorly that the Founding Fathers sought to
fashion a national government that could operate through majority rule.
So, Mr. Speaker, we would be ignoring a very important fundamental
part of our history if we were to give in this area James Madison too
hard a way to go. In fact, in the present circumstances, this amendment
would take more votes to close a tax loophole engineered by powerful
interest groups than to cut Social Security, Medicare and education
programs. The amendment would also make the major deficit reduction
measures much harder to pass when they are needed. Remember that five
of the six major deficit reduction acts that were enacted since 1982,
within the memory and experience of many Members here on the floor,
included a combination of revenue increases and program cuts. President
Reagan, Ronald Reagan, signed three of these measures into law.
Presidents George H. Bush and President William Jefferson Clinton
signed one each. None of these five measures received a two-thirds
majority in both Houses.
So, Mr. Speaker, had this proposed constitutional amendment been in
effect during this period, substantial budget deficits would still be
with us today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to tell the
rest of the story. The gentleman from Michigan is so right that the
Articles of Confederation did require a supermajority of nine of the 13
States to raise taxes. But the Constitution as originally ratified by
the States was even more severe. It prohibited direct taxes on the
people and required a constitutional amendment in the beginning of the
last century to allow the income tax to be constitutionally passed by
Congress.
So if we are looking at what Madison hath written, Madison put an
even greater straitjacket on the Congress' ability to raise taxes than
the Articles of Confederation had.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Gibbons).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
resolution. I want to thank my colleague and good friend the chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for bringing this critical legislation before
this body.
Mr. Speaker, America needs this tax limitation amendment. Why?
Because this year thousands, or millions even, of hardworking Americans
are going to be suffering intaxication. What is intaxication? Let me
say that if the word were actually in the dictionary, intaxication
would be defined as the euphoric experience when one gets a refund and
then realizes that that refund is actually their own money.
This Congress has a duty to make it harder to raise taxes, while
ensuring a more responsible Federal budget. In 1994, Mr. Speaker, I
fought for Nevada's own tax limitation amendment. As a private citizen
I helped gather 85,000 signatures from residents across Nevada to place
a similar measure on the ballot before the voters. This legislation,
may I say, passed the Nevada vote test in two successive elections,
averaging about 75 percent of each vote count. This legislation
requires an amendment to the Nevada constitution saying that two-thirds
would be required to raise any new State taxes 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. We need
to shift congressional focus to the bloated Federal spending programs
in this Federal bureaucracy. Passage of this legislation would ensure
that Congress focuses its efforts to balance the budget, cut wasteful
spending and not raise taxes as an easier and unneeded Federal revenue
excuse.
States that currently limit taxes have experienced faster growing
economies, a more rapid increase in employment, lower taxes and reduced
growth in government spending. No additional financial burden should be
placed on the American working family without overwhelming
demonstration of need and support from their elected officials.
Let us stop intaxication plaguing Americans. I urge my colleagues to
support this tax limitation amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
resolution, in opposition to this amendment, and in opposition to
changing our most basic government document in this way.
The gentleman from Michigan has been doing an admirable job of
sparring on these issues, but I wanted to come over and stand up and be
counted against this thing, also, with him.
For the last couple of months, I have been putting together a Law
Review article on the congressional oath of office. It has been
interesting because I have gone back and read through some of the
statements of Madison and the framers and Hamilton. These were serious
men that put together our most basic document. This very debate that we
are having today was a debate that the framers had. This is the kind of
discussion that was contemplated by them, what level of vote count
should there be in our legislative bodies to make these kinds of
changes.
I not only have respect for the seriousness of their debate and their
discussions but also respect for their conclusion, and that once they
reached that conclusion, I think we would do well as a Nation not to
rekindle that debate every 2 years as we seem to have been doing here
for the last few years.
I think this amendment would be a mistake. I think it has very little
support around the country. Right now the thrust nationally is to lower
taxes, not to raise taxes. In the past when we have raised taxes, the
majority of the Members of the legislative body felt that was the way
to go. That is not the situation today.
{time} 1130
This is an amendment that is not necessary at this time in our
Nation's history. It was contemplated by the Framers. I think it would
be a mistake today to pass this amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is another problem that has not been discussed
about the amendment that we may want to take into consideration, and
that is the possibility that a constitutional amendment of the nature
under debate could lead to large cuts in Social Security and Medicare
and a return to deficit spending. No constitutional debate on this
subject could be concluded without some discussion about this.
These reductions, large ones, in Social Security and Medicare
benefits, have been observed by The Washington Post, in which they
noted that when baby boomers begin to retire not many years from now,
as a matter of fact some have already begun to retire, the country will
be in an era of constant fiscal strain. To avoid destructive deficits,
there will have to be tax increases
[[Page H1571]]
or spending cuts or both. So by making it harder to increase taxes, the
amendment would compound the pressure on major spending programs. As a
matter of fact, that is what is going on now. We are noticing that with
the unprecedented large tax cut we are squeezing many programs that are
very valuable and dear to many, if not most, of the people in the
country.
What are these major spending programs? Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid and others.
Is this really what the Congress wants to do? The pressure on the
programs is great enough as it is.
Now Democratic members offered an amendment in the Committee on the
Judiciary to ensure that measures designed to secure the financial
solvency of Social Security would not be subject to the supermajority
requirement, but the Republicans defeated this measure on a party line
vote of 8 to 16. So we have on the record that they do not want to
exempt the Social Security and other valuable programs from the
possibility of financial insolvency by making an exemption to this
Draconian proposal that we have before us.
I think that that should deal a telling message to anybody whose mind
may not yet be made up.
Also, the proposed tax limitation would rule out measures to raise
Medicare premiums for higher individuals, high-income individuals, as
well as modest measures to shore up Social Security and Medicare. They
would all be caught by the supermajority requirement.
Example, if Congress attempted to make Social Security payroll taxes
more progressive by imposing higher tax cuts on higher-income
individuals, there would be an increase in the revenue laws and the
supermajority requirement would be triggered, no doubt about it.
Indeed, when the Republican budget reconciliation bill reached the
House floor in the fall of 1995, it became more than clear that its
proposed increase in Medicare premiums for those at higher income
levels constituted, guess what, a tax increase.
Similarly, legislation expanding Social Security to include State and
local government employees, which no less than the Advisory Council for
Social Security has already proposed, would result in a revenue
increase and would therefore be subject to the two-thirds requirement.
Do we really want to do that? Do we really want these kinds of
provisions caught in this supermajority requirement?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, it is the same old story. When all else fails, drop the
Social Security red herring. This constitutional amendment will not cut
Social Security. If there is a revenue pinch, it will force Congress
and the Nation to set priorities. Social Security has always been the
top priority, and it always will be the top priority, because it is the
principal part of our social safety net for senior citizens. So if the
shoe starts to pinch because of a revenue shortfall, or the baby boom
generation collecting the Social Security that they have earned, it
will force cuts in other programs. We all know that there are huge
wastes of money in the other programs, and this will provide the fiscal
discipline for Congress to set better priorities than it historically
has in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, for bringing this bill to the floor. Let me also thank the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for his sponsorship of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important step and a step I believe we must
take. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of serving in this body
since 1985. For 10 years, I served in this body as a member of the
minority while the Democrats were in control of the House of
Representatives, and that was a privilege.
Mr. Speaker, in the last 6\1/2\ years, I have had the larger
privilege of serving in the majority with the Republicans in the
majority. Throughout all of that experience, Mr. Speaker, I have found
that there are a few things that are consistent whether the Democrats
are in the majority or the Republicans are in the majority. Call it the
disposition of the legislative body, whatever is the reason, it has
been consistently the case for so long as I have had the privilege of
observing us at work that the first easiest thing to do in this body is
to increase spending.
Lord have mercy. We must constrain ourselves with all the rigor we
can to even bring our increases down to a nominal level.
The second easiest thing to do in this body is to raise taxes. I
certainly have seen that done here enough, and with relative ease.
The hardest thing to do in this body, Mr. Speaker, is to cut taxes;
and the clearly most difficult thing to do is to cut spending.
All that boils down to one thing: we avail ourselves of nothing that
we can call a budget constraint. After all, Mr. Speaker, it is other
people's money. Easy come, easy go. We do not spend it all that wisely.
So what we are trying to do today is to give ourselves an
institutional leveler, a rule in this institution that levels the
playing field between raising spending and cutting taxes, just to
counter what must be the generic dispositions of a legislative body
given the extraordinary privilege of taxing and spending other people's
money.
A simple rule that would say that in this business of raising taxes
which facilitates the increased spending, for which we have this crying
disposition, that we should have a supermajority vote. It is a
constraint. It is a check, a check against our desires to always build
government larger.
Is the Federal Government large enough? Most people in America think
yes it is, indeed; that and more.
