[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3472-H3487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROPOSING A TAX LIMITATION AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
                                 STATES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 439 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 439

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 96) proposing a tax limitation 
     amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional 
     Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee, which shall be considered as 
     read and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of 
debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 439 provides for the consideration of 
H.J. Res. 96, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States with respect to tax limitation.
  The rule provides for 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides for one amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record, if offered 
by the minority leader or his designee, which shall be considered as 
read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and opponent.

[[Page H3473]]

                              {time}  1800

  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, today the average American pays more in taxes than for 
food, clothing, shelter, or transportation combined. For too long, the 
tax burden imposed by the government has been going up, not down.
  The Tax Limitation Amendment starts from this very simple premise: it 
should be harder, not easier for the government to raise taxes. Raising 
taxes should be an absolute last resort, not an easy, quick fix for 
excessive government spending.
  I have observed with great interest the spirited debate surrounding 
our efforts to make portions of our President's tax cuts permanent. 
Last week, the House passed a bill that would permanently repeal the 
death tax. In the same manner, the House will later this week consider 
a bill that makes permanent relief from the marriage penalty tax.
  Throughout these debates, it is apparent that there are those who 
would support repealing parts, if not all, of this historic tax bill. 
These individuals would prefer that married couples be penalized for 
entering into holy matrimony. They feel that the Grim Reaper and the 
tax collector should visit American families and farmers on the same 
day. They believe that the Federal Government makes better decisions 
than families about how best to spend their hard-earned money.
  This line of reasoning is inconsistent with the fact that people all 
across this Nation overwhelmingly support tax reduction. I only wish 
that both bodies of Congress would reflect the sentiment clearly 
expressed by the American people. The people of this great Nation will 
not be fooled by those who would support a tax cut during an election 
season, only to work to repeal it the very next session of Congress.
  Many Members have stood on this floor of this distinguished House 
extolling the virtues of lower taxation. Today they will have the 
opportunity to show their constituents exactly where they stand.
  The annual floor consideration of the Tax Limitation Amendment gives 
us an opportunity to take a stand on the side of the American taxpayer. 
By enacting the Tax Limitation Amendment, we protect the taxpayer and 
pledge that we as a Congress will focus inward on cutting waste, fraud 
and abuse instead of immediately raiding the pockets of American 
taxpayers.
  By requiring a supermajority to raise taxes, an incentive for 
government agencies would be created to eliminate waste and create 
efficiency, rather than simply turning to more deficit spending or 
increasing taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation does recognize and make allowances for 
times of extenuating circumstances such as during a time of war, a 
national emergency, or when taxes may need to be raised.
  The Tax Limitation Amendment would allow Congress to raise taxes in 
those circumstances; but in the meantime, it would prevent the 
intrusive and penalizing tax increases that have been enacted with 
recklessness to fund government expansion for the last few decades.
  It is time the Federal Government joined the States and listened to 
the voices of Americans: it should be harder to raise taxes. Had this 
amendment been adopted sooner, the four largest tax increases since 
1980, which occurred in 1982, 1983, 1990, and 1993, all would have 
failed. The tax increase in 1993 was the largest tax increase in 
American history, and it passed by just one vote. These tax increases 
today from 1993 total $666 billion, taken from the American taxpayer.
  The bottom line of this debate, Mr. Speaker, and let us make no 
mistake about it. Those Members who support this amendment are here to 
support the hard-working taxpayers of America. Those Members who are 
opposed to it are here to defend the tax collectors of America. To me, 
it is really just that simple.
  The Tax Limitation Amendment also allows for a simple majority vote 
to eliminate tax loopholes. The de minimis exemption would allow nearly 
all loopholes to be closed without the supermajority requirement.
  Mr. Speaker, we will also hear that the government will be unable to 
function if a supermajority is required. We all hear this as Members, 
but I encourage Members to look at the States. Thirteen States have 
some sort of supermajority limitation in effect.
  The millions of Americans living in these States have enjoyed slower 
growth in taxes, slower growth in government spending, faster growth in 
economies, and lower unemployment rates.
  Today we can take one step closer to retaining liberty and ensuring 
future generations the freedom our Founding Fathers intended America to 
enjoy. This debate is about requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, 
and it boils down to a debate about liberty and freedom for the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the seventh time in 7 years that the House has 
considered this same constitutional amendment. We appear to have some 
slower learners on the other side of the aisle. This is an amendment 
that would require a two-thirds majority to pass any provision that 
raises revenue for the government. The House has rejected it six times 
before, and I hope today will mark its seventh consecutive failure.
  Before we get into a debate Members have heard before, I want to 
begin by putting it in context. Late last week the President finally 
agreed to make homeland security a Cabinet-level priority, something 
Democrats have been pushing for months, and called on Congress to get 
to work creating an entirely new structure. It is a huge job, one that 
raises a lot of questions and will take a lot of work.
  Meanwhile, prescription drug prices are still sky high nearly 2 years 
after many Republicans got elected promising to do something about it; 
and still there is no credible Republican plan to help senior citizens 
who cannot afford their pharmaceutical bills. There is no question that 
the House has a tremendous amount of important work left to do this 
year, including all 13 appropriations bills, none of which has been 
considered yet.
  Instead of addressing these and other important issues this week, 
Republican leaders are once again wasting the House's time on a gimmick 
they call the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment. We know it is a 
waste of time because, as I mentioned before, it has failed each of the 
previous six times the Republicans brought it to the floor: in 1996, in 
1997, in 1998, in 1999, in 2000, and in 2001. And we know it is 
irresponsible because of what it does.
  For instance, this amendment would make it nearly impossible to close 
any of the countless loopholes that shameless tax dodgers use to avoid 
paying their fair share. For example, right now the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Maloney) are trying to close the loophole that allows big corporations 
to flee overseas to avoid their tax obligations. This amendment would 
make it even harder to stop these tax evaders, which is probably what 
Republican leaders want anyway. After all, they have repeatedly blocked 
the Neal-Maloney bill in the Committee on Rules.
  If that were not bad enough, this amendment would do serious harm to 
America's democratic system. The Founding Fathers designed our 
government around the principle of majority rule. Writing in ``The 
Federalist Papers,'' James Madison wisely argued against 
supermajorities like the one Republicans are advocating today, stating 
that, ``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.''
  Make no mistake, this is exactly what this constitutional amendment 
would do. It would allow a relatively small minority, one-third plus 
one, to stop widely supported, meaningful legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, right now we are in a global war to protect the American 
way of life, and Republican leaders are trying to undermine our 
democratic system of majority rule here in the House of 
Representatives. I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided 
constitutional amendment and preserve majority rule in the United 
States of America and allow the House to get on with the real business 
before it.

[[Page H3474]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said about how we are doing this 
for the seventh time. I understand that the gentleman from Texas is 
simply opposed to the concept of making it more difficult to raise 
taxes. That is what this is all about. The gentleman has stated his 
point very clearly. I would also like to point out that it was 
conservatives and Republicans in this House who made sure that the idea 
of a balanced budget was talked about for many, many, many years, and 
tried many different ways. We did not grow weary. We knew it was the 
right thing to do; and despite the onslaught of Members voting against 
it, we kept going. I am sure we did it more than seven times, but the 
American people understood what it meant.
  I did not know this until today, Mr. Speaker, but the 27th amendment 
to the Constitution was proposed on September 25, 1789. It was declared 
to have been ratified by the legislatures of 39 of 50 States dated May 
18, 1992. What was this? This was known as the Madison amendment. This 
was the Madison amendment to the Constitution, which I think made 
sense, and I am sure it took a long time, as we have heard. And what 
that was all about was to say Members of Congress could not get a pay 
raise during the term in which they are serving. They have to wait 
another term.
  Our Constitution is a wonderful document, but occasionally we run 
into some things that need to be perfected. We are about a perfecting 
amendment today, and I am proud of what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his outstanding 
leadership on the Tax Limitation Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am new to this institution; but with regard to the 
notion that taxes are not yet high enough, it is going to be ever my 
ambition, whether I serve here for 5 more years, 5 more days, or 5 more 
decades, to always be a slow learner on that issue.
  The truth is that the people of Indiana that I represent 
overwhelmingly believe two things: taxes are too high, and government 
spends too much. I believe that the argument for the Tax Limitation 
Constitutional Amendment is drawn from the remarks of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost). He alluded to two issues that Congress will 
take up this year, one of which is already accounted for in the budget 
that we adopted, a prescription drug benefit for which there is a 
Republican plan that will be brought to this floor this month. But also 
the gentleman alluded to the President's call for the establishment of 
the first Cabinet agency since the 1970s, the Department of Homeland 
Security. The day it opens, it will be the third largest Cabinet agency 
in the executive branch, $39 billion as the President has outlined it.
  Now, there are those of us on this side of the aisle who see the 
President as calling for us to reorganize the government. But one can 
infer from the implications of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
that there may well be an intention to grow government in the wake of 
this national emergency, as has been the practice that history teaches 
in the wake of many crises in our Nation.
  It is precisely at a time like this when America is reeling from a 
national emergency and preparing to grow the executive branch, when 
this Congress is preparing to respond to the needs of hurting seniors, 
that there needs to be a break on the system, Mr. Speaker. A break on 
the system that says that we demand what the American people demand, 
and that is that we go to our pocketbooks first, that we tighten our 
belts in this institution before we go to the American people. Tax 
increases must be a last resort, and a supermajority is designed to 
make it be just that.

