[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6572-6610]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 139 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 139

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 37) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States with respect to tax limitations. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) one motion to 
     amend, 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.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the distinguished ranking member from the 
Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 139 is a structured rule providing for 
consideration of House Joint Resolution 37, proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitation. 
The joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment.
  This rule provides for 3 hours of debate in the House equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  The rule further provides for one motion to amend 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 a proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, there is no more appropriate day than April 15 for the 
House to take up this proposed constitutional amendment. When it comes 
to taxes, this is the day of reckoning for tens of millions of 
America's families. Indeed, at this very moment, while we conduct this 
debate here in the Capitol, millions of our constituents are racing 
frantically against the clock to complete their taxes, struggling to 
make sense of an extraordinary complex Tax Code that has been amended 
more than 4,000 times just since the 1980s.
  H.J. Res. 37, introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), 
starts from this very basic premise: It should be harder, not easier, 
for government to forcibly take from its citizens ever larger shares of 
the fruits of their labor. Why? Because today the average American pays 
more in taxes than it does for food, clothing, shelter or 
transportation combined. For too long, the tax burden imposed by 
government has been going up, not down.
  When I was younger, in the 1950s, a typical family with children sent 
$1 out of every $50 it earned to the Federal Government in taxes. Today 
that figure is $1 out of every $4. Unless things change, it will soon 
be $1 out of every $3.
  In fact, Madam Speaker, when I visit high schools in my district in 
central Washington and speak to the senior class, nothing seems to get 
the students' attention like reminding them

[[Page 6573]]