Do we have enough money? We are talking about surpluses,
extraordinary surpluses; surpluses that would not have come about
except for 2\1/2\ years of extraordinary rigor in the restraint on
spending that make these surpluses available; the surpluses that are
threatened, threatened not by a shortage of tax revenue from the
American people but threatened by the worst addiction one finds in this
town, the addiction to the spending of other people's money.
So we must put on the brakes. We must find a way to rein ourselves
in, to rein in the institution, the institution of the House of
Representatives. Indeed, the institution of Congress must be restrained
from the all-too-easy business of simply raising taxes whenever we feel
we have an insufficient supply of other people's money. If we cannot do
that, Mr. Speaker, during a time when the surpluses are running, we
cannot do it at any time.
I just noticed the disposition at work here a moment ago in the
discussion on this floor. The question was, what if there were a
recession and there would be a shortfall of revenues to the United
States? We would have an emergency need to raise taxes, it was argued,
to raise taxes. Why? What underlies that logic is the belief that the
object of our affection is the Government of the United States, not the
well-being and the health of the American economy.
Indeed, if there is a recession, Mr. Speaker, the correct thing to do
is to lower taxes; thus, solving the problem of the recession; thus,
solving the problem of deficiencies in revenue to the Government that
come from the recession.
So the logic is faulty because it is built on the false premise that
the object of our affection must be, first, the well-being of the
Government and then only secondarily the performance of the economy.
The correct logic is this: the well-being of the government, as is the
well-being of the Nation in things economic, depends upon the
performance of the economy.
We are left with very few tools to assure that this economy works at
its peak of performance, but the only one that really remains is the
lowering of taxes. So barring a volition in this body to ever change
our dispositions, we should use a rule, a rule that says that it is
relatively easy to lower taxes when those times arrive and it is most
rigorously difficult to raise taxes at all times. This rule will give
us that. It should be passed. It should be passed as a matter, Mr.
Speaker, of respect for the American people because, after all, it is
their money.
[[Page H1572]]
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the majority leader of the Congress
has come to the floor. Unfortunately, he did not mention how many times
the majority, under his leadership, has waived their own House rules
requiring a supermajority vote to increase taxes. Maybe he forgot.
I would remind my colleagues that during the 104th Congress, we had
to suspend the House rules imposed by the Republican majority when we
dealt with H.R. 1215, the Contract with America Tax Relief Act.
{time} 1145
We then had the supermajority vote suspended, this is under the
leadership of the majority, under the leadership of the distinguished
majority leader that just left the well, in the Medicare Preservation
Act of 1994, H.R. 2425; in the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, H.R.
2491; in the Health Insurance Reform Act, H.R. 3103; and in H.R. 3734,
the Welfare Reform Conference Report. The majority, under the
Republican leadership, has frequently waived its own rules requiring a
supermajority vote to increase taxes.
The unworkability of House Joint Resolution 41 is illustrated by the
fact that they frequently ignore their own rule preventing tax rates
from taking increase, unless approved by three-fifths of the House, and
this was done in the 104th Congress, many times, on six separate
occasions. It led our distinguished colleague the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) to write, ``The final blow to any hope that the vote on
the supermajority tax requirement might be for real comes from the
dismal adherence Republicans have made to their own internal House rule
requiring a three-fifths vote to raise taxes.'' This is from the
leadership of the gentleman who just left the well.
After much fanfare during the organization of the 104th Congress, the
House leadership has waived its own effort to restrain itself in every
potential instance but one.
In an attempt to avoid these problems at the beginning of the 105th
Congress, the rule was significantly narrowed to limit its application
to increases in particular tax rates specified under the Internal
Revenue Code, rather than tax rate increases generally. Now, that
narrow application does not apply to the constitutional provision; it
only applies to what we do in the House of Representatives.
So, such experiences highlight the unworkability of setting forth
special procedural rules concerning tax laws and tax rates, and these
problems would be greatly compounded in the constitutional context that
we face in H.J. Res. 41.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary for this opportunity to speak on behalf of House Joint
Resolution 41.
Mr. Speaker, despite my belief that we ought to rarely trifle with
the work product of the founders of this country from that balmy summer
of 1787, where in the Philadelphia State House they crafted our
Constitution, I rise today in strong support of the Tax Limitation
Constitutional Amendment that we will vote on today.
I do so, Mr. Speaker, because it is my belief that we live in this
year 2001 in an age of reason about tax policy, different than other
times in American history. Today, most Americans oppose most tax
increases. But, Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that this too shall
pass; that some day soon, given the seemingly glacial growth of the
Federal Government, the day will come that once again tax increases are
no longer broadly objectionable.
So I believe that this Congress should seize upon this season of
sensibility to constrain future Congresses from reflexively raising
taxes to pay for that ever-growing Federal welfare state. It is a
growth in government, Mr. Speaker, that does ultimately erode our
economic freedoms and the balance of our liberties.
A tax increase constitutional amendment, if adopted today in the
Congress and sent to the States, would be an important restraint on the
Federal Government in years ahead, and it would give this Congress and
this government the same restraints that some 14 States live under who
have tax limitations in their Constitution and in their laws.
Mr. Speaker, tax increases should always be the last resort of this
Congress, and the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment ensures that
it will.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in opposition to H.J. Res. 41. H.J.
Res. 41 proposes a constitutional amendment that provides that changes
in Internal Revenue laws by more than a de minimis amount would require
a two-thirds majority to pass, rather than the simple majority now
required.
Let me just point out a couple of problems with that idea, Mr.
Speaker. The proposed constitutional amendment does not affect
spending; only paying for the spending. You can increase spending and
enact new programs with a simple majority. To pay for the new programs,
you require a two-thirds majority. The limitation that this bill
proposes is on whether we will pay for the spending or whether we will
resort to deficit spending.
Now, the same analysis applies to correcting mistakes. It would take
a two-thirds majority to close a corporate loophole, while it only took
a simple majority to create the loophole in the first place. If we
cannot come up with a two-thirds majority to close the corporate
loophole, then that loophole remains, possibly costing millions, or
even billions, of dollars that could be put to use elsewhere.
In fact, changing Internal Revenue laws that change the internal
revenue by more than a de minimis amount would also affect passing new
laws to enforce the laws that are already on the books if that action
would increase the internal revenues. You need a two-thirds vote to
pass that.
Now, if we really are being honest about reducing spending and
limiting spending, the constitutional amendment ought to require a two-
thirds vote not to increase taxes, but a two-thirds vote to increase
spending. Now, that would limit spending. The limitation on taxes only
limits your ability to pay for the spending that you have already
enacted.
Another problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill has the statutory
language involving de minimis. While two-thirds majority vote is
required to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis
amount, the term ``de minimis'' is not defined, so, we can debate
whether you need a two-thirds vote or not.
Some committee members have suggested that any increase in revenue
less than one-tenth of one percent of total revenues would be de
minimis. But I would remind you that our total revenues are in the
trillions of dollars. One-tenth of one percent of $1 trillion is $1
billion. I believe that most of us would consider $1 billion to be more
than just de minimis.
Mr. Speaker, amending the Constitution is serious business which
should not be taken lightly. This bill presents very difficult
questions that are not even close to being answered. It does nothing to
limit spending; and, therefore, ought to be rejected.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, if the House would read the constitutional amendment,
they would find that the gentleman from Virginia, with all due respect,
is misinterpreting what is in the amendment. The amendment says that a
loophole can be closed by a majority vote if the money that is raised
as a result of closing the loophole is used to provide tax relief for
the American people elsewhere. But where the two-thirds vote comes in
is if the loophole is closed and the money is raised and is used to
finance increased spending.
So what this Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment encourages is
using the money from closed loopholes to provide tax relief for the
American people, rather than financing a spending spree by the Congress
of the United States. I think that that is entirely
[[Page H1573]]
logical. What the amendment does is it says if you want to spend the
money from the loophole, it is two-thirds; if you want to give it in
tax relief, it is a majority.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the
floor, and I am not on the Committee on the Judiciary, as these fine
ladies and gentlemen, to discuss the technical aspects of this bill.
What I wanted to do was, Mr. Speaker, back in 1995, when I was sworn
in as a United States Congressman, a friend of mine from my district
brought to me this reprint of a political editorial from 1878. What it
is, Mr. Speaker, the Statue of Liberty is standing with a weight around
her neck, and her head is bent forward, and on the weight it says
``income tax.'' It further states at the bottom, ``the slave of
liberty.''
I believe sincerely that taxation, excessive taxation, makes the
American people slaves to the Federal Government. I think whenever we
can bring protection to the American people we should, and that is
exactly what H.J. Res. 41 does; it empowers the people through their
Representatives here in Washington, D.C.
I believe sincerely that today the American people are paying more
taxes than they have ever paid before. When I look at how too many
times I think those of us in Washington D.C., and I am one of those,
obviously, that many times we forget that the people are the
government.