                              {time}  1815

  Does that, as the gentleman suggests, undermine our democratic 
system? If that is the case, then our rules for a supermajority about 
amending the Constitution apparently undermines our democratic system. 
Or the requirement of a supermajority to impeach a President undermines 
our system. Or ratifying international treaties by a supermajority. The 
practice is a part of our democratic system and it is a much needful 
part as these days of emergency beckon us perhaps to an era of larger 
government beyond what our children could possibly imagine.
  States that have passed tax limitation amendments, those laboratories 
of democracy, Mr. Speaker, they ought to be teachers to us today. The 
States that have passed amendments like the TLA have shown greater 
economic growth, better job creation and have raised taxes less than 
half the time than States without tax limitation amendments. Chief 
Justice John Marshall said in the landmark McCulloch v. Maryland 
Supreme Court case, ``The power to tax involves the power to destroy.''
  The American people believe in their hearts, an overwhelming 
majority, in that simple principle, if you owe taxes, pay taxes, but 
they only want this Congress to ask them to pay more taxes as an 
absolute last resort. That is a last resort accommodated by the tax 
limitation constitutional amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, it is 
hard to understand why the Members on the other side of the aisle are 
so antagonistic to democracy. There is not a single matter that comes 
before this House of Representatives on a regular basis that requires a 
supermajority. Everything is done by majority vote in the House of 
Representatives. True, in the United States Senate there are some 
limited chances to use a supermajority. Ratification of treaties, a 
very limited exception. But everything that comes before the people's 
House requires a majority, not a supermajority.
  Why do they fear the will of the majority? It is very difficult to 
understand. Once again, I would point out this has been defeated six 
times. They are very slow learners, indeed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. If you think that our current Tax Code is just right, that it is 
fair, that it is equitable to everyone, including the most powerful 
corporations in this country, that all are being treated fairly and are 
paying their fair share, and that there are not any lobbyists here in 
Washington that manage to get special loopholes written into the Tax 
Code so that they can shift the cost of our national security to you 
instead of paying their fair share, then the proposal that is up 
tonight is just right for you. The purpose of this proposal is not tax 
relief, but to freeze, with constitutional protection, all of the 
various loopholes and preferences and backdoor arrangements that plague 
our tax system. The provisions that make our Tax Code more complex and 
more inequitable so that some are not paying their fair share and those 
folks that are out there working hard for a living, working with small 
businesses and farms and ranches around this country, they are having 
sometimes to pay more than their fair share to make up for those who 
escape through the loopholes.
  And so what do we have here? We have a provision that if we attempt 
to close one of those loopholes, that it will take not a majority, it 
will take two-thirds of this House. If we could easily get a majority 
to clean up all the special interest provisions in this Tax Code, it 
would have been done a long time ago. But Republicans are not satisfied 
to have a mere majority required. They insist on requiring two-thirds 
of this body having the courage to stand up to the special interests 
that riddle our Tax Code with all these special preferences. That will 
never happen.
  So many of our Republican colleagues are a little like Will Rogers: 
they have never met a tax loophole that they did not like. And so what 
we really have is a measure here that ought to be called the ``tax 
loophole preservation'' amendment, because that is exactly what it is.
  My good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) says, not to worry, we have 
a ``de minimis'' provision in this amendment that will permit repeal of 
tax loopholes and preferences. But the ``de minimis'' provision is one 
of the most

[[Page H3475]]

defective features of this entirely defective amendment. No one knows 
what ``de minimis'' really means. The tax loophole problem, the abusive 
corporate tax shelter problem, is not minor, not de minimis. Some have 
estimated the cost is as much as $10 billion a year. I think that is 
pretty significant.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) will speak shortly. Some 
of us share his concern with Stanley Works or, as one of my friends in 
Austin says, they really ought to be called Stanley Flees. That 
corporation and others, we have gotten to a point with abusive tax 
shelters that is so bad that they have the audacity to flee this 
country, get a mailbox in someplace like Bermuda, misuse our tax 
treaties and set up a new Bermuda Triangle out to the Barbados. 
Refusing to pay their fair share of taxes, they shift burden to people 
in this country that are willing to make a sacrifice after September 
11, that feel we have some responsibility to work together as a country 
and pay our fair share. We will be freezing into law those special 
provisions if this amendment were adopted.
  And, of course, there is the fiscal responsibility concern. That is 
why a group like the bipartisan, nonpartisan Concord Coalition has come 
out so strongly today against this proposal, noting that it ``defies 
all notions of fiscal responsibility.'' This is a group that has worked 
so hard to get us a balanced budget and now sees balances so quickly 
eluding us in a sea of red ink. This amendment would only make our 
budget situation worse.
  Everyone who wants to see our tax system improved, who wants to see 
more equity and fewer accountants necessary to file a tax return on 
April 15, less complexity and more simplicity in our system, all of us 
who want real change, need to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, once again the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett) is wrong. Had he read the amendment that is being 
proposed, revenue-neutral legislation which raise taxes here and lower 
taxes there in an equal amount do not require a two-thirds vote. They 
can be passed by a majority vote. So if the gentleman from Texas wanted 
to close all of these loopholes that he was talking about, maybe 
including some that benefit the oil industry, then perhaps enough money 
could be raised to repeal the marriage tax penalty or to provide 
further relief on the death tax to small business owners and farmers. 
As long as he wants to give a tax break for the money that he raises on 
closing the loopholes, then it is a majority. But if he wants to stick 
the American public with a tax increase and not give a tax break, then 
it requires a two-thirds vote.
  So all I am saying is that if the gentleman from Texas really wants 
to be generous with the taxpayers because of his very sincere 
opposition to loopholes, tell us where you would lower taxes and then 
you would get a majority vote.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I have been 
sitting over here trying to figure out why are these people so 
antagonistic to majority rule and it finally occurred to me. They are 
worried that they are not going to be in the majority after this 
election and they are going to be in the minority, and so they want 
minorities to be able to have a veto power over the will of the 
majority. It is very interesting.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Tanner).
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I went before the Committee on Rules last 
night and asked that rather than consider a constitutional amendment, 
which I do not favor normally, to restrict the raising of revenue, I 
thought it would be much better and more honest and forthright if we 
changed restricting the ability of the Congress to raise revenue to 
restrict it from borrowing money.
  We owe $6 trillion collectively, every man, woman and child in this 
country, and we see that today as was the case yesterday, we continue 
to see the amount of borrowing go up. The problem is excessive spending 
and unbalanced budgets because Congress in the past has not had the 
will to either cut services to come in line with the existing revenue 
or to raise revenue to pay for the services that they deem to be in the 
public interest at that particular time.
  The most insidious tax increase in the world is for us to continue to 
borrow money, because that requires us to pay interest. I hope every 
young person is listening to this, because what we are doing is 
saddling your generation with debt that we are unwilling to raise the 
money to pay for the services that we think we require today. That is 
what is going on. It has been going on, and this will do nothing to 
stop that. In fact, this will make it worse. Because if we have to do 
some things that were unforeseen last year when some of us voted for 
the tax bill when we did not know about 9/11 and if we have to do some 
things to spend money to protect the citizens of this country, the 
passage of this will restrict that ability to do so, number one. And, 
number two, what we are really doing is engaging in the politics of 
shifting responsibility, not accepting it. We are shifting to the 
Constitution something that it was not intended to do. But beyond that, 
I just feel so strongly that what we are doing is so wrong to the next 
generation by continuing to borrow money because we do not have the 
willpower to raise the money to pay for what we need today that we are 
enjoying the benefits of.
  One could argue from now until kingdom come. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) was the father of the balanced budget amendment. He 
worked on it for 14 years, I guess, before we got it up, and it was 
good and we passed it. Unfortunately, we have not been able to live up 
to it, but it is not because we are unwilling to do so, in many 
instances. It is because it is tough. It is tough to raise the money to 
spend $1 million a copy on a cruise missile, to build the aircraft 
carriers we need, to do the things we need in this country. That is not 
easy to do. But it is our responsibility to do it. Instead, we shift it 
to the next generation by saying, well, no, we are not going to raise 
taxes. As the gentleman said, we are not going to stick it to the 
American public today, to us. We are going to stick it to the kids. 
Kids are people, too, and the people that are going to pay the bills 
for what we have been doing are not here. They do not have a voice.
  It is hard to raise taxes. Nobody comes here saying, ``I want to 
raise taxes. Send me to Washington.'' It is easy to say, I want to cut 
taxes. But yet I want to build the strongest military in the history of 
the world. But we are not going to ask you to pay anything for it. We 
are going to borrow the money and send it to the next generation.
  The President sent us a budget down here that does not balance 
without using Social Security money for 10 years, for the next decade, 
and nobody has raised a voice to say, look, we owe $6 trillion. We are 
paying $1 billion a day in interest. You talk about taxes. If you want 
to make sure that all of us are overtaxed the rest of our lives, 
continue to borrow money and continue to pay $1 billion a day in 
interest and leave that to your children to pay. Just like we say we do 
not want to leave them a country where the air is so bad one has to 
wear a mask to ride a bicycle, and the water is so foul that fish 
cannot live in it and kids cannot swim in it, I do not want to leave 
them a country that is so burdened with debt that they are going to be 
paying over $1 billion a day in interest on the consumption we had 
while we were in charge and either would not pay for or did not have 
the fortitude to cut the programs that we did not think were necessary.
  This is an ill-conceived constitutional amendment. If you are really 
serious about a constitutional amendment, put one in that says it takes 
a supermajority to borrow money. Then we will get down to the brass 
tacks of why we are here.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee and his comments. You raise 
taxes, you increase spending. We know there are two sides to this 
equation. What the gentleman talked about that

[[Page H3476]]