that as soon as they start working full time in 1 to 5 years, depending 
on where they go to college, government at all levels will take nearly 
40 cents out of every dollar they earn.
  Every single one of them, the best students and the worst, gets the 
message. Even those that are not going to go on to higher education or 
to some other college are smart enough to understand the frustration of 
working for 60 cents on the dollar. They are also smart enough to know 
that without some sort of meaningful restraint on Congress, taxes will 
only keep going up on them as they have on their parents and their 
grandparents.
  The proposal of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the 
constitutional amendment, would not make it impossible to raise taxes. 
It would simply require that those proposing a net tax increase, a net 
tax increase, make a strong enough case to win the support of two-
thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. Nor would this 
proposal impede the passage of measures designed to raise some taxes 
while lowering others, as long as the combined effect of those changes 
do not result in an overall tax burden on the American people.
  Madam Speaker, the polls may be somewhat ambiguous on whether the 
public supports tax cuts, but there is absolutely no confusion about 
where they stand on this proposal. An overwhelming majority of 
Americans are opposed to tax increases, and they clearly support the 
supermajority requirement of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). I 
hope this Congress will, too.
  Therefore, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support both this 
rule and the proposed constitutional amendments that we will be 
debating shortly.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), 
my dear friend, for yielding me the customary half-hour.
  Madam Speaker, amending the Constitution of the United States is a 
very serious matter. The constitutional framers thought constitutional 
amendments should not be entered into lightly. They believe that the 
Constitution should not meet their own political agenda, but endure and 
meet the needs of the United States of America for centuries to come.
  But my Republican colleagues do not seem to share the same sentiment. 
Today's resolution uses the Constitution as a political prop. It puts 
more importance on evening news than on governing this country. That, 
Madam Speaker, is a shame.
  For the fourth time in a row, my Republican colleagues are bringing 
to this Chamber a sham amendment to the Constitution. This year they 
did not even bother to have this bill heard in the Committee on the 
Judiciary. Would my colleagues believe that? Changing the Constitution 
on the floor of the House, without even bringing it to the Committee on 
the Judiciary for their initial approval. Instead, they are bringing it 
right here to the floor of the House to coincide with tax day and make 
a political point and be done with it.
  Madam Speaker, they do not seem to be serious about passing this 
amendment because they did not even consider the very good suggestions 
by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) on ways to make this 
amendment actually work.
  Madam Speaker, this is starting to look much more like a bad rerun 
than legislating. History shows my Republican colleagues are not even 
close to abiding by the rule they are proposing adding to our 
Constitution.
  My colleagues may recall at the beginning of the 104th Congress, they 
changed the House rules to require a two-thirds majority for tax 
increases. Then they proceeded to waive that requirement every time it 
came up. Last Congress, they narrowed the rule to apply only to a very 
narrow definition of tax increases in order to make sure they did not 
have to follow it.
  Madam Speaker, the amendment my colleagues are proposing today will 
require a supermajority to pass revenue-raising legislation. But the 
problem with the supermajority, Madam Speaker, it effectively turns 
control over to a small minority who can stop legislation, even 
legislation that the majority supports. In other words, one-third plus 
one on either of the House or Senate side could effectively hold up the 
entire country.
  This has been a bad idea for a long, long time. James Madison in the 
first Federalist Papers said that, under a supermajority, the 
fundamental principle of free government would be reversed, there would 
be, no longer, the majority that would rule. The power would be 
transferred to the minority.
  Since this amendment requires 290 votes to pass, today's bill looks a 
lot more like show-boating than legislating. Madam Speaker, the 
American people really deserve more than that.
  This amendment will nearly destroy our ability to shore up Medicare 
and Social Security, which are headed for trouble in the very near 
future. It will lock in corporate welfare and tax breaks for the very 
rich at the expense of the middle- and lower-income people.
  So, Madam Speaker, this so-called amendment is a gimmick and a bad 
one at that. But do not take just my word; look at the Washington Post 
this morning on the editorial page, headlined ``A Bad Tax Idea in 
Congress.''
  Just to read the first paragraph: ``The House is scheduled to vote 
today on the constitutional amendment to require two-thirds votes for 
tax increases. The amendment is expected once again to fail, as it 
should. This is a show vote at tax time in which the sponsors invoke 
the Constitution as a stage prop to demonstrate their dislike for 
taxes.''
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleague to oppose the rule on this sham 
motion.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Madam Speaker, with due respect to the gentleman 
from Massachussetts (Mr. Moakley), the very distinguished ranking 
member on the Committee on Rules, whom I have a great deal of respect 
for, I have to disagree with several things that he said.
  First of all, we heard that this is nothing but an idea that would 
help Republicans gain political benefit. I have got to say this is not 
about Republicans. It is not to benefit Republicans. It is not a 
political prop. This is something that benefits all of the Americans 
that are across the country right now scrambling to get their taxes 
done by the end of the deadline today.
  Of course, he did not mention that this was about taxes, the ability 
to stop big government liberals from raising taxes. Instead, he called 
it revenue-raising. Let us call it what it is. We are talking about 
increasing taxes.
  As far as this being an idea that should not be brought up again 
because it has failed three times before and this is just rerun 
legislation, let me say to the distinguished gentleman that sometimes 
it takes the President and some of our friends on the left three or 
four times to get it right.
  Remember, the President vetoed welfare reform three times. I am glad 
we kept bringing it up, because we had an idea that was right. We 
finally passed it over those three vetoes, and the welfare rolls have 
dipped to historic lows.
  Another example is balancing the budget. I remember the President 
opposing it at least five or six times in speeches, balancing the 
budget back in 1995. In fact, the President said balancing the budget 
would destroy the economy in 7 years. Those were his words. Of course, 
4 years later, we find out that it was a darn good thing we kept 
fighting for it, because the economy is stronger today than ever 
before.
  I think it is the same thing with this plan to make it harder for the 
President and to make it harder for people on the left to raise taxes 
on working Americans.
  Now at the end of this decade I believe is a perfect time to pass 
this very

[[Page 6574]]

important amendment because it has been in this decade that this 
Congress and the Presidents at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in 
the 1990s have raised taxes on Americans more than in any decade in 
this country's history.

