[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 79 (Friday, June 14, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1063]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E1063]]
PROPOSING A TAX LIMITATION AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
                                 STATES

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 12, 2002

  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 insures 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.
  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 constitutional 
amendment is that it would give special interest groups the upper hand 
in the tax legislative process. Once a group of taxpayers receives 
either a planned or unplanned tax benefit with a simple majority vote 
of both Houses of Congress, the group will then be able to preserve the 
tax benefit with just a 34 percent vote of one House of Congress.
  In addition, H.J. Res. 96 would make it inordinately difficult to 
make foreign corporations pay their fair 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 on estimates prior to the bill's effective 
date, or subsequent determinations calculated many years out. Further, 
if a tax bill was retroactively found to be unconstitutional, the tax 
refund issues could present 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.

                          ____________________