he offered in the Committee on Rules last night was to balance the 
budget and not borrow any more money. But we have also got to make it 
more difficult to raise taxes. The fact of the matter is the last tax 
increase we had in 1993 that was retroactive, that reached back, the 
bottom line is they increased taxes to pay for more spending. That is 
what they did with it. They spent the money that they taxed on the 
American people. That is what the party did, and that is why we believe 
it ought to be more difficult to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) who is really the father of this fabulous tax limitation 
amendment, a gentleman who carried not only the ideas but also the 
legislation, a fabulous friend of Texas and a fabulous friend of the 
taxpayer.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that my good friend the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) from the 24th District was talking about being afraid 
of the majority. This bill has passed with majorities every time it has 
come to the floor. My guess is later this evening when we vote on it, 
we are going to get over 200 Republicans to vote for it and somewhere 
between 30 and 40 Democrats. I wish we could get 90 Democrats and 
actually get the two-thirds vote, but because the Constitution says you 
have to have a supermajority to pass a tax increase, we have not been 
able to reach that hurdle.
  I am okay with requiring a two-thirds vote to pass a constitutional 
amendment, because you need consensus in the country. As long as two-
thirds of the House Democrats oppose this, it is not going to pass, 
even if we get 80 or 90 percent of the House Republicans. So the 
Constitution says to do important things you have got to show that you 
have got a super-consensus.
  I also think that it is ironic that in the other body, which is 
controlled by the Democrats right now, it takes a supermajority to 
bring a bill to the floor. My good friend from the Committee on Rules 
knows this. If 41 Senators do not want a bill to come to the floor in 
the other body, it will not come to the floor. It takes a supermajority 
in the other body to invoke cloture. I think it should take a 
supermajority to raise taxes on the American people.
  The Constitution as it was originally adopted had an absolute 
prohibition against income taxes, an absolute prohibition. In 1913 the 
Supreme Court said income taxes are constitutional. In 1914 President 
Woodrow Wilson passed a temporary income tax bill. The tax burden on 
the average taxpayer has gone up 4,000 percent since 1914; 4,000 
percent.
  Those of us that support this amendment say it is now about time to 
give the taxpayers a break, to require a supermajority two-thirds vote 
to raise taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, the Tax Limitation Amendment has 150 cosponsors and is 
supported by over three dozen pro-taxpayer, pro-growth, and small 
business organizations.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.J. Res. 96, the Tax 
Limitation Amendment, which would require a two-thirds supermajority 
requirement for net tax increases. I have long been a firm proponent of 
tax limitation since my arrival in Congress in 1985. The American 
Taxpayers deserve the right to know that Members of congress will not 
spend their money needlessly or without a strong consensus. One vote is 
simply not enough.
  I strongly believe it must be more difficult for Congress to raise 
taxes. That is the primary purpose behind this amendment. In fact, 
taxes are higher now than they have ever been and federal revenues are 
growing at an alarming rate. Individual income taxes are higher now 
than ever before. By raising the bar on tax increases, we place the 
focus where it should be--on cutting wasteful spending.
  There has long been in our political system a bias toward raising 
taxes. Spending benefits are targeted at specific groups. These special 
interests successfully lobby Congress and the President for more 
spending. Taxes, on the other hand, are spread among millions of 
people. Taxpayers usually cannot come together as effectively as a 
special interest group with a specific appropriation to defend. As 
Congress seeks fiscal responsibility and spending remains high, the 
built-in pressure forces Congress towards more taxes. The supermajority 
provision balances this pressure.
  The Tax Limitation Amendment will provide flexibility to Members who 
want to honestly adjust the tax code without raising taxes. The 
language of the Amendment subjects net tax increases to the 
supermajority requirement. Any bill that would increase some taxes, but 
also reduce others by a larger amount, could still pass with a simple 
majority. Also, any fundamental tax reform which would have the overall 
effect of lower taxes could still pass with a simple majority. The Tax 
Limitation Amendment will keep the current tax code from getting much 
worse and will lock into place any new system which may replace it.
  The amendment does not require a two-thirds vote for every tax 
increase in any bill. Individual provisions of bills which increase 
internal revenues are not along subject to the two-thirds requirements. 
Any entire bill which overall would increase the internal revenues 
beyond the de minimis amount is subject to the two-thirds requirement. 
As a result, Congress could pass by a simple majority a bill which does 
have provisions increasing the internal revenue, yet on the whole does 
not have an increase beyond the de minimis amount.
  The Tax Limitation Amendment is intended to make major tax increases 
more difficult. It is not intended to stop all tax legislation. Most 
legislation making corrections or small changes to the tax code are 
structured to be slightly revenue positive, at least in some years, 
because it is very difficult to make a bill be exactly revenue neutral 
in all the relevant time periods. Since bills which are a net revenue 
loss are subject to complicated budget process rules, the Tax 
Limitation Amendment allows these and other small increases to pass 
with a simple majority.

  Opponents of the Tax Limitation Amendment argue that we are trying to 
protect tax loopholes; however, the truth is that the de minimis 
exemption would allow nearly all loopholes to be closed without the 
super majority requirement. Most loophole closing would not produce 
enough revenue to surpass the ``de minimis'' test, and, therefore, 
could be passed with the current simple majority. Only the combining of 
several major loopholes would exceed the ``de minimis'' amount and 
require the two-thirds vote.
  Experience in the states proves tax limitation works. The millions of 
Americans living in states who have tax limitation in their state 
constitutions know they are better off. These people have slower growth 
in taxes, slower growth in spending, faster growing economics, and more 
shrinking unemployment rate.
  Taxpayers would enjoy the same type of benefits and protection on 
their Federal returns if the Tax Limitation Amendment is adopted on a 
national scale. With supermajority requirements for tax increases, 
American taxpayers would see fewer and smaller growth in taxes and 
spending, and a stronger economy and employment base.
  In fact, the American taxpayers would be taxed billions of dollars 
less if tax limitation had been in effect during the last five major 
tax increases. Four of those five bills passed with less than a two-
thirds supermajority. The 1993 tax increase, the largest in history, 
passed by one vote. In order to achieve a supermajority, that tax 
increase would have had to be much lower to even have a chance of 
passing.
  Any tax increase that passes with a two-thirds vote in each chamber 
of Congress will have greater support among the American people than an 
increase that is passed by the slimmest of margins. Such a consensus 
should be required from both Congress and the American people before we 
start increasing tax bills again. That is why I am here--to make future 
tax increases more difficult.
  April 15 has become known in this country not for the warm weather 
that usually accompanies it, but for the ``Tax Man'' who on this day 
reaches into the pockets of the American taxpayer to take too much of 
their hard earned money. Americans are frustrated with the size of 
their individual tax bills and the effect that the collective tax 
burden has on the economy, their businesses, and their lives. The 
American people want to know that Congress is trying to help them. 
Making future tax increases more difficult is the perfect response. It 
is time to stand up for the American Taxpayer. It is time to pass the 
Tax Limitation Amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, for the seventh time since 
Republicans assumed the helm of this institution, we are taking up a 
constitutional amendment on tax increases. If I

[[Page H3477]]

said it once, I have said it 10 times, or at least seven times; this is 
the wrong amendment. Why do we not channel our energies into simply 
balancing the budget? That is the responsible position to take. Do you 
know what? We could pass a balanced budget here without any difficulty 
whatsoever. The country would be better off.
  Let us talk about the ``gimmickry of the week'' that we witness here 
time and again. Remember not long ago when we had a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution that they were all hollering about on the 
other side? Well, it strikes me as being odd that we were able to 
balance the budget without disturbing the Constitution.
  Why we are back to deficit spending in large measure is because of 
the tax cut. That is why we are here today. The President has proposed 
$48 billion more for defense. He is going to get much of what he wants. 
He has proposed $38 billion for homeland security. He certainly is 
going to get much of what he wants. In this institution our response 
is, ``Let us cut taxes, the estate tax. Let us move to an artificial 
gimmick on raising taxes in this institution.''
  Well, let us say very easily today that perhaps the Director of the 
Budget had it right. He now says, a presidential employee, by the way, 
that moving the government back into balance by 2005 ``is very iffy. We 
know what the models that we have been using are telling us, but they 
are very obsolete.''
  What a difference a year makes, Mr. Speaker. It seems the much-touted 
$1 trillion tax cut that was based on glowing predictions about endless 
government surpluses now apparently has vanished, while the House 
leadership and the President's Budget Director wobble on the burden of 
controlling spending.
  I am going to suggest tonight a great opportunity: Have every Member 
who submits a request to the Committee on Appropriations publish the 
letter. Let us have the Committee on Appropriations publish the 
letters. Let us find out who asks for the most money in spending, put 
it in front of the public for an opportunity to examine it, and then 
let us have the debate about spending.
  The same people that march to the well hollering about taxes all the 
time, they load up the requests of the appropriators. They are the ones 
that help to drive spending. They make the demands on the 
appropriators. Let us publish those letters, and not put the 
appropriators on the spot the way we do here time and again.
  This type of amendment is not only futile, it is dangerous. If this 
amendment were to pass and get enacted, it would make legislation such 
as legislation I proposed on those companies that are running off to 
Bermuda much harder to pass. A Member said not long ago that the 
American people do not object to paying their taxes fairly. Why is it 
they will not give us a vote here on those companies that are running 
off to Bermuda in this aura of patriotism that the American people are 
experiencing because they do not want to pay their share?
  Will Rogers did say it right. He said this country has come to feel 
the same when Congress is in session as when a baby gets hold of a 
sledge hammer. Oppose this dangerous gimmick.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the question is, when are taxes too high? We 
have a system in the United States that has made us successful, I 
think, based on the fact that those that work hard, that save, that 
learn, that try, that invest, end up better off than those that do not. 
So when, at what point, are taxes so high that it loses some of the 
free enterprise motivation that has made us so successful in this 
country?
  We are now faced with a dilemma. How can any free nation survive when 
a majority of its citizens now dependent on government services for so 
much no longer have the incentive to restrain the growth in government 
and the growth in taxes? Today the majority of Americans can vote 
themselves more generous government benefits at little or no cost to 
themselves, and, as a result, they have little incentive to restrain 
the growth in taxes.
  So I think the question one has to ask is, somehow we have to 
somehow, someplace, come to grips with, at what point do we lose that 
motivation that has made us great in the first place, and, with our 
redistribution of wealth, discourage the kind of effort of so many 
people that are trying to work a little harder and learn a little more 
and save a little more and invest a little more?
  Listen to this: 50 percent of Americans now pay less than 4 percent 
of the total individual income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay most 
of the individual income taxes. At the same time, the folks who are 
paying the least for government are receiving the most benefits. 
Americans who receive nearly half of the Federal benefits pay only 1 
percent of the income taxes. Many of those beneficiaries are poor, but 
an increasing amount are middle class and wealthier citizens.
  So what is the restraint, when most of the population is going to 
benefit from higher taxes? It seems to me part of that restraint that 
we should consider to keep the motivation that has made us great in the 
first place is having a supermajority to increase taxes.
  The gentleman from Texas earlier said, let us have a supermajority 
for increasing the debt limit. I agree on that, too. Let us not 
hoodwink the American people with increasing the debt so that we can 
spend more money.
  It is not the tax cut that has resulted in this deficit spending. Let 
me give you one example. In 1998, we said we promised a balanced budget 
in 2002 based on a prediction of revenues that have ended up this year, 
even with the tax cut, $120 billion more than we projected in 1998. So 
our revenues are higher than we projected. We are still in deficit 
spending, and that is because we have dramatically increased spending, 
even over and above what the war on terrorism has cost us.
  Let me just conclude by saying our founders created a system where 
taxes are the price for government benefits and services. The idea is 
that voters would restrain the growth and expansion of government 
because of the personal costs to themselves in taxes.
  If we are going to keep the motivation that made our system great in 
this free enterprise system, then there has to be a supper-effort on 
the part of this Congress and presidents of the United States to 
restrain the growth in borrowing and restrain the growth in taxes.
  Mr. FROST. 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 thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, with the greatest amount of humility and a desire to be 
genteel in this very gentle place, I would offer to say to you, Mr. 
Speaker, that I am disappointed and saddened that my colleagues and 
friends would cause us to engage in a frivolous discussion, almost a 
hoax on the American people.
  This debate is irrelevant and unnecessary. Let me share with you the 
reason why. First of all, as many of my colleagues have already said, 
this amendment has been brought to the floor some six times and 
defeated. A constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of 
both Houses and three-quarters of the State legislatures of the United 
States of America. In the very legislation that is written, it provides 
a waiver. The waiver acknowledges that when there is a declaration of 
war in effect, the Congress may waive this article.
  Now, whether or not there has been a specific declaration of war, the 
President has repeatedly said this Nation is at war. Having just come 
back from Afghanistan, I can tell the Nation that we are spending $1 
billion a month fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. And yet my friends 
want to bring a frivolous amendment to the floor talking about a two-
thirds amendment dealing with increase to the revenue.
  Let me tell you what the Founding Fathers thought about that when 
they gathered some 200 years-plus ago, excited about a new Nation, 
excited about democracy, excited about a Constitution that would 
reflect a democracy. James Madison argued that under the supermajority 
requirement, the