The power should be with the people. The people should be able to say
to their representatives that you must have a supermajority to pass
taxes on us, and I think this legislation does that.
I compliment the chairman and his committee, because, quite frankly,
because every year for the 7 years I have been in the United States
Congress, whenever we brought this bill to the floor I have asked for 1
or 2 minutes to come to the floor, because, again, we need to give the
power back to the people when we can, and to give the people the
opportunity through the process to say whether they want the Congress
to have a two-thirds majority to pass taxes.
I think again we are doing the right thing, and I compliment the
chairman and each and everyone who has worked on this resolution, and
hope we will pass it shortly.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time to
respond to the chairman's remarks.
Mr. Speaker, if we passed a $1 million corporate loophole tax benefit
that ended up costing us $10 billion because we miscalculated the
impact, we could not close that loophole that passed on a simple
majority vote without a two-thirds vote unless we provided $10 billion
in tax relief somewhere just to close that loophole that we did not
intend to create to begin with.
Mr. Speaker, again, this amendment will do nothing to limit spending;
it just limits our ability to pay for that spending. You create a new
program, simple majority; to pay for it, it takes a two-thirds vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the tax limitation
amendment. I come from the great State of Arizona where we have had
similar legislation as the law for the past 10 years. What we did not
do that we should have is cut off the initiative route as we did,
because when we want to raise taxes in Arizona, instead of going to the
legislature, now it is done by initiative, that not withstanding this
year, for the first year, because there is a lack of revenue. Finally,
this is holding government spending in check. You see the trepidation
on the part of the legislature to actually spend too much, because they
would be forced to come back and raise taxes and realize they cannot do
it because now it would require a two-thirds majority. It is great
legislation.
{time} 1200
Mr. Speaker, I am amused continually when we talk about how easy it
is to cut taxes and how difficult it is to raise taxes, when history
suggests otherwise. Over the past couple of decades, we have had
numerous tax increases and just a couple of significant incidences of
tax relief. Whenever we can do anything to actually put a lid on taxes,
to actually cut taxes and make it more difficult to raise taxes, then
we ought to do it.
For the record, it was mentioned that if we are doing this, then we
also ought to put a limitation on spending by making it more difficult
to spend. I am in favor of that. I would love to offer an amendment to
the amendment which would actually require a two-thirds majority to
increase spending, but this, as it stands, is a good piece of
legislation, and I support it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a senior member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing today is a declaration by
the Republican Party that they recognize that the majority of Americans
cannot be relied upon. One of the previous advocates to this amendment
said the power belongs to the people, but he misstates what this
amendment does. Power now under our Constitution belongs to the
representatives of the majority of the people, taking into account, of
course, the two Senators per State, which is nonmajoritarian, but
within that the majority rules. Well, apparently the Republicans do not
have much confidence in the majority, so they want to change the rules
so that this particular decision cannot be made by a majority.
The gentleman said the power belongs to the people. We used to have a
slogan, ``power to the people.'' Well, this amendment would change that
slogan to ``power to one-third plus one of the people.'' If the
majority of the people, as they are represented in Congress, decide
that they want to improve our ability to do environmental cleanup, or
if people thought that having the Social Security tax base cut off at
$75,000 so that if one makes $30,000 every penny one earns is taxed for
Social Security, but if one makes $300,000 the great majority of one's
income is exempt, we could not do that without two-thirds.
Not only are they declaring a lack of faith in the people, they are
repudiating the legacy of some past Republican presidents. For
instance, President George Bush raised taxes in conjunction with the
Congress, because he thought it was very important for the economy. We
all remember the President's famous slogan, ``Read my lips, no new
taxes.'' Well, any future President I guess would have to say, ``Read
two-thirds of my lips, no new taxes.'' George Bush asked us to raise
taxes. I do not think he was profligate and irresponsible. I think he
was responding to the particular needs of the particular time.
At this point, no one is advocating tax increases, but different
situations occur at different points.
Ronald Reagan. We have heard a lot about the legacy of Ronald Reagan,
but I was here when Ronald Reagan asked Congress to raise taxes on
several occasions. I did not always vote for the Reagan tax increases.
I thought the Reagan tax increase of 1982, which was to undo some of
the Reagan tax decrease of 1981, was not fairly constituted. I did not
like the Reagan tax increase for Social Security in 1983. But if we
read the history books and if we read the assessments of President
Reagan, one of the things they say is that President Reagan, Senator
Dole, Speaker O'Neill came together to save Social Security and extend
its solvency. They did it in part by reducing benefits in a way that I
did not agree with, but they also did it by raising taxes.
Indeed, some of the tax increases that were imposed under President
Reagan remain in effect. They not only remain in effect, they remain
untouched by the current President's tax reduction proposals. It was in
1983 at the request of Ronald Reagan, with the concurrence of a
Republican Senate and a Democratic House, that taxes were first levied
on part of a Social Security recipient's income. The taxation of part
of one's Social Security benefits for people making $25,000 in
addition, to be recycled into the Social Security system, was part of
President Reagan's attempt to extend the solvency of Social Security.
[[Page H1574]]
Now, if the Republican constitutional amendment had been in power, I
do not think President Reagan would have had the votes. I do not think
President Bush would have had the votes.
The point I am making is that despite partisan efforts to make it
look as if this is somehow an effort to prevent feckless decisions to
raise the revenues, it would have, had it been in effect, prevented the
last two Republican presidents from getting legislation through that
they thought was important to protect Social Security and to protect
the economy.
Now, I have noted a tendency on the part of my Republican colleagues
to implicitly acknowledge that the public is not thrilled with some
parts of their agenda, and I understand that. They have a right, I
suppose, when they are campaigning to kind of soft pedal some things;
you should tell them the truth, but you do not always volunteer things.
But changing the Constitution because they believe the public is not
likely to support their position is a totally inappropriate way to go.
I guess we have to explain why this happens, because if one believes
the rhetoric that says it is just the government taking people's money
for no good reason and the people have to be protected from that, one
has to ask the question, why would people let Members of Congress who,
by a majority, would vote to increase the taxes that they pay. The
answer is, as President Reagan knew and President Bush knew and
President Clinton knew, all three of whom asked that taxes be
increased, there are important purposes that the people want that may
require more revenue.
I want to go back to Social Security. The Social Security system now
is financed by taxes that are paid up to 70-some odd thousand dollars
worth of income. Many of us believe that is inequitable. Many of us
believe we ought to have a package in which we reduce the Social
Security bite on some people in the lower end, but increase it for
wealthier people. Maybe we want to have a little gap, but then at
$150,000 or more, start collecting some Social Security tax. Any effort
to do that would, by this amendment, require a two-thirds vote. Power
to one-third plus one of the people. One-third plus one of the people
could block that effort. If we decided that we needed more revenue for
other purposes, it is not there.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me a rational decision for the public to
make in a civilized society that at a time of great wealth they might
want to spend more on environmental cleanup. They might want to do more
for police. They might want to help people with prescription drugs. The
Republicans have said, well, we want a major tax cut, so here is what
we have to do. We have to end the program that allows public housing
authorities to hire police officers to combat drug-related crime. I
understand people who think cutting taxes, particularly for wealthy
people, is more important than fighting drug-related crime in public
housing. They do not live in public housing, they do not relate to the
people in public housing, and in a democracy that is a legitimate view
to put forward. But why do they need two-thirds? Are they not confident
they can win that one on the merits?
We have people who believe we ought to be increasing the amount we
spend on environmental cleanup. Unfortunately, there are people who
disagree. I am prepared to debate that. But if we decide that we have
these important public needs and the current revenues are not enough to
meet them without going into deficit, I do not understand why we should
take two-thirds.
Prescription drugs. We have a proposal from the Republican Party that
says, to get taxes at the level we think desirable, we cannot help any
elderly person needing prescription drugs whose income exceeds $17,000.
I think that is a very grave error. I think making sure that Bill Gates
pays no taxes when he dies, or his heirs do not; once one dies, they do
not pay any taxes, but the notion that Bill Gates' heirs should be able
to inherit billions of dollars, but we cannot afford to help someone
making $20,000 with prescription drugs at the age of 82, I think that
is wrong. But I am prepared to debate that without fixing it. I say
these things because they are directly relevant to this amendment.
This is why the Republicans feel that they have to change the rules.
They understand that there will be times when a majority of the
Americans will say, we would rather have more revenue. By the way,
while the Republicans claim to dislike taxes at certain times, they
come to love them, and that is the other thing I would say to my
Republican friends: do not underestimate your capacity to adapt.