                              {time}  1045

  As we go into the 21st century, I cannot think of any device that 
would assure Americans that are filing taxes today, and future 
Americans like my boys and like other people's children and 
grandchildren, I cannot think of another device taking us into the 21st 
century that will guarantee that this Congress will think long and hard 
before raising taxes on hard-working middle class Americans.
  Now, I have to talk about a couple more things the gentleman brought 
up. He said that this legislation, this amendment, actually would hurt 
Medicare, it would hurt Social Security, and it would lock in tax 
breaks for the rich.
  Well, I have heard that one before. I do not know of anything in this 
amendment that would guarantee help for tax cuts for the rich. Also, 
the suggestion that somehow stopping Congress from raising taxes again 
and again and again and again would destroy Social Security and 
Medicare is a nonstarter, unless we are here to say today that the only 
way we save Medicare and Social Security is by raising taxes on hard-
working middle class Americans.
  Now, as far as the President goes, though, and why the President, the 
administration, and conservative newspapers like The Washington Post, 
and, boy, I am shocked that the Washington Post editorial page is 
against something that actually makes government smaller, but the 
reason the President may not like this is because, let us face it, the 
President's recent statements on tax increases show that he is not a 
fan of the hard-working Americans that are paying taxes. This is what 
Bill Clinton said on January 20, 1999, while he was up in Buffalo. He 
said, ``We could give you the budget surplus back to you in tax cuts 
and hope you spend it right.'' But we cannot because, in the end, the 
Federal Government knows how to spend the American people's money 
better than they know, according to the President.
  He also said, and this was when the President decided to get feisty, 
he said on February 17, 1999, ``Fifteen years from now, if Congress 
wants to give more tax relief, let them do it.'' Well, is that not 
grand of our Commander-in-Chief, to say that maybe 15 years from now 
hard-working middle class Americans may deserve a tax cut.
  We do not need it in 15 years, we need tax relief now. And we do not 
need to protect the American people from an onslaught of another decade 
of unprecedented tax increases, we need to protect them today. And this 
is an amendment whose time has come.
  I do not care if liberals and big government types have opposed this 
taxpayer protection in the past, just like I do not care that they 
opposed welfare reform three times before finally passing it; like I do 
not care that they opposed the balanced budget five times before 
passing it. Now is the time to pass this to protect hard-working middle 
class Americans. The American taxpayer just cannot stand another 10 
years of tax increases like they have had to in the past 10 years.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to the rule and the constitutional 
amendment it brings to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, we 
have had no hearings on the current bill. If we had had hearings, the 
first thing that would have been exposed is the fact that we can 
continue raising spending with a simple majority vote, but to pay for 
that additional spending would require two-thirds in both the House and 
the Senate.
  It also points out we could pass a corporate loophole with a simple 
majority, but to close the corporate loophole would take a two-thirds 
vote in the House and the Senate.
  In fact, if we find ourselves in a budget crunch where we needed to 
cut or find additional revenues, it would take a two-thirds vote to 
close a corporate loophole but only a simple majority to cut Social 
Security or Medicare.
  We did have hearings on this proposal last year and we heard from 
many witnesses, Democratic and Republican, who found troubles with many 
provisions. In fact, former Office of Management and Budget director 
Jim Miller, who supported the amendment, said that some of the 
provisions were in fact, and I quote, silly.
  For example, there is a provision that says it does not apply to 
provisions that raise revenues by a de minimis amount. What is de 
minimis? Well, one provision said if it is one-tenth of 1 percent of 
the total revenues, that would be de minimis. But in a trillion dollar 
budget, one-tenth of 1 percent is a billion dollars. We have heard 
jokes about a billion here and a billion there, but we do not want 
courts to decide whether or not that is de minimis and whether two-
thirds is required.
  The ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), also had an amendment that 
suggested that courts should not be able to intervene. They should only 
make a declaratory judgment as to whether we are in compliance or not, 
otherwise we will find that the courts are deciding whether the tax 
laws are valid or whether or not we were in compliance with the law.
  This amendment was not allowed under the rule. The Committee on Rules 
did not want to consider improvements to the proposal. So in its 
present form, the courts will decide whether or not we require a two-
thirds vote. This rule allows no amendments, it limits debate, it 
provides for the consideration of a constitutional amendment for which 
we held no hearings, and it will mire us in a morass of confusion and 
litigation over the meanings of its terms.
  Amending the Constitution is serious business. It should not be 
conducted haphazardly and it should not be part of an April 15 charade. 
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' 
on H. J. Res. 37.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in support of the resolution.
  I think the underlying issue right now is worthy of a debate, and as 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) have indicated, is there not a better day 
than tax day? I know right now there are people across this country, 
including my hometown of Brooklyn and Staten Island, who are writing a 
check to the Federal Government. They are working hard all year for the 
painful experience of writing a check.
  While there are those of us who are advocating tax relief for the 
American people, this does not even talk about that. We are talking 
about when a bill comes before the House of Representatives that would 
raise taxes, that we need more than a simple majority to do so. If a 
bill comes before the House now, we need about 218 Members to pass the 
legislation. This would raise that amount to 290.
  Therefore, if we still have 150 Members of Congress who believe that 
a tax increase is necessary, the legislation will pass. It is very 
simple. It is not complicated. And it allows those who believe that the 
American people are not overtaxed or believe that they deserve a tax 
increase or they believe that economic growth is best left here in 
Washington and not back home across America, with the freedom and the 
liberty and the opportunity for Americans to spend their hard-earned 
money as they see fit, if there are still 150 Members who believe that 
a tax increase is necessary, they can do so under this legislation.
  I know there are those who want to make it very, very complicated and 
talk about esoteric things, but to me, I enjoy going back home and 
asking the average family who are working so hard, some 6 or 7 days a 
week, both husband and wife working, sometimes