[[Page H3478]]

fundamental principles of free government would be reversed. It would 
no longer be the majority that would rule. The power would be 
transferred to the minority.
  That is what my friends are asking us, to in fact give a one-third 
minority the right to control the whims, the desires and the needs of 
the American people.
  Just a year ago this Nation had $5.6 trillion in surplus. Now, with 
an enormous, unnecessary tax cut, fostered and run through by the 
Republicans, we have almost zero. Out of that zero we must pay for the 
war against terrorism, we must provide protection to the people of the 
United States as it relates to homeland security. We must give our 
first responders the kind of dollars that are necessary to ensure the 
protection of the American people.
  We were tragically, tragically hurt by the serious attack on the 
United States of September 11. New York in its tragedy and in its 
mourning looked to the Federal Government to provide the resources. I 
am sorry to say that I do not believe New York has even received the 
full $40 million that we have promised them. People are still hurting 
and people still mourning, but yet we have this amendment that is 
ridiculous inasmuch as it has never passed and we are asking for this 
Congress to stand here and debate something that will not pass.
  But, more importantly, it makes no sense. I wonder whether any of the 
appropriators are on this particular amendment? Why? Because they 
realize what they are facing behind their closed doors trying to fund 
the needs of the American people. They realize we have no prescription 
drug benefit, as I previously said. They realize we have the danger of 
going into Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, in 1993, this Congress did a most 
courageous thing. It was my colleagues in the Democratic party that 
cast a vote that provided us with the most prosperous years we could 
have ever had; $5.6 trillion in surplus, the ability for the economy to 
be generating jobs. Now, in my own community of Houston in the State of 
Texas, we have over 5-plus percentage of unemployment. We have people 
who are unemployed. That means that we need unemployment insurance. We 
have airlines who are teetering. We need transportation security 
resources. The borders need to be secured.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we giving this hoax on the American people? And, 
most importantly, most importantly, if I can again refer you to the 
Founding Fathers. For those of us who cherish the Constitution and who 
understand the Bill of Rights, Mr. Speaker, this is, again, a hoax. 
Two-thirds, which then allows the American people to be diminished, if 
you will, by a one-third minority controlling the majority.
  Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, as well. In this legislation, this 
proposed amendment, there is some language that says that there is an 
exemption, a waiver; that if this increase to the Internal Revenue 
system or stream of money is de minimis, then it is okay.

                              {time}  1845

  Well, I know when we are sitting around as families around the 
kitchen table, there is a question about what is de minimis. What is de 
minimis? Will we be in a protractive, legal litigation in Federal 
courts trying to understand what is de minimis to protect Social 
Security, de minimis to protect the Medicare system, de minimis to 
fight the war in Afghanistan, de minimis to be able to secure our 
borders, de minimis to be able to pay our military personnel or our 
veterans?
  Mr. Speaker, I wish I did not have to come to the floor and argue 
against the value of what we do in this place; but, Mr. Speaker, this 
is a hoax, it is frivolous; and I hope my colleagues will vote it down 
as they have six times before.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
The opportunity to be able to come to the well of this House and to 
speak is really a wonderful thing. It is an opportunity for people to 
express their views and visions, but we should remember that a majority 
of the Members have voted for this each of the six times that we voted 
on it, and today is another opportunity for us to seek that 
supermajority that it will require.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been said recently that this is a frivolous 
debate. Well, I would submit that there is no more important debate 
that we can debate here in the Congress. For those of us who believe in 
the principles of a limited government, economic freedom, individual 
responsibility, the question of how easy it should be to raise taxes is 
a very relevant debate to have every day that we have it.
  Now, we have been told that the Founding Fathers would not approve 
this. Well, the Founding Fathers did not approve the Federal income 
tax. In fact, they expressly prohibited it. I would suggest that if the 
Founding Fathers were alive today and realized that 22 percent of the 
national income is now taken in taxes, they would applaud this move. 
They would applaud this move, because they realized that they believed 
in limited government, economic freedom, and individual responsibility.
  If we look across the country today we see several States, nine in 
fact, that have such provisions. Arizona, the State that I come from, 
is one of them. Now, we recently had a huge deficit in Arizona and the 
States, unlike the Federal Government, are prohibited from carrying 
debts. So in Arizona, the debate has been this year on how are we going 
to bring spending in line with revenue. That is a debate that we ought 
to have every year in the Federal Government, because we run deficits. 
We can do that here; we should not be able to. That is why we need a 
balanced budget amendment as well.
  But until we have one, we ought to make it more difficult to raise 
taxes. In Arizona, it has forced a debate that is healthy. There they 
have decided we are going to cut spending in this area and this area. 
There have been a few gimmicks, yes; but in large measure, they have 
actually done what we ought to be doing here. We ought to cut frivolous 
spending and take it from there.
  So I commend the authors of this legislation, I support the rule, and 
I commend my colleagues for bringing it forward.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I believe I am a cosponsor of 
that resolution, and I am going to vote for it. But what I object to is 
the continued reference on this House floor, the continued effort on 
the part of some Members of this body to deceive the American public 
into thinking that we are balancing our budget. I do not care if a 
Democrat said it or a Republican said it, or I do not care if Adam's 
house cat said it. We are not.
  The fact of the matter is that the President submitted a budget that 
was passed by a Republican majority in the House and the Senate last 
summer when the Republicans still controlled both bodies, as they did 
for 7 years. For 6 of those 7 years, we had deficit spending. As a 
matter of fact, I find it strange that we have to address the tax 
problem, because taxes have been addressed four times in the past 20 
years when, for 41 of the past 42 years, Congress has run a deficit.
  So I am going to say this very slowly. The President just submitted 
the first $2 trillion budget. The Republican Congress passed it. The 
Republican Congress increased spending by 8 percent last year and 
decreased revenues by 16 percent. That equated to, and I am going to 
say this very slowly so that no one misses it, $232 billion. This is 
the month of March. Actually, the number is, and I do not have it in 
front of me, but it is on my Web site, because I memorized it. The 
deficit has increased by $363 billion. That is a thousand times a 
thousand times a thousand times 363 in the past 12 months. The debt is 
now over $6 trillion. This was just March. It is now over $6 trillion. 
Two weeks ago my Republican colleagues voted to raise the debt limit by 
$750 billion; that is a thousand times a thousand times a thousand 
times 750. That is not balancing the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, my point is, we are bringing the wrong constitutional 
amendment to the House floor. We

[[Page H3479]]