For example, when President Clinton in 1993 asked Congress to raise
the gasoline taxes, there was a great deal of unhappiness on the
Republican side, at least it was expressed and I under the Rules of the
House of course take at face value everything said here, and when
President Clinton remained in office, time and again the Republicans
said, we have to get rid of this gasoline tax increase. Well, we now
have a Republican President and we have a Republican House and we have
a Republican Senate, and we have tax bills coming forward that would
reduce various taxes. Do we know what else we have? The same gasoline
tax increase that went into effect in 1993 unchallenged.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Yesterday I introduced a bill to suspend the Federal gasoline tax to
provide some relief to our motorists and our truck drivers. I would
invite the gentleman from Massachusetts and others who feel that way to
cosponsor this bill.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman is being
consistent. He is not only being consistent, he is being unique,
because while it is encouraging to some, I thought increasing the
gasoline tax was a useful thing to do to help us reduce the deficit in
a socially responsible way, the Committee on the Judiciary does not
have jurisdiction over it. I will say as I read the Republican program
for the year, with $1.6 trillion worth of tax reduction, they could not
find room in there to reduce the gasoline tax. So the Republicans did
not think it was a good idea to raise the gasoline tax in 1993, but now
that they have complete control over both Houses of Congress and the
White House, they are leaving it alone. They have decided, apparently,
on second thought, that it was not such a bad idea after all.
Regarding the taxes that people pay on their Social Security
benefits, including those that Ronald Reagan asked us to pass in 1983,
Ronald Reagan said, if one is making $25,000 a year or more, we are
going to tax 50 percent of your Social Security benefits. That is not a
huge amount of money, but that is what Ronald Reagan said. I voted
against that bill. Many of my Republican colleagues who are still here
voted for it; some Democrats voted for it as well. I had heard that
denounced until the Republicans had the power to do something about it,
and that is another one which has grown on them.
This is not a debate as to what the level of taxation ought to be; it
is a debate about democratic procedures. The Senate, as we know, is not
majoritarian. The House is. By Supreme Court decision, the United
States House of Representatives represents population very, very
closely. What the Republicans are saying is this: we cannot trust the
people elected by a majority of the House of Representatives to make
this decision, because we do not think they will get it right.
Therefore, we will change the Constitution to make it a nonmajoritarian
decision as to what level of public expenditure there will be.
Yes, there are two competing sets of needs. There are private needs,
best settled by people having money in their own pocket; there are
public needs, environmental cleanup, public safety, some others which
can only be dealt with if we spend the money together. They are both
needs of the people. Some are best done individually, some done
together. What we have today is an effort to bias the decisionmaking
process, because the Republican Party does not have any confidence in
the people, apparently thinks that Ronald Reagan was wrong on the
several occasions when he asked for tax increases, George Bush was
wrong when he asked for tax increases.
The point is this: no one today, given our economy, no one is pushing
for tax
[[Page H1575]]
increases. On the other hand, to say that for all time it should not be
a majority decision, but that this decision will have to be made by an
extraordinary majority so that a minority can block the decision of a
majority of the American people, 40 percent can stop 60 percent from
going forward, is bad constitutional government and an unfortunate
expression of a lack of confidence in the American people.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts and his very articulate
self has kind of laid forth the Democratic platform on what they would
like the Congress to accomplish during the next 2 years. We are not
dealing with prescription drugs and all of the other issues that the
gentleman from Massachusetts is talking about. We are dealing with the
simple proposition of whether the Constitution should be amended to
make it harder for Congress to raise taxes. That is the proposal that
is before us, and that is the proposal that we are voting upon today.
Now, I would submit that the American people think that it should be
hard to raise taxes, and I would also submit that the American people
historically have not trusted Congress very much when the time comes to
deal with bills that raise taxes. So all this amendment proposes to do
is to force there to be a national consensus on raising taxes, which is
required in a two-thirds vote. It is really pretty simple.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, I would say parenthetically I guess the
gentleman has decided to reciprocate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). The time of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has expired.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute,
and I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, apparently the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) wants to reciprocate the lack of confidence the American
people have in Congress by having a congressional expression of lack of
confidence in the majority of the people. But I want to talk about
prescription drugs.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I will reclaim my time then, because
we have a chance to talk about prescription drugs a little bit later on
when the prescription drug bill comes to the floor of the Congress. So
I think we really ought to defer that debate until when it is really
the question that is before us.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, but
let us debate prescription drugs at the time that the bill comes before
us.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is ignoring the fact that with
his amendment that he is putting forward today, and we will cut taxes
this year, I think by more than we should but we will, if we decide
next year that at the level of revenue available for Medicare we cannot
afford a prescription drug program, it will take two-thirds to put one
back. That is the flaw in the gentleman's reasoning.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is really
not true, because if we cut out other wasteful spending in other parts
of the government, we can put more money into prescription drugs, and
it is a matter of priority.
{time} 1215
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, why is the President not
putting adequate money into prescription drugs this year instead of
saying only $17,000 as an income cutoff?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the President
proposes and the Congress disposes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Defense, we have
480,000 bureaucrats that buy and sell. They charge 22 percent to the
military. Should Congress eliminate a lot of that bureaucracy, and
instead of having taxpayers cough up money for more defense, should we
just put more money into it without more reform?
In education, we get as little as 48 cents to the dollar because of
the bureaucracy in education. This morning the Secretary of Education,
Rod Paige, testified. The gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out that the
President's budget only puts in 6 percent increase. Six percent.
Traditionally we have been increasing it by over 12 percent. The
Secretary pointed out that there has been a flatlining; that we put
more money in education, but there has not been any change. Can
Congress work harder, can we do our job to eliminate Federal
bureaucracy and spending or can we afford to give the money back to the
American people? I pick on not just education, I pick on defense and
all government agencies.
Mr. Speaker, environmental cleanup was mentioned. Seventy percent of
Superfund went to trial lawyers. Do we look as a Congress and work with
the States on how to clean up the environment, or do we keep dumping in
money?
Many of my colleagues fought against welfare reform. Sixteen years
was the average. They want to dump more money. We have to raise taxes
to pay for that. Welfare reform put people back to work, and it helped
stimulate the economy.
Capital gains, my colleagues said it was only for the rich. Alan
Greenspan said it helped stimulate the economy. So we do not reduce
taxes? What I am saying is that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle always want to spend more money without reforms.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). Without objection, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) will control the time of the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
There was no objection.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I really wish we were gathered
here today to engage in serious legislation that confronts some of the
concerns that we have here in this country. As I left my district, I
noticed on the front page of the business section a number of
corporations that are in fact laying off workers. I would imagine that
you will see over the next couple of weeks and months, the necessity of
increasing compensation for those who are now laid off and cannot in
some areas, where there is not the appropriate number of jobs available
to provide for them, they will then stay unemployed. That means that
families will be without their breadwinners and will be without an
income.
Mr. Speaker, we stand here today addressing a situation which has
occurred on an annual basis. I believe it is almost going to get the
kind of standing like Christmas. We will have it every year. This is
the sixth annual year that our colleagues have wasted our time with a
constitutional amendment dealing with a two-thirds supermajority on a
tax increase.
We have listened to my colleagues suggest to you how confining this
kind of procedure would be; but more importantly, how it impacts the
Constitution where our Founding Fathers, as wise as they were,
suggested that a majority reflects the will of the American people.
When we begin to use the supermajority, we begin to get into a
desperate situation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentlewoman from Texas aware
that the Constitution written by the Founding Fathers prohibited
Congress from levying direct taxes on the American people, and it
required an amendment about 100 years ago in order to allow Congress to
even have the power to do what we are talking about?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of that;
[[Page H1576]]
and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, it was a hundred years ago; and we have proceeded under
that legislation, and I believe we have done very well.
The idea now, of course, is to further diminish the responsibilities
of the Members of Congress in the majority vote by again putting over
us the supermajority which again eliminates the opportunity to provide
financing for issues that we are concerned about. The very fact that
this particular amendment has not passed six times in a row suggests
the wisdom of this Congress, both Senate and House. My colleagues know
that this is a wrong-headed way to go.
Mr. Speaker, here we stand again providing this kind of legislation;
and yet the amendment that I had intended to offer, an amendment that
would provide for a supermajority not to reduce benefits in Social
Security and Medicare, has not been accepted, or has been ruled out of
order as it relates to presenting it to the floor.
If it is as important to put a two-thirds supermajority on not
raising taxes, and by the way to my colleagues and friend, that means
that corporations with tax loopholes, that means that they will have a
field day. It means that the assessment by the American people that
this administration and this Congress is more business oriented or more
paying the piper of the corporate interest, it is true. It means that
tax loopholes cannot be closed under this supermajority, because it
means if you are suggesting that you raise the taxes of corporations,
you will have to have a supermajority. Of course that means that you
take away the one vote, one person.