[[Page 6575]]

one spouse working just to pay the taxes, and asking them if they want 
$1,000 back or $1,500 back of their hard-earned money so they can 
invest in education or buy a new car, put it in the house, and see what 
their response is. The response I get when I ask that question is an 
overwhelming ``yes''.
  But that is tax relief. This legislation deals with tax increases. If 
there are those who are committed to raising taxes on the American 
people, they have the opportunity with this legislation to vote 
``yes''.
  I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution and a strong ``yes'' 
for the American people, the hard-working taxpayers of this country who 
have been the engine of economic growth for years. This will put a 
limitation on the way Congress spends their hard-earned money.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  Let me, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, raise an 
initial concern that if we are to be guided by the will of the people, 
then we have certainly been misguided in this resolution.
  I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 37, both the rule and the 
underlying bill, and ask the question, if this is of such importance, 
why did it not go through the process for active and deliberative 
debate; going through the House Committee on the Judiciary for a 
determination as to its constitutional framework?
  We have noted that, through the Constitution, we are a government 
ruled by the majority. Even in this body, as I stand as part of the 
minority party, we recognize that decisions have been made by a simple 
majority vote. That majority vote may be comprised of Democrats and 
Republicans but it is a simple majority.
  I raise for consideration, Madam Speaker, the words of Judge Felix 
Frankfurter: ``Fragile as reason is and limited as law is as the 
institutionalized medium of reason, that's all we have standing between 
us and the tyranny of mere will and the cruelty of unbridled, 
undisciplined feeling.''
  Albeit I attribute to my colleagues good intent, I believe that this 
legislation on April 15 is a feel-good piece of legislation. It gives 
those who are trying to impress the respective taxing organizations or 
anti-taxing organizations the opportunity to say, ``Look at us, we are 
voting against taxes on April 15.''
  Well, Madam Speaker, I would venture to say that the American people 
have a broader view of what America is all about. They think it is 
about good education. They think it is about saving Social Security and 
Medicare. They think it is about rebuilding the crumbling schools, or 
the universal savings account announced yesterday that allows Americans 
to save money that will result in additional funds in retirement. They 
think it is about supporting the men and women who are sent off to 
wars, and particularly the terrible conflict in Kosovo. They do not 
want us trampling on the Constitution by requiring two-thirds so that 
one-third of individuals, filled with feeling and passion, can stop the 
wheels of government.
  The economy is going well. Our American citizens are reasonable 
people. Tax relief is one thing, but this unbridled feeling about 
limiting the opportunity to engage in the responsibilities that we have 
in the United States Congress as representatives of the people is 
another. If we do not like taxes, we should vote against them, but we 
should not bridle the wheels of government by requiring a tyrannical 
minority to hold up the wheels of government.
  I would simply add, Madam Speaker, that my concern as we go through 
this process is that we have not given this resolution the process that 
it should have had. It did not go through the Committee on the 
Judiciary, yet we are here on the floor. I would ask my colleagues to 
consider what they are doing.
  The Constitution is a sacred document. The amending of the 
Constitution or provisions to amend it should be a sacred process. That 
is what we have been entrusted with by the people of the United States 
of America. I would be concerned that we do great damage to it today.
  I would ask my colleagues who think tax relief is good, to put a good 
tax relief bill on the table. But if we pass this legislation, we will 
not be able to alter the Tax Code. We will be stifled by that because 
it may result in a de minimis, or above a de minimis increase in taxes, 
and therefore we will tell the American people, ``The heck with you, we 
can't give you Tax Code relief.''
  This is a bad bill, a bad rule, and I ask my colleagues to vote this 
down. We should encourage all citizens to do what is right on tax day: 
file their taxes, get their returns in, get their refunds back, and 
realize that this government is working on behalf of the American 
people and working through its representatives in a fair and just way.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to day in opposition 
to H.J. Res. 37, the Republican Tax Limitation Amendment. As you all 
know, this amendment seeks to require a two-thirds majority vote in 
each House to increase tax revenues by more than a ``de minimis'' 
amount, except in times of war or military conflict which pose a threat 
to national security.
  I first object to this measure because it is completely ambiguous. If 
we are proposing to amend the longest standing document of civil 
liberty and freedom in the Western world, surely, we should be 
absolutely clear about what our intentions are. Already, we see that 
the courts struggle with interpretations of Constitution, and we cannot 
afford to have a Court wrongfully interpret this bill, especially if it 
is in a manner which will hamstring the Congress in its plain course of 
business.
  Leaving the determination to Congress as to how we will define a ``de 