have had but one vote in the past 7 years on a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. We sent it to the Senate. It failed by 
one vote. If we are really concerned about the future of our country, 
and if we have some guilt about sticking our kids with our bills, which 
is what we are doing; none of my colleagues would go buy a car, a 
$40,000 Lexus and say, I have a 7-year-old, bill him when he grows up. 
None of my colleagues would go to the Realtor in their hometowns and 
say, I want the most expensive house in town and, by the way, I have a 
4-year-old grandchild, stick them with the bill, plus interest. But it 
is precisely what you have been doing with this country; and, guys, I 
think you are missing the point.
  My Republican colleagues have run the House for the past 7 years. The 
``they'' you keep talking about that is raising spending is you. When 
you go to shave tomorrow morning, look in the mirror. You all did it.
  I liked you all so much better when you said you were for a balanced 
budget amendment, and I like you so much less when you do not do it.
  Pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We have found 
time to take care of nutrea eradication on the Eastern Shore of 
Maryland. We found time to take care of tigers and rhinoceroses. We 
have named every post office in the United States of America. We have 
found time for a debate for all sorts of things that really are not all 
that vital. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot find time to bring a debate and 
have a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in the 
almost 4 years you have been Speaker, because it gets in the way of 
your tax cuts.
  Quit sticking my kids with your bills. Quit robbing the 1 trillion, 
270 billion dollars that is already owed to the Social Security trust 
fund. I have memorized that one too. Quit robbing the $228 billion that 
you have stolen from the Medicare trust fund. Quit robbing the over 
$500 billion, a thousand times a thousand times a thousand times 500, 
that is owed to the Federal Employees Retirement System right now. 
There is not a penny in any of those accounts and, for God's sake, as 
you tell the troops how much you love them, quit stealing the $167 
billion, and I memorized that one too, that you owe to the military 
retirees' trust fund. There is not a penny in any one of those 
accounts.
  All you are concerned about is taxes when you ought to be concerned 
about fulfilling the promises we made to each and every American, 
because each and every American falls into those categories. Quit 
stealing from them; pass a balanced budget amendment to the United 
States Constitution.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate that what the gentleman is talking about is very 
important; but part of this equation that was not talked about was 
every single time that we have a new person that gets employed in this 
country, the Social Security trust fund shows a deficit, and every 
single time a person goes to work and draws a paycheck in this country, 
that shows as a deficit also. So by America working harder, with the 
old, antiquated Social Security system that we have, it all increases 
what is known as the debt of this country, because we do not save that 
money, we spend it. So what the gentleman has talked about is part of 
our own system which is creating the deficit, which is why we need to 
change it.
  So whoever comes to work for the first time tomorrow and for whoever 
is drawing a paycheck today, simply by working, we are creating a debt, 
because it is a liability that this government has to pay for. But that 
should not imply that that is necessarily irresponsible. It is the 
system that we have. Yes, it is Republicans and some Democrats that 
have suggested that we change that too. But let us not suggest it is 
spent, it is a future liability. Being responsible and being 
irresponsible should have been something that I wish the gentleman had 
spent some time on also, because this debt that is being set before us 
is from people who work in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas 
(Mr. Culberson), a bright young gentleman.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time on this important debate that I am hopeful there are many 
people out there watching tonight. I am pleased to join with the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and with my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), in supporting this constitutional 
amendment which tracks the language that has been adopted in many State 
constitutions across the country. I am pleased to hear the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) say that he will support this amendment 
to the United States Constitution tonight, limiting the ability of the 
United States Congress to raise taxes, because it is all too easy to 
raise spending here.
  I think it is important to remember what the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) said is occurring today in the State of Arizona. Because 
Arizona has a tax limitation amendment that requires a supermajority 
before taxes can be raised, the State of Arizona is going through 
precisely the debate that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
so correctly points out that we ought to be engaged in here is how do 
we control spending. Arizona is first asking, what can we do as a 
legislature to control spending before we go to raise taxes, because 
Arizona has a two-thirds supermajority requirement before taxes can be 
raised.
  Mississippi has a three-fifths supermajority requirement before they 
can raise taxes. The State of Arkansas has a three-fourths requirement. 
California requires a two-thirds supermajority; Colorado, a two-thirds 
supermajority; Delaware, a three-fifths supermajority; Florida, a 
three-fifths supermajority. Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, all of these States have 
supermajority requirements in their State constitutions to control tax 
increases because the power to tax is the power to destroy.
  The founders, the authors of those State constitutions recognized 
that it is important to force the debate in those legislative bodies to 
focus on controlling spending first and to limit the ability of those 
legislatures to increase taxes.
  This would be an extraordinarily healthy thing for the United States 
Congress to have this requirement in the U.S. Constitution to force us 
all to think carefully before we raise spending and, above all, to make 
it more difficult for us to take more money out of the American 
taxpayers' pockets.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) in coauthoring this important legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  This is not a complicated matter. Either one believes in majority 
rule, or one does not. This is the people's House; the majority rules. 
My friends on the other side somehow have gone astray and do not 
believe in the basic principle of democracy, of the majority rules. 
This constitutional amendment should be defeated for the seventh time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a vigorous debate again today about an 
important issue. I simply believe it should be more difficult to raise 
taxes. I think that that will help America. I think most Americans 
understand what we are talking about. It is so easy to raise taxes 
today. That is why they have been raised in the past.
  I am going to continue to bring this effort to the floor. I am going 
to keep talking about a balanced budget. We are going to keep talking 
about the things that will bring honor and dignity to the taxpayer of 
this country, and will solve our problems with the deficits. This is 
part of that overall debate.
  I am proud of what we are going to do here today. This vote is on the 
rule. The rule is a fair rule. It is a rule that was passed yesterday 
in the Committee on Rules by a voice vote. I am going to ask all my 
colleagues to please vote for this rule. We will have a vigorous debate 
here in just a few minutes on that bill, but I would like to ask that 
we support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H3480]]

  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 439, I 
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 96) proposing a tax limitation 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
439, the joint resolution is considered as read for amendment.
  The text of H.J. Res. 96 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 96

       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 New York (Mr. Nadler) each will 
control 1 hour of debate on the joint resolution.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 
96 currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a vigorous debate on the rule. Most of 
the debate on the rule was on the merits of House Joint Resolution 96. 
It is a simple and straightforward proposal. It proposes to amend the 
United States Constitution to require a two-thirds vote for tax 
increases, and by requiring a two-thirds vote on tax increases, there 
would be a requirement that there be a consensus within the Congress, 
and hopefully within the American public, that taxes should go up.
  I think that given the history of some of the tax debates that have 
occurred since I have been in Congress, that type of consensus is sadly 
needed. The American public has been asking Senators and 
Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, to be Americans first and 
partisans second, and to be both bipartisan and nonpartisan when 
approaching the problems facing the country.
  All too often, we have very hot debates and very split votes with 
very narrow majorities, and the American public, I think, is probably 
as evenly politically divided today as at any time in the history of 
the country. The Republicans control this House by six votes, the 
Democrats control the other body by one vote. The 2000 Presidential 
election was the closest Presidential election in the history of the 
country.
  I do not think that the voters, in dividing themselves so evenly, 
voted for gridlock and expected nothing to be done during the 2-year 
period in 2001 and 2002.
  With a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to raise 
taxes, neither side will be able to use majority voting power, narrow 
as it may be, to one-up the other and to pass a tax increase. Maybe a 
constitutional provision that has the effect of forcing bipartisanship 
will bring about the bipartisanship in economic issues that has been so 
sorely lacking, as contrasted to the bipartisanship in facing the war 
on terrorism.
  I can tell the Members, I do not think I would be standing here today 
presenting this constitutional amendment to the House of 
Representatives if it were not for the one-vote margin by which the 
then-majority Democratic party passed a big tax increase in 1993, 218 
to 216 in the House and 51 to 50 in the other body, where then-Vice 
President Gore was called upon to break a tie. Because of the reaction 
of the American public against the majority using its voting power in 
the way that it did, it had a sea change in the 1994 elections and 
brought Republicans to majorities in both the House and Senate.
  So I think that by requiring bipartisanship on tax policy, which is 
one of the two key elements of our Federal economic policy that 
Congress has control of, spending being the other, we are going to be 
able to perhaps force both parties to compromise, to seek consensus, 
and to seek support before going for a tax increase.
  Now, I have looked at what this constitutional amendment would have 
done to tax increases over the last 22 years, had it been in effect. 
What I came up with is kind of surprising. The opponents of this 
constitutional amendment repeatedly state that it will be impossible to 
ever pass a tax increase, nohow, no way, if a two-thirds vote was 
required in the Senate and in the House of Representatives.
  Since 1980, there have been 16 tax increases enacted into law by the 
Congress of the United States. Surprisingly, 10 of those tax increases 
passed both Houses by two-thirds majorities, if we look at the vote on 
the conference report, which is the final version of the tax bill.
  That included the 1980 reconciliation act; the 1980 crude oil 
windfall profits tax; the $50 billion Social Security tax increase, 
which was necessary to restore solvency to the Social Security trust 
fund in 1983; the 1986 reconciliation act; the 1986 tax reform act, 
which increased taxes in 3 of the 5 following years and decreased them 
in the other 2; the 1988 Miscellaneous Revenue Act; the 1989 
reconciliation act; the 1992 energy policy tax act; the 1996 Small 
Business Job Protection Act; and the 1998 Internal Revenue Service 
restructuring act.
  All of those were tax increase bills, I would submit, of more than a 
de minimis amount, because the smallest of these raised taxes by $1 
billion, which I think very few people would argue being de minimis.
  The tax increases which were enacted that failed of a two-thirds vote 
in the House were the 1982 Tax Equity and Fairness Responsibility Act, 
or TEFRA; the 1984 deficit reduction act; the 1985 reconciliation act; 
the 1987 reconciliation act; the 1990 reconciliation act; and the 1993 
reconciliation act, which was the big tax increase that I referred to 
earlier on.
  So people who really want bipartisanship being forced upon the 
Congress on tax policy should vote in favor of this, because it will 
mean, the way the voters are presently divided, that neither political 
party will have the votes to be able to pass a tax increase on the 
American people solely with their own votes. They will have to reach 
out and compromise with the other party, and then sell this issue to 
the American public.
  That is why I am in favor of this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I begin my statement on the constitutional amendment, I just 
have one factual correction for the distinguished chairman. The 2000 
election was not the closest race in American history. In 1960, John 
Kennedy beat Richard Nixon by 118,000 votes. In 2000, Al Gore got 
556,000 votes more than George Bush. It was, in fact, close in the 
Electoral College.

[[Page H3481]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this proposed constitutional 
amendment for the seventh time in as many years. As the ranking 
Democrat member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, I would urge my colleagues not to treat the 
Constitution as if it were some derelict warehouse on which people 
could plaster their political posters.
  The Constitution is the fundamental document of our Nation which sets 
the rules of government to protect our democracy and the rights of 
individuals. Yet, week after week, year after year, we come to the 
floor of the House to consider proposed constitutional amendments that 
are in fact little more than glorified press releases.
  This constitutional graffiti has become so commonplace, so much part 
of the ritual of this House, so much of the way we all mark the passing 
of the seasons, that it has become something of an inside joke among 
the people who work here and the people who report on our work.
  This is the seventh time since 1995 that the House has been subjected 
to this supermajority proposal. We will waste a couple of hours 
debating this before it is voted down yet again. We have also 
considered amendments concerning the nonexistent epidemic of flag-
burning, victims' rights, and anything else that Republican pollsters 
think might play well in the 30-second campaign ads.
  The core flaw of this amendment is that it requires a two-thirds vote 
of both houses of Congress to raise taxes. This is profoundly anti-
democratic in that it enables a one-third minority to overrule almost 
two-thirds.
  That includes any tax reform measure that would eliminate special 
interest loopholes, such as the loophole that allows American 
industries to incorporate in Bermuda and avoid paying taxes in the 
United States, or any of a number of multi-million dollar favorites 
that fill the thousands of pages in the Internal Revenue Code.
  If this amendment were to be adopted, a small minority could block 
the elimination of these outrageous and unfair tax loopholes, but a 
simple majority could put new loopholes into law. In fact, it would be 
a one-way rachet. A majority elected by the American people could 
establish new tax loopholes for large corporations, or for anyone else. 
And if the American people, as is the process in our democracy, became 
very angry at this and threw out the rascals and elected a different 
majority to Congress next year, they could not change it because they 
would need a two-thirds majority to change what a simple majority did 
the year before. It is a one-way rachet. That is an absurd 
constitutional anomaly.
  The gentleman spoke of making it necessary to have a two-thirds, a 
bipartisan consensus, to change tax policy. That is not what this 
amendment does. It requires a two-thirds consensus, a bipartisan 
consensus, to change taxes in one direction, but a simple majority in 
the other.
  So a majority in Congress one year can reduce taxes, can get elected 
on a slogan of let us reduce taxes by $100 billion, and then it turns 
out that what they did reduces taxes by $1 trillion. Then the American 
people think it is more important not to clobber Social Security so 
they elect a different majority next year and say, restore the taxes up 
to the $100 billion they said they were going to cut. But no, that 
means a two-thirds majority.
  If Members want the Tax Code to become even more unfair, even more 
slanted towards the special interests, even more complex than it now 
is, then this amendment is the best chance to do so. This amendment 
would tie Congress' hands in economic emergencies unrelated to war, and 
it would tie Congress' ability to protect Social Security or Medicare, 
to respond to financial crises, or to the next fiscally irresponsible 
President. That makes no sense.
  Now, is there any special reason we need this constitutional 
amendment? The courage shown by the first President Bush and by 
President Clinton eliminated what many had considered permanent 
deficits. This was accomplished by cuts in spending and targeted tax 
increases. Many of my Republican colleagues blamed President Bush and 
demanded the head of his OMB director. Many of those same colleagues 
denounced and opposed President Clinton's budgets.
  Well, the discipline imposed by the majority in Congress and 
President Bush I and President Clinton, worked, and we got rid of huge 
budget deficits and we finally got budget surpluses to show for it. We 
were able to start paying down the national debt.
  What has happened since then? In little more than a year, the current 
President Bush and his supporters in Congress have managed to undo the 
work, the hard work, of more than a decade. We are running deficits, an 
over $230 billion deficit this year into the foreseeable future, and 
will continue to do so even without such needed reforms, which will 
cost money, such as a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, which 
most people here claim to support.
  We will continue to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds. That is not because of a flaw in the Constitution, it is because 
of a failure of leadership, and a failure, a lack of courage to make 
tough decisions. This sort of fiscal crack-up is what happens when 
Members of Congress try to promise the American people something for 
nothing.