When you talk about Medicare and you talk about Social Security for
people, and you say can we have an amendment to ensure that you have a
supermajority in order not to reduce the benefit, that has not been
accepted.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my colleagues that we realize that
a supermajority has been imposed on certain aspects of the business of
this House. But I do believe that this idea of a supermajority on
taxation eliminates the very vital opportunity of suggesting that even
though we may have some prosperity, although I have noted there are
layoffs, while we have this prosperity, and the American people may
decide to invest in their national parks and their defense by providing
increased salaries for our men and women in the Armed Forces, to invest
in education, we now stand on the floor of the House to suggest a
supermajority so in fact the people of the United States will not have
the resources to ensure that their will be done.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that it is not necessary to have a
supermajority to railroad the $1.6 trillion tax cut that the President
wants. Why we stand for the seventh time on the floor of the House for
a two-thirds majority, I do not know. It seems that we want to make
this as annual as a Christmas holiday.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 41 and to introduce an
amendment that I believe will improve it.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment is germane. The underlying legislation,
H.J. Res. 41, is an attempt to help the most well to do Americans
through a constitutional amendment that limits the ability of Congress
to raise taxes and cut deficits. It is no secret that this legislation
is designed to disproportionately help the richest people in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment seeks to protect the average person, the
neediest, and our seniors by requiring the same two-thirds
supermajority as the sponsors of H.J. Res. 41 call for. However, my
amendment requires the two-thirds supermajority to cut Social Security
and Medicare which help the rest of us.
H.J. Res. 41 could make it difficult to maintain a balanced budget or
to develop a responsible plan to restore Medicare or Social Security to
long-term solvency. Both of these amendments deal with taxes. Both deal
with what we all know is a zero sum game. My amendment is germane
because if it is okay to help the rich, it is germane to help the poor
and average Americans.
H.J. Res. 41 is a resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America with respect to tax
limitations, that would require any bill, resolution, or other
legislative measure changing the internal revenue laws require for
final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the
Members of that House voting and present, unless the bill is determined
at the time of adoption, in a reasonable manner prescribed by law, not
to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount.
H.J. Res. 41 also states that for purposes of determining any
increase, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the
lowering of an effective rate of any tax and permits the waiver of such
requirement, for up to 2 years, if there is a declaration of war or if
the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an
imminent and serious threat to national security and is so declared by
a joint resolution which becomes law.
Mr. Speaker, by requiring a two-thirds supermajority to adopt certain
legislation, H.J. Res. 41 diminishes the vote of every Member of the
House and Senate, denying the seminal concept of ``one person one
vote.'' This fundamental democratic principle insures that a small
minority may not prevent passage of important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation presents a real danger to future
balanced budgets and Medicare and Social Security. That's why I have
offered an amendment to H.J. Res. 41 that would add a new section to
H.J. Res. 41 requiring the same two-thirds supermajority when cutting
programs that protect Social Security and Medicare. Under H.J. Res. 41,
it would be incredibly difficult obtaining the requisite two-thirds
supermajority required to pass important, fiscally responsible deficit-
reducing packages. And at a time in our history when the Baby Boomers
are now retiring, H.J. Res. 41 could make it more difficult to increase
Medicare premiums for those most able to pay their fair share of the
bill, and could make it difficult balancing both Medicare and Social
Security payroll taxes in the long term.
H.J. Res. 41 would make it nearly impossible to plug tax loopholes
and eliminate corporate tax welfare, or even to increase tax
enforcement against foreign corporations. H.J. Res. 41 would also make
it nearly impossible to balance the budget, or develop a responsible
plan to restore Medicare or Social Security to long-term financial
solvency.
That's why my amendment would require a supermajority to further
challenge these important social programs that serve a great need in
this country.
Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 41 is the exact same bill that this committee
considered in the 105th Congress and my opposition is unchanged. In
fact, a phrase in the minority's dissenting views in the 105th Congress
stating that ``the Framers of the Constitution wisely rejected the
principle of requiring a supermajority for basic government functions''
still hold true today.
The minority in opposing this tax limitation amendment cited James
Madison who vehemently argued against requiring supermajorities,
stating that under such a requirement, ``the fundamental principle of
free government would be reversed.'' It would be no longer the majority
that would rule. Conversely, the power would be transferred to the
minority because a small minority could block the necessary
supermajority from passing any tax increases. In fact, it is
significant to note that because of population patterns, Senators
representing some 7.3 percent of the population could prevent a bill
from obtaining a two-thirds majority.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled by the concept of divesting a
Member of the full import of his or her vote. As Dean Sameual Thompson,
one of the Nation's leading tax law authorities, observed at a 1997
House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the same proposal: ``The core
problem with this proposed Constitutional amendment is that it would
give special interest groups the upper hand in the tax legislative
process.'' As such, the potential loss to the Treasury Department from
such loopholes is staggering. A Congressional Budget Office study found
that over half of the corporate subsidies the Federal Government
provides are delivered through ``tax expenditures'' that selectively
reduce the tax liability of particular individuals or businesses. Such
expenditures cost the Federal Government $455 billion in fiscal year
1996 alone--triple the deficit at that time.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply dilutes the vote of Members by
requiring a supermajority of them to do something as basic to
government as acquire the revenue to run government. It is a
diminution. It is a disparagement. It is a reduction of the impact, the
import, of one man, one vote.
Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 41 will also make it nearly impossible to
eliminate tax loopholes, thereby locking in the current tax system at
the time of ratification. The core problem with this proposed
constitutional amendment is that it would give special interest groups
the upper hand in the tax legislative process. Once a group of
taxpayers receives either a planned or unplanned tax benefit with a
simple majority vote of both Houses of Congress, the group will then be
able to preserve the tax benefit with just a 34 percent vote of one
House of Congress.
In addition, H.J. Res. 41 would make it inordinately difficult to
make foreign corporations
[[Page H1577]]
pay their fare share of taxes on income earned in this country.
Congress would even be limited from changing the law to increase
penalties against foreign multinationals that avoid U.S. taxes by
claiming that profits earned in the U.S. were realized in offshore tax
havens. Estimates of the costs of such tax dodges are also significant.
A 1992 Internal Revenue Service study estimated that foreign
corporations cheated on their tax returns to the tune of $30 billion
per year.
Another definitional problem arises from the fact that it is unclear
how and when the so-called ``de minimis'' increase is to be measured,
particularly in the context of a $1.5 trillion annual budget. Would we
look at a 1-, 5- or 10-year budget window? What if a bill resulted in
increased revenues in years 1 and 2, but lower revenues thereafter? It
is also unclear when the revenue impact is to be assessed--based on
estimates prior to the bill's effective date, or subsequent
determinations calculated many years out. Further, if a tax bill was
retroactively found to be unconstitutional, the tax refund issues could
present insuperable logistical and budget problems.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment to this legislation which I have offered
here today, takes this legislation in a different direction. It
requires the same two-thirds supermajority as does the underlying bill,
but ensures that we fulfill our promise to.
I hope that my colleagues take seriously the path H.J. Res. 41 would
lead us down were it to be adopted as is, and I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the comment that I made, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) said that since the income tax amendment
was ratified in 1913, we have done very well. I would agree with her
100 percent. We have done too well. We have done too well having an
escalating cascade of taxes on the American people.
What has happened is that we went from the original Constitution that
seemed to serve us very well for 140 years prohibiting direct taxes on
the American people, to having the pendulum swing far too far in the
other direction so that now the Federal tax expressed as a percentage
of GDP is the highest in peacetime history of our country.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment pushes that pendulum back in the middle
by making it harder to raise taxes. I think the American people would
say hooray for that because Congress has been much to eager since 1913
to dip into the pockets of the American taxpayer deeper and deeper.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a strong supporter of
this constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to raise
taxes on the American people. Until the last Congress, this was the
Barton tax limitation constitutional amendment. I was very pleased and
willing to let the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) become the original cosponsors in
this Congress.
As has been pointed out, when the Constitution was ratified in the
late 1700s, there was a supermajority required to raise taxes. It was
100 percent because you could not have a Federal income tax. The
Constitution did not allow it. As has been pointed out by the chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary, in 1913 we changed the Constitution
to say that income taxes were acceptable.
The first income tax levied on the American people after that income
tax was passed, about 99 percent of the American people paid no income
tax because you had to have an adjusted income of over $3,000 cash; and
most Americans in the early part of the 20th century did not have
$3,000 cash income. But if you did, if you did, you paid 1 percent; 1
percent of income over $3,000. And if you were super-rich, in other
words if you got up to where you had cash income over, I think it was,
$50,000, you paid an additional 1 percent.
Mr. Speaker, what does the American taxpayer pay today? The income
tax levied on the American people had gone up at one point in time
9,000 percent. We got up to a 90 percent tax bracket. Now how is that
possible? It is possible because it only requires 50 percent plus one
vote in the House and 50 percent plus one vote in the Senate to raise
your income taxes. That has been done repeatedly the last 100 years.
What does this constitutional amendment do? It does not say that you
cannot raise taxes; but it says if you are going to raise taxes, you
need more than a bare majority. You need more than 50 percent plus one;
you need two-thirds.
Now our Founding Fathers knew that there would be times when we
needed to do things that needed to be a superconsensus. To ratify
treaties and to change the Constitution requires a supermajority vote.