                              {time}  1915

  The first President Bush in 1980 called candidate Reagan's promise to 
slash taxes, increase spending, and balance the budget all at the same 
time voodoo economics. That was a slander against voodoo. Now instead 
of sound fiscal policies, we get this constitutional amendment, again 
designed to take our attention away from what is going on. The American 
people do not need symbolic politics. They need real leadership.
  Supermajorities, Mr. Speaker, are anathema to the democratic system 
of government. That is why the Framers of the Constitution limited them 
to a very few areas, such as the impeachment of an elected President or 
amending the Constitution, the fundamental document of our government, 
itself.
  And let me add one thing. We today have a given philosophy or most 
people have a given philosophy: it is good to reduce tax; it is bad to 
increase them. Maybe the majority of opinion of the American people 
agree with that. Maybe not. That is what elections are about. But even 
assuming that most people think that today, maybe our grandchildren 50 
years hence will not think that. Maybe 50 years hence our grandchildren 
will think, or the majority will, that it is a good idea to increase 
taxes in order to pay them for Social Security or for whatever will 
seem necessary for them at that time.
  Who are we today to tie their hands and say that our grandchildren 
and our children, that a minority shall rule in their day? Who are we 
to say because we have a particular opinion on an issue that 50 years 
from now our grandchildren shall be bound by our opinion on that issue, 
that if they want to increase taxes in 50 years to pay for what they 
think is more important than a lower tax rate, we will tell them no, 
you need a two-thirds vote, one-third can block it? That is saying that 
we are writing a particular opinion about a particular issue into the 
Constitution, and we should never do that. The Constitution is a guide 
to process. It distributes power to different agencies of the 
government. It reserves the right of people against government to free 
speech and so forth. It does not enact particular ideas, particular 
economic doctrines, or it should not at any rate.
  Just how small a minority could hold this Nation hostage under this 
amendment? A group of Senators representing one-tenth of the population 
of the United States, those from the smaller States, could block any 
effort to raise revenues, to reform the Tax Code, to improve law 
enforcement, to exercise fiscal discipline, to balance the budget or do 
anything else that the remaining 90 percent of the Nation believes is 
absolutely necessary. Is this what the Members of this House really 
want?
  In Federalist Number 58, James Madison, perhaps the Father of our 
Constitution, argues as follows. He said:

       It has been said that more than a majority ought to have 
     been required . . . in particular cases, if not in all . . . 
     for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted

[[Page H3482]]

     from such a precaution cannot be denied. It might have been 
     an additional shield to some particular interests, and other 
     obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these 
     considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the 
     opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general 
     good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures 
     to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government 
     would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that 
     would rule: this power would be transferred to the minority. 
     Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an 
     interested minority might take advantage of it to screen 
     themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, 
     in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable 
     indulgences.

  And that of course is exactly what this amendment would do. It would 
say that in time of economic crisis or of real necessity where the 
majority felt it necessary to increase taxes to pay for whatever it was 
they thought it necessary to pay for, a minority, a one-third minority, 
could say no or could say okay, but only if you change the abortion 
laws in one way or another. The one-third minority would be able to 
blackmail the majority of the Nation.
  We are now in a time of crisis, and the very real possibility that, 
as we seek to meet the challenges of the future, economic as well as 
military, a determined minority may be able to blackmail the Nation, is 
truly terrifying.
  This debate is not about a particular tax rate. It is, as Madison 
rightly pointed out, about the very fabric of our democracy. We should 
not be considering this nonsense. We just did it last year. I know 
there is nothing I can do to dissuade the majority.
  I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. Thank goodness like April 
15, this preposterous notion comes up only once a year.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. 
If I have been listening to you and hearing you correctly, do you 
believe that the debate on this constitutional amendment tonight is a 
waste of time?
  Mr. NADLER. Yes, essentially I do. I do believe it is a waste of time 
and that it is a ridiculous proposal. We have rejected it six times in 
6 years. We are going to reject it again. The gentleman knows that, and 
we ought to be debating the appropriations bills. We ought to be 
debating the reorganization of our homeland security. We ought to be 
debating a prescription drug bill for Medicare. We ought to be debating 
Social Security. We do not have time for all that, we are told. We have 
time for this.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. NADLER. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Let me propose a deal for the gentleman. Since we 
should be debating something else, if the gentleman will yield back the 
balance of his time, I will yield back the balance of mine and we can 
vote right away on this.
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, if we had scheduled something else 
for this time now instead of just going home for dinner, I would be 
happy to do that. But since the leadership of the House has decided 
this is more important than anything else and nothing else is 
available, that would not serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) since the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
wants us to debate this waste-of-time constitutional amendment further.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Contrary to the statement of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
that this is some kind of inside joke, what this actually does is it 
reveals clearly those of us in this House who are seriously committed 
to reducing the tax burden on the American people and making it tough 
to raise that tax burden in the future. Those folks who believe that 
will vote ``yes.'' It separates them from the folks that really do not 
care how high taxes are or how high they might go in the future. They 
will vote ``no.''
  The amount of money taken out of the pockets of working Americans in 
the form of taxes is simply too high. This House has made significant 
efforts this year and in previous years to reduce the tax burden on the 
American people. We have done that in cooperation with the President. 
We have been successful in passing some of those pieces of legislation 
into law. It is also important that we protect hard-working American 
families from a future of excessive taxation.
  Let us face it. Taxes are just too high in this country. By making it 
more difficult to raise taxes, H.J. Res. 96, the debate that we will 
hear this evening, it will do just that. H.J. Res. 96 would impose 
fiscal discipline and constrain the growth of Federal Government by 
requiring a two-thirds vote for any bill that increases the internal 
revenue by more than just a de minimis amount. The amendment would 
exclude any increase from the lowering of an effective rate of any tax. 
Congress may enforce and implement the amendment through legislation as 
authorized by law. In addition, if the United States needs to increase 
revenues to wage the war on international terrorism or engage in 
military conflicts abroad, the amendment provides that the 
supermajority requirement could be waived if the Congress declared war 
or adopted a joint resolution to engage in military conflict which 
caused an ``imminent and serous threat to national security.''
  Supermajority voting is not a radical idea. There are 10 instances in 
which the Constitution already requires a supermajority vote. For 
example, conviction by the Senate following an impeachment; overriding 
a Presidential veto; consent to a treaty; and amending the Constitution 
require more than a simple majority, and there are others. Moreover, 
Mr. Speaker, 14 States currently have tax limitation provisions for 
all, most, or some tax increases. Out of those, 12 States require a 
supermajority for any tax increase.
  This amendment will help to stem the tax-and-spend policies that too 
often rule this place, that rule Washington. American working men and 
women now have to toil from January to late April just to satisfy their 
tax obligation. Only after Big Government's insatiable appetite for 
taxes is satisfied, can American families begin to look out for their 
own needs.
  In the 1950s, the Federal Government took about 5 percent of the 
average American family's money, and that was after fighting World War 
II and the Korean War. Since then, that figure has increased by five 
times. It has up to about 25 percent of the American families' money 
going just to pay their Federal income taxes. If you add State and 
local taxes on top of that, it is even higher.
  Today, the Federal Government takes about a quarter of what we earn, 
and I am not sure anyone here would even suggest that government has 
become 500 percent more productive and efficient. Add that to the tax 
burden imposed by States and localities, and working families face an 
even larger tax bill.
  The tax limitation amendment would greatly help American families who 
are already struggling to pay mounting tax bills. It would also require 
Congress to focus on options besides raising taxes to manage the 
Federal budget, helping to impose fiscal discipline, something we need 
in this place, and to constrain the growth of government, something we 
talk about a lot but far too often do not do.
  Mr. Speaker, let us do right by working American families by 
supporting this legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, and I am interested that everybody is now ready to turn 
this debate in and just have a vote; but yet it was scheduled late in 
the hour of today, and now we are anxious to get out of here. Let us 
leave.
  Well, I just left the White House where there was a meeting with 
Members of both bodies about a homeland defense department. We have not 
figured out what the budget is going to be or where the money is coming 
from, and I am glad to note that our chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin

[[Page H3483]]

(Mr. Sensenbrenner), was at that meeting. And we are going to have to 
produce a lot of money from somewhere. It is not in the budget right 
now.
  Could I ask, if we have this law in effect, if this constitutional 
amendment was prevailing, would we be able to raise that additional 
money? I think not. And so I would just like to remind us that we are 
in a serious, different situation.
  When the previous President, Bill Clinton, left the White House, we 
had a $280 billion surplus. We now have a deficit of how much? $100 
billion roughly. And now we are arguing the same kind of arguments. Let 
us make it bad.
  My dear friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), says we need to 
reduce taxes. Taxes are too high. Well, I have got an idea. Why do you 
not introduce some legislation to lower taxes? Why do you need a 
constitutional amendment to restrain yourself?
  I remind you that since our former colleague Newt Gingrich's 
activities of 1994 have taken over, the Republican Party has controlled 
the House, and most times, the Senate. So what is wrong with passing 
bills to reduce taxes?
  Now, I would like to turn to the other concern that in we are in a 
deficit situation. If Social Security is being jeopardized, do we 
really want to make it harder to account for how we are going to make 
up for these funds? I am not so sure if you really do. And if everybody 
keeps that in mind, we will be a lot better off in terms of how this 
budget thing is going to play out. We have got big bills coming along, 
and we are going to need money. And so to argue the same arguments that 
were heard in other Congresses when this same constitutional amendment 
was brought forward may not be consistent with what we are faced with 
at the present time.
  Now, there is another reason that we may want to be careful about 
giving a minority one-third the right to determine the tax structure 
for an overwhelming majority, two-thirds.

                              {time}  1930

  That would be that there are a number of corporate tax provisions 
that are in the tax laws that would not be able to come up. My 
colleagues would not want that to happen, would they? We want to be 
able to go in and take out, for example, the tax benefits that come 
from setting up a company offshore and then reaping the benefit of 
little or no taxes and other corporate tax provisions that are being 
re-examined as we speak in the Congress now.
  In fact, under this amendment, were it to pass, it would take more 
votes to close a tax loophole that might have been engineered by a 
powerful interest group than it would to cut Social Security, Medicare 
and education programs.
  So I think this is not good economic policy, and for those reasons 
and some more that I would like to go into at a later point, I would 
urge everyone consider this measure very carefully as we move toward a 
vote tonight, and I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 
96, a tax limitation constitutional amendment. I have been a supporter 
of this amendment from the very first day I headed up here, and I will 
continue to support it as long as it takes to provide some 
constitutional protection against tax increases for hardworking 
Americans.
  The tax increases that have been enacted since I have been in 
Congress have passed by a very narrow margin, sometimes by a single 
vote. It is my recollection that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 passed, I 
believe, by one vote. It was probably the worst Act this Congress ever 
passed. It was supported by President Reagan and it was supported by 
Rostenkowski. One of them knew what was in it, and I guarantee my 
colleagues it was not President Reagan.
  Let me just tell my colleagues that legislation that hits everybody's 
pocketbooks ought to require more than a simple majority for a vote for 
passage. A two-thirds supermajority vote requirement would offer that 
protection that taxpayers need.
  Let me tell my colleagues the biggest task in, of course, this 
legislation should not be whether Democrats or Republicans are for it, 
whether liberals or conservatives support it, but what most Americans 
want and how many Americans support this. If my colleagues would go 
home to their district and ask the first 10 constituents that they meet 
and just ask them the simple question whether they think it ought to be 
harder for us to raise taxes, I feel certain that all 10 of them would 
say yes. I have done that test and from in front of post offices on tax 
days and days that we were given runs with this bill in the years of 
the past, and I have never gotten a no from any of them. A simple 
question, does anyone think it ought to be harder to raise taxes. Every 
doggone one of them says yes.
  Most Americans feel it is far too easy to raise taxes, and I think 
this amendment would let them know we understand their concerns and are 
willing to address them.
  The economic climate today is not what it was last year when Congress 
worked with President Bush to enact some much-needed and deserved tax 
relief for our citizens. As a result, it is critical that we make a 
statement now that we are committed to controlling government spending 
rather than raising taxes in order to maintain a Federal balanced 
budget. It would be easy to balance the budget by simply raising the 
taxes; so it ought to be hard to do that.
  We ought to balance the budget by cutting expenses, and any serious 
economic situation that might be, that might call for increased taxes 
would have to be addressed with the cooperation and understanding of 
all Americans and with more than a simple majority vote.
  This legislation would ensure that such dialogue would take place. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
commonsense measure.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of hard to take this resolution 
seriously. We have heard references to a balanced budget. This 
resolution has nothing to do with a balanced budget. Balanced means 
that one's spending does not exceed their revenues, but as we read the 
resolution, there is no limitation on spending. There is no limitation 
on size of government. Spending can be increased with a simple 
majority. Paying for the spending takes a two-thirds vote.
  New programs can be enacted with a simple majority. Increase the size 
of government with a simple majority, but two-thirds vote in each House 
will be required to pay for that new spending or we just run up a 
deficit.
  We have heard reference that the States have a simple majority to 
raise taxes, but those States balance their budgets as a matter of law. 
So if they cannot raise the taxes, they cannot do the spending. In this 
House, however, we can increase the spending whether we increase the 
taxes or not. We can run up a deficit and just leave it to the next 
generation to pay for it.
  Further, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the resolution, we see what it 
does to corporate loopholes. To eliminate the corporate loophole that 
allows some corporations to move offshore and save taxes, that would 
require a two-thirds vote.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is a dubious effect, anyway, because the 
provisions can be waived with a simple majority any time the United 
States is ``engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and 
serious threat to national security.'' Mr. Speaker, that has been the 
case almost continuously for the last 50 years, and it is not just for 
the conflict that we could raise taxes. It is during the conflict. So 
we would waive this provision and pass legislation, whether it has 
anything to do with terrorism or not.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a recipe for fiscal disaster. 
Increased spending with a simple majority, paying for that spending 
requires a two-thirds vote and a two-thirds vote to close corporate 
loopholes. For the sake of fiscal sanity, this resolution should be 
defeated.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

[[Page H3484]]

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak this evening. I 
am not an attorney, one of the few in the House who I guess is not, but 
I decided to come and speak on certain practical aspects of this 
farcical legislation which we are voting on again this evening.
  I heard a gentleman from the Republican side say this is about 
working families. Come on, let us not kid people in America. This is 
not about working families. This is about the super wealthy and the 
unpatriotic corporations who want to set up new tax dodges to move 
their profits offshore. For years they have been moving their foreign 
earned profits offshore to Bermuda and that has been accepted. 
Unfortunately, the Clinton administration left that loophole open and 
the Bush administration has tried to widen it.
  Now they have got a new dodge. They strip their corporation and move 
the assets and profits to a tax treaty country, Luxembourg being one, 
but Luxembourg might require that they pay some taxes. God forbid they 
should pay any taxes. So then they also do the Bermuda trick so it has 
become now the new Bermuda Triangle.
  This debate is too strange. It reminds me a lot of the Bermuda 
Triangle, but this is a new tax dodge being pushed by the same folks 
who brought us Enron, those same wonderful, ethical accounting 
companies, and now they have set up Stanley Works and other American 
corporations who are based in the United States of America, sell most 
of their product in the United States of America, have traditionally 
produced goods in the United States of America, of course now they are 
all going to China to produce their product. Some are still employing 
people here and it will say that they will pay taxes on their profits 
nowhere. That is the new Bermuda Triangle trick.
  So, under this legislation, which is, of course, for working 
families, yeah, wink, wink, nod, nod, Stanley Works and other 
unpatriotic corporations and other unpatriotic multi-millionaires and 
billionaires would move all of their profits offshore, pay no taxes in 
the United States of America, still enjoying the defense and the blood 
of our young men and women in the military, still enjoying all the 
privileges of living in the greatest country on earth but paying 
nothing to support it, and guess what it would take to change that? A 
two-thirds vote of the United States House of Representatives. We 
cannot even get a simple majority vote to stop the unpatriotic 
corporations and these people from moving their profits offshore, and 
imagine what it would take to get a two-thirds vote.
  It is pretty easy these days to buy half the House of 
Representatives. All they would have to do in the future would be 
cheaper, just buy a third of the House, and they could block any 
changes to close these loopholes. This is absolutely outrageous. At a 
time when America is engaged in a fight to defend our citizens against 
deadly threats from abroad and even perhaps within our own Nation, the 
wealthiest of the wealthy would pay nothing toward that fight, and 
under this legislation, it would be impossible to ever require that 
they pay some semblance of a fair share. This is absolutely outrageous. 
My colleagues should be ashamed of what they are trying to do.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I simply want to point out that there have been no hearings on this 
resolution this year, no committee hearings, no committee markup. This 
came straight to the floor from I am not sure where, and this is a very 
cavalier way to treat amending the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for 
yielding me the time.
  It is bad enough we did not have hearings in committee. It is bad 
enough the bill is brought on the floor at this late hour, and now 
nobody wants to debate it. It has never passed. We have never had it in 
the Senate. This bill has never come up in the Senate, and now we want 
to rush to a vote. This is, I think, a serious disregard of a 
constitutional amendment.
  Why did we bring it up? Is there somebody in the country, somebody's 
constituents that are urging that we have a constitutional amendment in 
which the majority rule would be taken away? I have not heard it. It 
has never passed the House ever, and yet it is being brought up now.
  I think it is a little bit inappropriate, and I think our leadership 
should take a little bit more care about keeping Members late and then 
wondering why we should not even have a full debate on the matter. I 
feel very strongly that there should be a majority rule in terms of 
these kinds of questions. The supermajority should be rarely used, and 
it is my hope that as we have gradually begun to accumulate negative 
votes on this proposal, that we will get even more people voting 
against it tonight.
  For a number of reasons, in addition to the ones that have already 
been discussed, I think that making it difficult to close loopholes is 
not a good way to proceed. This could create a lot of problems for us 
in a number of ways, and I am disappointed that we are proceeding in a 
very rushed manner.
  We voted on this bill in April of 1996. We voted on this bill in 
April of 1997. We voted on this bill in April of 1998. We voted on this 
bill in April of 1999. We voted on this bill in April of 2000. We voted 
on this bill in 2001. Now we have it again with us today. What is the 
point? I think that this is a procedure that I have to have made very 
clear, that this is not the way that we should proceed on 
constitutional amendments.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for allowing me this amount of 
time.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment, if passed, would contravene the 
fundamental principle of American democracy which is that majority 
rules. The gentleman from Ohio pointed out earlier that the principle 
supermajorities, meaning a minority can block something, is not a 
radical proposal. It may not be, but it is a fundamentally undemocratic 
proposal.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
ridiculous, misdirected constitutional amendment to require a two-
thirds super majority vote for raising taxes.
  The House Republican majority won't address the issues the American 
people want us to address because they just don't care or they simply 
can't get their act together. They won't give seniors a prescription 
drug benefit, their appropriations bills aren't ready to go, and 
they've about run out of taxes to cut. So instead they bring bills like 
this one to the floor in order to kill time and look like they're 
working.
  I'm amused to see this constitutional amendment on the floor again 
this year. And my emphasis is on the word again. We have voted on this 
constitutional amendment seven items in the past seven years. Seven 
times, Mr. Speaker! And in each of the past seven years, the amendment 
has failed by large margins. Why has it failed? Because it's 
irresponsible and everybody knows it.
  Requiring a two-thirds majority for Congress to increase taxes just 
doesn't make sense. For starters, it would risk the long-term solvency 
of Medicare and Social Security. It would also short-circuit our 
ability to produce balanced budgets and pay down the debt. Finally, it 
would undermine our efforts to enhance homeland security.
  The Republicans' haughty talk about fiscal discipline is truly 
laughable. These Republicans who claim to be fiscally responsible are 
the same people who squandered our history-making surplus on a 1.3 
trillion dollar tax cut. That tax cut, coupled with needed funding for 
the fight against terrorism, has plunged our nation into debt. And now 
they want to tie our hands with an ill-conceived constitutional 
amendment?
  If the truth be known, the Republicans don't even need this amendment 
to make such a change. If they really want to require a two-thirds 
majority vote on raising taxes, they need only change the rules of the 
House. But that wouldn't be as flashy as a constitutional amendment. 
And it probably wouldn't fill up as much time, either.
  What this House really needs is leadership. We need leaders who will 
respond to the needs of the American people, not puppets who do the 
bidding of giddy, right-wing conservatives. Leadership is what we need, 
but we clearly won't get it with this Republican majority. So let's go 
on with the charade, debate this dumb amendment, and vote it down as 
usual. No reason to get too excited about it; I'm sure it'll be back 
again next year.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in principled and strong 
opposition to