What is more important to require a consensus more than a bare majority
than raising income taxes? It is interesting when you look at the
opinion polls around the country, the States that have supermajority
requirements to raise taxes, their taxes are lower. They are lower.
States that do not have it, their taxes are higher.
Mr. Speaker, we have used the States as a laboratory; and we have
proven that it works at the State level. It would work here in
Washington. If you look at interest groups, do you know that the
interest group that most supports requiring a supermajority to raise
taxes, it is not rich, country club Republicans, it is not soccer moms,
it is male, head-of-household union members. Now they tend to vote for
our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, which is fine. Eighty
percent of them support a supermajority requirement to raise income
taxes. That is the highest number of any segment of our country, 80
percent.
So why is it that we cannot pass this in the House of
Representatives? We want it, but to amend the Constitution you have to
have a two-thirds votes. It is because some people in this body want to
raise taxes. They want to spend more money. We are only going to spend
$2 trillion this year. Let us vote for this tax amendment and send it
to the Senate and get them to pass it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt)
has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) has 29 minutes.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this time.
Mr. Speaker, it was helpful to have the original author of this bill
on the floor to discuss it. In this debate, we have begun to discuss it
with some platitude; that this is a bill about having two-thirds of the
House and the Senate decide before we raise taxes.
{time} 1230
Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that. See, it says that a
bill, a resolution or a legislative measure changing the internal
revenue laws shall require for final adoption in each House the
concurrence of two-thirds of all 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.
Well, I guess, then, what we have got to have is a certain amount of
litigation, I suppose, about what constitutes a de minimis amount. I
think that is really what we need. We need a process around here that
makes it even more difficult for us to come to a consensus about how it
is that we are going to tax and spend the money that we have to do here
each year.
I think it is going to be actually an extraordinary constitutional
battle if we pass a constitutional amendment that says it has to be
decided by the courts how much a de minimis amount is that we are
allowed to raise taxes in order to qualify under this constitutional
amendment. Because let us consider what the scenarios will be.
When we pass a budget, there will be a determination, well, it only
raises taxes a de minimis amount. Then every interest group under the
sun that has a problem with that budget will then have a standing to go
into court and say, well, that is not a de minimis amount, it is
actually more. Or some other group will come in and say, well, no, no,
no, that is less than a de minimis amount, so you should be permitted
to do it. We will have nothing but litigation over that point.
Secondly, I think it is interesting to note in all of this discussion
about
[[Page H1578]]
whether or not we should have a higher burden to raise taxes, why is it
no one is proposing that we have a higher burden to spend the money. To
be intellectually honest about this debate, one should say, well, we
should have two-thirds to spend any dollar of the money coming in,
because both of those sides make the same argument that the previous
gentleman made, that we have been out of control spending, taxing and
building and everything else. If we are truly going to be consistent
and want to be sure that we have it right, it should be a two-thirds
majority to increase spending as well.
So if one wants to make a philosophical point here, I guess one
could. One does not like taxes or one likes taxes. From the point of
governance, this thing is a disaster. That is why no one is taking it
seriously perhaps outside those of us who get paid to debate these
things. It is really and truly a cumbersome way to do things.
I find it fascinating that my colleagues who rail against the overly
litigious way that often our society operates should now open the door
to a whole new area of constitutional law which is going to be defining
de minimis. I think that would indeed be folly.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, very plainly, on page 3, lines 4 and 5 of the
constitutional amendment, it says that Congress defines by law what a
de minimis amount is. So this does not require litigation.
But having said that, listening to the argument of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Weiner) would have persuaded the Members of the first
Congress and the Congress that sat in 1863 to reject the 1st and 14th
amendments to the United States Constitution. Because if one looks at
the Constitution annotated, those amendments have been the subject of
countless court decisions by the Supreme Court as well as the appeals
courts and the district courts because they were not, quote, properly
drafted, and because they would have, quote, encouraged litigation.
I do not think, had the gentleman from New York been in the first
Congress or in the Civil War Congress he would have voted against the
1st amendment and the 14th amendment. But the argument that he used
which does not hold water with this amendment is that this amendment
does not encourage litigation because it says that Congress defines by
law what a de minimis amount is.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, here is the difference. This is not a question about
whether or not we are interpreting whether someone's speech is
abridged. This is taking an inherent constitutional congressional
obligation which is deciding these questions and having litigation over
what a specific term of art means.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall) to demonstrate the bipartisan support this
amendment has.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res.
41, the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment. I have been a
cosponsor of this legislation since we first started it back in 1995. I
have appeared before in front of post offices on April 15 and talked to
distraught taxpayers on that particular day. I will get the same answer
from all of them.
I am going to continue to support this as long as it takes to provide
a constitutional protection against tax increases for hard-working
Americans.
It would have a chance. This bill is going to pass sooner or later. I
am not sure when it is going to pass, but it will pass. I will tell my
colleagues when it could pass. It could pass when every Member of
Congress would take the time to walk out into the streets of their own
district and ask this simple question: Would you like to make it more
difficult for Congress to raise taxes? If my colleagues do not get a
yes answer from that 9 out of 10, then it will be different to the
various areas that I have made that same inquiry.
The tax increases that have been enacted since I have been in
Congress have passed by narrow margins, once I think by a single vote.
Legislation that hits everybody's pocketbook ought to require more than
a simple majority of passage. A two-thirds vote requirement would give
the taxpayers the protection they need and they are entitled to.
The amendment would do more than just provide tax protection. It will
help ensure that our efforts to maintain a balanced budget will focus
on eliminating wasteful and unnecessary programs and achieving cost
savings wherever we can, not raising taxes as a means of achieving this
goal.
Now, we are blessed with the projected budget surpluses over the next
few years. I do not know if it will last for 10 years. That is the
length of our budget. But I do not think anything this Congress can do
can screw it up in less than 3 or 4 or 5 years. So I think we have got
some real good years directly in front of us.
President Bush and the Congress have pledged to return a portion of
that surplus to the American citizens this year in the form of tax
relief, and Congress is working out the details on that. However,
should the economic environment change and the surplus begin to
dwindle, our first line of defense should not be to breach our
agreement with Americans by not lowering their taxes. Any serious
economic situation that might call for increased taxes has to be
addressed with the cooperation and understanding of all Americans and
with more than a simple majority.
If we ever have a balanced budget amendment, and I think there will
be a time when we will pass a balanced budget amendment, take two-
thirds to pass that amendment, but they could comply with it by simply
raising taxes with a majority vote. Now, that does not look right to
me.
I think that a lot of States have already moved forward on this
initiative and have enacted tax limitation measures of their own.
Congress ought to recognize their efforts and give the States and the
American citizens the opportunity to decide for themselves on this
amendment.
I urge my colleagues to join in the passage of this legislation in
the 107th Congress.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify one point I did not have the
opportunity previously in response to the chairman. Unlike the 1st and
14th amendment, when one imagines the 1st and 14th amendments saying
thou shall not abridge speech except to a de minimis amount or everyone
has equal protection under the law except to a de minimis amount, one
would never find that language in the Constitution of the United States
because that is not the way constitutions are written, and thank
goodness this one will never be part of it.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, as litigious as a society as we
have, can anyone recall any time in history that there was a budget
resolution that was challenged on constitutional grounds around here? I
do not think I have ever seen that. Has there ever been an opportunity
where an increase in taxes was challenged on constitutional grounds?
Frankly put, we are going to have, any time we have any change to the
IRS budget, for example, if we have an increase in the number of people
that the IRS puts on in their ability to enforce the different laws
even, if it might increase the amount of tax collection, we are going
to have a lawsuit.
This notion that we are somehow are not going to have constitutional
conflicts, that we do not have constitutional conflicts in the 1st and
14th amendment, so therefore we should not have done it is absurd. This
is not language that goes into the Constitution, because it opens
ourselves up to all kinds of litigation.
But a second point is also important. The Framers of the Constitution
envisioned this body, Congress, having the ability to make certain
decisions about how monies are expended, about how taxes are raised,
lowered, either. Do we really want to turn that over to the courts? Is
that a desirable outcome to say, well, you think it is de minimis, fine
by us. We do not want to be in that circumstance. I am quite certain
the
[[Page H1579]]
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary does not want
to be in that position either.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the Framers of the Constitution have used terms of art
like due process of law and equal protection under the law and the
courts have interpreted it. If the argument of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Weiner) is that we should draft constitutional amendments so
tightly that the courts do not interpret it, then I think we probably
would have to rewrite the Constitution right from article I, section 1.
We do not want to do that. But we do want to give Congress the
authority to determine what de minimis is.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary for yielding me this time.
The temptation is here, Mr. Speaker, to directly address the curious
and clever arguments. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), for
example, he seems to be suggesting that we truncate the role of the
judiciary in our separate and co-equal branches from our constitutional
Republic.
He also seems to set up an interesting reinterpretation of what our
Founders meant in setting up this Constitution. Because, Mr. Speaker,
if it was so desirable to have direct taxation of personal income, why
did not our Founders include that in the original document called the
Constitution or in the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
They understood the powers that would be abridged,the rights of
citizens that would be abridged.
Ultimately, it came through the 16th amendment which required a
supermajority for ratification. So the balance we strike today in
adopting this constitutional amendment is to strike a balance to say,
if a supermajority was required for the amendment process, there should
be a supermajority required for raising taxes.
Now, under the realm of I have heard everything, I think it was
suggested earlier we have a supermajority for spending. Let us explore
that. But today let us vote yes on this amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests
for time and one final speaker. So if the gentleman from Wisconsin is
ready to close, then I will proceed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the gentleman from North
Carolina to recognize his final speaker, and then we can wrap this up.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is always interesting at this time of the
year. Every year, for the last 6 years, around April 15, this same or
some version of this proposed constitutional amendment has come to the
floor of the House, not as a serious legislative initiative, because I
think it has always been acknowledged that there is not sufficient
support for such a constitutional amendment. Instead, it comes to the
floor as a political vehicle to dramatize and have a discussion about
whether taxes are too high or whether the expenditures are out of
control.
We have a political discussion in the context of a proposed
constitutional amendment.
{time} 1245
I want to submit to my colleagues, however, that this is not a
discussion about whether taxes are too high or not. If you ask probably
10 out of 10 people on the street whether taxes are too high, all 10 of
them will tell you taxes are too high. It is not a discussion about
whether we spend too much money. I am sure there are people who will
have varying opinions about whether the Federal Government spends too
much money. My experience has been that they typically vary based on
whether the money is being spent for the benefit of the individual who
is taking a position or whether it is being spent for the benefit of
somebody else. If money is being spent for your benefit, then most
likely you are going to support that expenditure, and if it is not
being spent for something that you believe is beneficial to yourself or
to the country, then you are going to oppose that. So this is not a
debate about whether we spend too much either.
I think it is a debate about democratic rule and democracy and
majority rule, because there are only two instances in our Constitution
where a supermajority such as this is required. That is to declare war,
which we seldom use because the Presidents have decided that you do not
even need a supermajority to do that and that is not a good idea, so
there has been this constant struggle between the executive branch and
the legislative branch even in that area. And the other is to amend the
Constitution, which brings me to this point. I think our Founding
Fathers recognized that there needs to be something special to require
a two-thirds majority, because the idea of majority rule was almost
synonymous with the concept of democracy and they did not want to do
anything that was contrary to that principle.
Now, my colleagues who continue to profess to me that they are
conservatives seem to have forgotten that there is something
conservative about the concept of majority rule. They seem to have
forgotten that there is something conservative about maintaining the
integrity of our Constitution.
In 1994, when my Republican colleagues took over the majority in the
House in the 104th Congress, we had a total of 118 proposed
constitutional amendments. In the next term of Congress under their
control, we had a total of 86 proposed constitutional amendments. In
the last term of Congress, we had a total of 52 proposed constitutional
amendments. Now, these are the people who came in here telling me that
they believed in some conservative philosophy. These are the people who
are now telling me that somehow or another they have a better idea
about this than the historical founders have had. I am a little
confused by this. There is something else going on here.
I think this is about democracy. I think this is about democracy, and
I think it is about my ability to represent the constituents who have
sent me here on an equal footing with everybody else in this body. It
is not about winning and losing a vote. It is about every individual in
this country having the right to have an equal voice in the government.
That is why we redistrict and do a census and based on that census
redistrict the whole country every 10 years, to go out of our way to
provide every American an equal voice in our government. And when we
set up a system in our Constitution that on one subject, such as taxes
or spending or whatever else interrupts that balance, requires some
supermajority, then basically what we are saying is we are devaluing
the representation of some Members of this body, and we are overvaluing
the representation of other people.
Now, I am not going to argue with the notion of whether taxes are too
high, but I do not think that is what this debate is about. If you go
out on the street and you ask 10 people whether they believe that a
basic tenet of democracy is majority rule, I bet you 10 out of 10 of
them will tell you they believe in majority rule and they believe in
the democracy that we have put in place. That is what this debate is
about, my colleagues. That is what this debate is about, whether I am
going to give you more power in the government to make this decision or
whether I am going to have an equal place on behalf of the constituents
who sent me here to cast a vote that has equal value to yours.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. This amendment is very simple. It
makes it harder for Congress to raise taxes. It requires Congress to
put fiscal discipline on itself so that if there are loopholes closed,
the tax relief would be given to the American people rather than being
spent on some type of proposal that maybe the American people would not
approve of.
The original Constitution written by James Madison prohibited direct
taxes except ``in proportion to the census, or enumeration hereinbefore
directed to be taken.''
[[Page H1580]]
When the Congress attempted to pass an income tax in the late 1890s,
the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. On February 13, 1913,
the 16th amendment was ratified by the several States and became a part
of our Nation's Constitution which specifically gave the Congress the
power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived
without apportionment among the several States and without regard to
any census or enumeration. Since that time, boy, have those income
taxes taken off. With the constitutional amendment ratified in 1913,
the heavy hand of the Congress and of the Federal Government has dipped
deeper and deeper into the pockets of the people of the United States
of America, so that today Federal income taxes as expressed as a
percentage of gross domestic product are higher than at any time in the
peacetime history of our country, including during World War II in many
of the years.
So I guess the question is really simple. Given the track record of
Congress since 1913, do we want to continue making it easy for Congress
to raise taxes? Or do we want to force Congress to cut spending, to
have better priorities, and then to attempt to achieve a national
consensus to raise taxes as a last resort? Because a two-thirds vote
does require a national consensus to be formed.
I would hope that the Members of the House would approve this
constitutional amendment and send it to the other body, because it will
send a message that this Congress is serious about making it tough for
future Congresses to raise taxes and to force them to set priorities in
spending the public's money, not the Congress' money but the public's
money.
I ask for an aye vote.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, here it comes again.
I was a newly-elected Member of Congress the last time we debated
this proposed constitutional amendment--but I was told that the House
had already considered it more than once.
So, it was no surprise that the debate about it sounded very
rehearsed. I got the impression--and it has only been strengthened
today--that many Members have heard all the arguments before. And I am
pretty sure the debate will not change many minds about the proposal.
But, as I said last time, this resolution strikes me as one of the
oddest pieces of legislation that I've encountered--and I think it's
one of the worst.
For one thing, while I'm not a lawyer it seems clear to me 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, I must oppose this proposal because it moves away
from the basic principle of democracy--majority rule.
If this were part of the Constitution, 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 takes 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.
Looking at the results of last year's census, the total population of
the 17 least-populous states is about 21 million people.
That's a respectable number, but remember that the population of the
country is more than 280 million.
So, what this resolution would do would be to give Senators
representing about 7 per cent of the American people the power to block
some kinds of legislation--even if that legislation has sweeping
support in the rest of the country, and even if it had passed the House
by an overwhelming margin.
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 such a
very 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? 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. I 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.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, this bill will hamstring Congress in an
unprecedented manner.
Requiring a two-thirds majority essentially renders Congress unable
to increase revenues, as demonstrated by the five major deficit
reduction measures enacted between 1982 and 1993. None of these bills
passed by a two-thirds majority, yet a majority of this representative
body found them necessary to reduce the federal debt and balance the
federal budget.
This bill will hurt federal programs when the baby boom generation
begins to retire. This could lead to steep reductions in Medicare and
Social Security benefits, not to mention other needed federal programs.
Congress needs to impose balance in its budgets but this would be
made impossible by requiring a two-thirds majority. Everybody likes the
benefits that the federal government provides but nobody likes to pay
for them. So it's always easy for a Member of Congress to reduce taxes,
yet very difficult to increase taxes--even under a bill that requires a
simple majority vote.
A two-thirds majority would be required of any bill seeking to raise
federal tax revenues. This includes taxes on corporations that find
loopholes to lower their effective tax rates. This also includes
businesses that we find pollute the environment. Just last year, the
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that forty-one of
Fortune's top 250 U.S. companies paid less than zero in federal income
taxes at some point between 1996 and 1998. This means that rather than
paying the $9 billion in federal income tax, as required by the 35
percent statutory corporate tax rate, these companies generated so many
excess tax breaks that they received rebate checks from the U.S.
Treasury totaling $3.2 billion. One astute University of Miami Law
School professor accurately depicted today's bill as the ``Tax Loophole
Preservation Amendment to the Constitution.''
The legislation before us today would mean that corporate welfare
could continue to flourish at the expense of American seniors who risk
decreased Social Security and Medicare benefits with passage of this
devastating bill. This is too big a gift to give to corporate America
when we need more money for our children's education, and we need a
Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors. I urge my
colleagues to allow Congress to continue its prescribed work in
devising and enacting an annual budget that includes increasing
revenues in the same manner as it decreases revenues--by a simple
majority vote.