[[Page H3485]]

H.J. Res. 96, the so-called ``tax limitation amendment.'' Certainly it 
would be more politically expedient to simply go along and vote in 
support of a constitutional amendment requiring two-thirds approval by 
Congress for any tax increase. 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 must be a very great burden of proof to 
deviate from the basic principle of our democracy--the principle of 
majority rule. Unfortunately, this Member does not believe the proposed 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution meets that standard.
  This Member has too much respect for the Constitution, majority rule, 
and for deficit reduction to vote for this transparently political 
maneuver. A better answer is to elect more people who make the maximum 
effort to vote against tax increase and, where appropriate, vote for 
tax cuts. That's real tax relief, not phony gamesmanship. This Member 
would ask that the attached two editorials, from the Omaha World 
Herald, and the Washington Post, be included with this statement in the 
Congressional Record. These editorials support this Member's position 
on the same legislation which was introduced in the previous 104th 
Congress. The Washington Post editorial noted that this amendment is 
likely ``to add to future deficits while disturbing the balance of 
powers and undercutting the democratic process by enshrining minority 
rule.''
  While this Member could not support this bill (H.J. Res. 96), there 
should be no question of his continued and enthusiastic support for a 
balanced budget and a constitutional amendment requiring it. Tax 
increase should not routinely be employed to achieve a balanced budget. 
That is why this Member supported the inclusion of a provision in the 
House Rules requiring a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax 
increase during the previous 105th and the 104th Congresses and would 
do so again. This supermajority requirement was adopted on January 7, 
1997. However, to go beyond such a rule change and amend the 
Constitution as proposed in the so-called Tax Limitation Amendment, is, 
in this Member's opinion, an unreasonable and dangerous action. A 
change in house rules, of course, is not the permanent straight-jacket 
that a constitutional change would be.
  In conclusion, this Member will vote against H.J. Res. 96, the so-
called ``tax limitation amendment,'' as he has done in the past when 
this same legislation was debated on the House Floor.

              [From the Omaha World Herald, Apr. 17, 1996]

                  Grandstanding in Lieu of Leadership

       The Republican push to make passage of tax increases more 
     difficult was a shameless bit of election-year grandstanding.
       GOP House members proposed adding to the Constitution an 
     amendment requiring two-thirds majorities in the House and 
     Senate in order to raise tax rates. An exception was built in 
     for military emergencies.
       In theory, the plan was to get the amendment through 
     Congress with the required two-thirds majorities and then 
     send it to the states. The amendment would be enacted if 
     three-fourths of the state legislatures ratified it within 
     seven years.
       Supporters acknowledged that the measure was not likely to 
     pass. But the vote--purposely scheduled for April 15, tax 
     day--allowed them to classify congressmen as wimps or zealots 
     on keeping tax rates down.
       The amendment deserved to fail. It promoted a ``save us 
     from ourselves'' gimmick as a replacement for leadership. It 
     also would have allowed a majority of both houses to be 
     overruled by one-third of the members, plus one, of either 
     house. The Founders reserved such a supermajority requirement 
     for rare instances, such as impeaching the president, 
     overriding vetoes and ratifying treaties. But the raising of 
     tax rates is a policy decision that should continue to be 
     handled the way things ordinarily are in a representative 
     democracy--that is, by majority rule.
       This is not to say that raising tax rates should be easy. 
     Indeed, when the House last year wrote a supermajority 
     requirement into its rules, a World-Herald editorial 
     acknowledged that there is room for reasonable disagreement 
     on the question. We expressed the hope that the rule would 
     lead to greater deliberation if a rate increase were 
     proposed.
       But changes in the Constitution shouldn't be necessary to 
     get control of tax rates and spending levels. What is needed 
     is more leadership from Congress and, in the current 
     situation particularly, the White House. The job should be 
     done by the people whom the voters have entrusted with making 
     the tough calls on a bill-by-bill, program-by-program basis.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 20, 1998]

                     . . . And a Terrible Amendment

       The House this week is scheduled to observe Tax Day a few 
     days late by taking up a constitutional amendment requiring 
     two-thirds votes of both houses to pass any bill raising 
     federal revenue. It's bad idea that has been defeated before 
     and deserves to be again. Supporters say it will lock in 
     place what they regard as responsible fiscal policy. In fact, 
     it would have the opposite result. Its likely effect would be 
     to add to future deficits while disturbing the balance of 
     powers and undercutting the democratic process by enshrining 
     minority rule.
       The country is about to enter an era of tight budgets. The 
     prospect of a temporary surplus is in that sense particularly 
     misleading. The cause will be demographic. The retirement of 
     the baby boomers, beginning in fewer than 10 years, will both 
     detract from revenues and add to costs. There will have to be 
     benefit cuts, but there is no responsible way to deal with 
     the problem just by cuts. Neither party would vote for such 
     devastation, nor should it. Revenue increases also will be 
     necessary; even then the country may have to shoulder 
     additional debt.
       This amendment would let one-third plus one of either house 
     hold the country hostage in such circumstances. Who knows 
     what the price of acquiescence in a revenue bill might be? It 
     is not at all clear it would be the increased austerity the 
     sponsors seek. An additional benefit here, a change in 
     unrelated social policy there--those are the traditional 
     coins for extracting extra votes. Does anyone seriously think 
     that tradition will change?
       The amendment would create a lopsided condition is still 
     another respect. Taxes, against which it seeks to protect, 
     are paid disproportionately by the better off. Benefits, 
     which it would not protect, but put at greater risk, go 
     largely to people when they are in need. The society is 
     healthier because of these relatively modest shifts of 
     income; the amendment would militate against them. It's a 
     clumsy and unnecessary step in any number of wrong 
     directions, and the House should vote it down.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for the second time in this 107th 
Congress, Republican leadership is bringing before the House this 
measure to amend the Constitution to require a super-majority vote to 
adopt tax increases. I continue to oppose this measure, which would 
simply provide greater obstacles for the Federal government to properly 
react to economic conditions. This amendment is fundamentally 
inconsistent with majority rule and would make it more difficult to 
react to the potential need to close corporate tax loopholes or to 
protect Social Security of Medicare.
  This Congress needs to face current fiscal realities that have led to 
growing deficits. The President's tax cuts are compromising the 
government's ability to ensure security, fund domestic priorities, and 
honor our commitments to Social Security and Medicare, without 
burdening future generations with enormous debts. It is time for 
Congress to deal with the tax code and budget responsibly--not use the 
Constitution as a political prop.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 96, 
Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment. There are three key points 
that are relevant to this constitutional amendment.
  This Constitutional Amendment states that any bill changing the 
internal revenue laws will require approval by two-thirds of the 
Members of both the House and Senate.
  A constitutional amendment must pass both houses of Congress by a \2/
3\ vote before it is passed onto the states for ratification.
  Adoption of the 16th amendment in 1913 first allowed direct taxation 
of the American people by the federal government.
  The underlying legislation of H.J. Res. 96, 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.
  H.J. Res. 96 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. H.J. Res. 96 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.
  By requiring a two-thirds supermajority to adopt certain legislation, 
H.J. Res. 96 diminishes the vote of every Member of the House and 
Senate, denying the seminal concept of ``one person one vote''. This 
fundamental democratic principle ensures that a small minority may not 
prevent passage of important legislation. This legislation presents a 
real danger to future balanced budgets and Medicare and Social 
Security.
  Under H.J. Res. 96, 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. 96 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.

[[Page H3486]]

  H.J. Res. 96 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. 96 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.
  I am deeply troubled by the concept of divesting a Member of the full 
import of his or her vote. As Professor Samuel Thompson, one of this 
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.''
  By requiring a supermajority to do something as basic as getting the 
money to run government, H.J. Res. 96 diminishes the power of a 
member's vote. It is a diminution. It is a disparagement. It is 
inappropriate, and the fact that this particular amendment has failed 
seven times in a row suggests that Congress knows it.
  H.J. Res. 96 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 constittional 
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. 96 would make it inordinately difficult to 
make foreign corporations 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. An 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 roughly $2 trillion annual budget. 
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 off 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 insurmountable logistical and budget 
problems.
  I hope that my colleagues take seriously the path H.J. Res. 96 would 
lead us down were it to be adopted as is, therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 96.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time having been yielded, 
under House Resolution 439, 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 439, 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have not voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. CHABOT. 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 227, 
nays 178, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--178

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Skelton
     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)
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Bono
     Burton
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Combest
     DeLay
     Dicks
     Ford
     Hall (OH)
     Honda
     Houghton
     Jones (OH)
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Menendez
     Owens
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Smith (TX)
     Traficant
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman
     Wexler

[[Page H3487]]



                              {time}  2010

  Messrs. McNULTY, HILL, WYNN, LARSON of Connecticut, and Mrs. ROUKEMA 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So, two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the joint 
resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 225 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 225 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 225, H.R. Res. 96--
Constitutional Amendment Requiring a super majority vote to increase 
taxes, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 225, H.R. Res. 96--Proposing a 
tax limitation amendment to the constitution of the United States, had 
I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________