I urge a ``not'' vote on H.J. Res. 41.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wholeheartedly
support House Joint Resolution 41, the Tax Limitation Constitutional
Amendment of 2001. I am happy to be an original co-sponsor of this
legislation and hope that one day we can see this safeguard in place in
order to protect the wallets and pocketbooks of American taxpayers.
This biggest things in life are usually the hardest things to
accomplish. The same is true with law and government. Going to war.
Impeaching a president. Overriding a veto. So, too, should raising
taxes. It should be difficult to raise taxes. Our system of checks and
balances can look out for the average taxpayer if the tax limitation
amendment were indeed the law of the land.
Over one third of the population of this nation lives in states with
tax limitation amendments.
President Clinton's tax hike in 1993--the largest tax increase in
American history--would have died a miserable death if the tax
limitation amendment existed back then.
If we really need to raise taxes, if we really need to generate more
revenue than we are already collecting, then two-thirds of Congress
will do the will of the people. If there is a war, there is an
exception. But raising taxes ought
[[Page H1581]]
to be the very last resort taken in order to solve a fiscal problem.
We need to make it harder for Congress to raise taxes. We need to
pass the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint
Resolution 41. This joint resolution requires a two-thirds vote in both
the House and Senate for any bill that changes the internal revenue
laws by more than a de minimis amount. The resolution also allows
Congress to waive the supermajority requirement to pass a tax increase
(1) during a period of declared war between the U.S. and another
country, or (2) when Congress and the president enact a resolution
stating that the U.S. is engaged in a military conflict which threatens
national security. Tax legislation enacted under this waiver can be in
force for no longer than two years after its enactment.
Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 41 provides a simple mechanism to curb
wasteful and abusive government spending by restraining the
government's unquenchable appetite for taking the American people's
money. The more the government has, the more it spends. The more it
spends, the more it needs. The Tax Limitation Amendment will ensure
that when the government needs money, it will not simply look to the
American people to foot the bill.
A Constitutional amendment is the only way we can assure the American
people that Congress will only take from their pocketbooks that which
is truly needed. This Constitutional amendment will force Congress to
focus on options other than raising taxes to manage the Federal budget.
It will also force Congress to carefully consider how best to use
current resources before demanding that taxpayers dig deeper into their
hard-earned wages to pay for increased Federal spending.
Furthermore, if Congress has less to spend on programs, it will be
forced to act responsibly and choose what is truly important to the
American people, and it will be forced to make sure government programs
are run as effectively and efficiently as possible. Simply put, the
harder it is for Congress to tax the American people, the harder it
will be for Congress to spend their money.
Mr. Speaker, Once and for all, it is time for Washington to get off
the American people's backs and out of their pockets.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Sessions, and I urge my colleagues to
support House Joint Resolution 41.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 41, the
Tax Limitation Amendment to the United States Constitution. This
legislation will protect the American people from runaway government
spending and keep Uncle Sam out of America's pocketbook.
This Amendment demonstrates the respect this Congress has for the
states and taxpayers of the United States. Today, the United States
taxpayer faces the highest tax burden ever. I am pleased to have joined
a bi-partisan majority in passing President Bush's tax relief package a
few weeks ago. But the measure we take up today in the House is a
longer-term solution to keep our taxes in check. No longer will a
determined, razor-thin majority be able to force through tax increases
against the will of the people. In 1993 this country was subjected to
massive tax increases that passed each House by a single vote.
I believe that if Washington, D.C. really thinks a tax increase is
necessary, we should be able to convince the representatives of \2/3\
of the states. We require a \2/3\ vote of Congress to change the
constitution, we require a \2/3\ vote to overturn the President's veto,
we require \2/3\ votes for many important votes. Shouldn't we recognize
that to working Americans, how much Washington takes away is the most
important issue of all? I am proud to vote for this amendment, and I
will recommend its passage to the legislature of my home state of
Idaho.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the constitutional amendment before
us because it is flawed and fundamentally anti-democratic. As the
ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction over
constitutional amendments, I also want to register my strong objection
to the manner in which the majority has once again disregarded regular
order and proceeded without any hearings or subcommittee consideration.
I would hope that our fundamental governmental document would merit
more respect and care.
H.J. Res. 41 disregards the constitutional principle of majority
rule, requiring instead, a two-thirds ``super majority'' vote to raise
taxes. The only exceptions to the super majority requirement are: bills
that do not increase taxes by more than a ``de minimis amount''; when a
declaration of war is in effect; or when the United States is engaged
in a ``serious military conflict'' that causes an ``imminent and
serious threat to national security.''
James Madison, in The Federalist Papers No. 58, warned against such
super majorities, stating that, under such a requirement, ``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.'' For example, based on data from a 1996 U.S. Census
report, Senators representing only 7.3% of the U.S. population could
prevent a tax bill from obtaining the two-thirds super majority
required to pass. And the bill would require a far larger vote count to
raise taxes than to lower taxes.
This ``one way ratchet'' mechanism dilutes a member's vote on tax
bills that are central and fundamental to the workings of our
government. Although the sponsors point out that it is not
unprecedented to provide in the Constitution for a two-thirds vote for
certain significant actions, such as overriding a presidential veto or
congressional impeachments, in the 104th Congress, the then Chairman of
this Committee stated ``I am troubled by the concept of divesting a
Member of the full import of his or her vote. You are diluting the vote
of Members by requiring a supermajority . . . it is a diminution. It is
a disparagement. It is a reduction of the impact, the import, of one
man, one vote.''
H.J. Res. 41 is designed to benefit the wealthy and powerful at the
expense of the average American family and the poor. This
constitutional amendment makes it difficult to close unfair tax
loopholes that benefit the powerful corporations and wealthiest
Americans, requiring a two-thirds supermajority to do so. For example,
the amendment makes it difficult to curb ``corporate welfare'' and cut
unproductive tax expenditures that grant subsidies to powerful special
interests. Yet, according to a recent editorial in the Washington Post,
``when the baby boomers begin to retire . . . the country will be in an
era of fiscal strain. To avoid destructive deficits, there will have to
be tax increases and/or spending cuts. By making it harder to increase
taxes, this amendment would compound the pressure on the major spending
programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the rest.'' This is
wrong, Mr. Speaker; and I think that we ought not to allow it.
This amendment would also endanger important excise taxes that fund
public safety and environmental programs whose extension would be
subject to a supermajority vote. Many such excise taxes are dedicated
to purposes such as transportation trust funds, Superfund, compensation
for health damages, taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and pensions, as well as
a variety of environmental taxes.
The amendment is also vague and runs the risk of transferring
authority from the Congress to the courts. For example, the amendment
fails to define the term ``internal revenue laws'' to which super
majority votes would apply, and also fails to define the term ``de
minimis'' to which super majorities do not apply. These vagaries would
empower the courts to divine the congressional intent on tax issues
that are not the province of the courts, and would bring the courts
into fundamental policy disputes that are strictly the province of the
Congress.
Finally, the majority has recognized just how unworkable a
supermajority requirement can be. On at least six separate occasions
waived its own House rules requiring such super majorities to increase
taxes where it suits their needs. For example, during consideration of
the Contract with America Tax Relief Act in 1995 the majority waived
the currently necessary three-fifths majority rule needed to raise
taxes. This is wrong.
This legislation would end the ability of the American people, acting
through their representatives in Congress, to decide how they want to
raise and spend their own money. The democratic principle of one
person, one vote is before us today. I believe that we must protect it
for this generation, and for generations to come.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in principled opposition
to House Joint Resolution 41, the so-called ``tax limitation''
constitutional 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 be borne for any
deviations 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 my judgment, tax
increases should not be employed to achieve a balanced budget; balanced
budgets should be achieved by economic growth and, as appropriate, tax
cuts. That is why this Member in the past has supported the inclusion
of a supermajority 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 H1582]]
opinion, inappropriate and, therefore, the reason why this Member will
vote against House Joint Resolution 41.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shays). Under House Resolution 118, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, if printed in the
Congressional Record and if offered by the minority leader or his
designee, would be in order at this point. The Chair is aware of no
qualifying amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 118, the previous question is ordered.
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 the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. 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 232,
nays 189, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 87]
YEAS--232
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Capps
Cooksey
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
McHugh
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Roybal-Allard
Smith (TX)
Vitter
Watts (OK)
{time} 1322
Messrs. FORD of Tennessee, CUMMINGS, TURNER, ACKERMAN, and THOMAS
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. PORTMAN, BARTLETT of Maryland, and McKEON changed their 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.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and
missed the vote on final passage of H.J. Res. 41, the Tax Limitation
Constitutional Amendment (recorded vote No. 87). If I had not been
detained, I would have voted ``aye'' on this important bill.
____________________