minimis'' increase is ultimately as arbitrary and meaningless as not 
having a standard at all. The fact of the matter is that this language 
will inevitably encourage years of exhaustive litigation about when 
this constitutional amendment should be invoked.
  Do the authors of this bill intend that potential tax increases be 
evaluated by changes in percentages or by numerical amount? When do 
changes begin to exceed the ``de minimis'' standard included in this 
bill, is it over an annual period, a two-year period or a five-year 
period? Do fiscal changes that need to be done in order to properly 
administrate our Social Security and Medicare programs trigger this 
amendment? The plain answer is that nobody knows--not a comforting 
thought as we move forward on our legislative calendar.
  Furthermore, the one exception in the bill in regards to the special 
circumstances that may arise during an armed military conflict are 
written too narrowly to be effective. Even in this drastic case, the 
tax limitation is only waived for a maximum of two years.
  But most importantly, this constitutional amendment is contrary to 
the very spirit and purpose of the Constitution. This Nation was 
founded upon principles of majority rule, so why should we now 
sacrifice these sacred principles to encapsulate the level of the 
Federal Government's tax revenues? The whole purpose of the Connecticut 
and New Jersey Compromises that helped to form this great Congress over 
two centuries ago, was to allow the American people the opportunity to 
express their will through both locally and broadly elected 
representation that had their particular interests at hand.
  But how can this process continue to take place when 146 members of 
this body could vote to defeat any new tax measure that is not a so-
called ``de minimis'' change in current tax policy? Clearly, any 
initiative that would seek to give such an enormous amount of power to 
such a small minority is both imprudent and inappropriate. Surely in a 
body such as this, where we have few seats between us, we must respect 
the minority party, and their policies--but should we allow a minority 
of as diminutive a size as one-third to hold up the train of progress? 
I believe the answer is no.
  I believe that this bill is a poorly written expression of a poorly 
conceived legislative initiative, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
vote it down, just like we have done over the last three years.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining 
on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) has 17 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page 6576]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the cosponsor of this 
legislation, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). He has been a 
tireless champion for this cause.
  But as this body knows, this is a bipartisan measure, and I also want 
to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goode) from the other side for their support of this 
effort.
  Just a moment ago I heard one of my colleagues on the other side call 
this a ``show boat'' measure. And just after that, I heard another one 
of my colleagues say, well, this is really not about doing the majority 
will of the American people.
  I want to begin this debate by pointing out that 68 percent of all 
Americans approve of adopting this kind of amendment. And as my 
colleagues might expect, that support is stronger amongst Republicans 
than amongst Democrats. Indeed, 75 percent of Republicans polled across 
America favor a constitutional amendment making it necessary to have a 
two-thirds majority before we can raise taxes yet one more time.
  But, very significantly, I want my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to hear this figure. And it is that 63 percent of all 
Democrats in America, in a recent poll on this issue, favored this 
amendment. This is not show-boating. This is substance, and it is doing 
what the American people want.
  Today, this year, tax day, the Federal Government will take over 20 
percent of this country's gross domestic product. Of everything we 
produce, the Federal Government will consume over 20 percent of it. 
That is the largest proportion of our production consumed by the 
Federal Government since World War II. And when combined with the 
highest, higher than ever, State and local taxes, it means the American 
people are paying taxes at the highest rate ever in the history of this 
country.
  Indeed, it is now, I hope, well-known across America that, sadly, the 
average American pays more for taxes, spends more today on their tax 
bill, than they will in the entire year for food for their family, 
clothing for their family, shelter for their family, and 
transportation. Indeed, I think it is kind of interesting that studies 
show feudal serfs, who were identified as indentured servants, paid 
only 30 percent of their income to the lord.
  It seems to me this trend of ever-bigger government is something we 
absolutely must stop. This is not a debate about cutting taxes. This 
is, however, a debate about making it somewhat harder to raise taxes 
yet one more time.
  For the past 40 years, Madam Speaker, the size and scope of the 
Federal Government and its tax burden has grown. Year in and year out, 
in good economies and bad economies, it becomes bigger and bigger and 
bigger, and it consumes an ever-increasing share of a family's income. 
Indeed, in 1980, just a short 19 years ago, the average Federal tax 
burden was about $2,300. By 1995, it had more than doubled to almost 
$5,000.
  Now, the original intent of the Founders was to place certain checks 
and balances under the Constitution. Sadly, Madam Speaker, those 
original checks and balances on the Federal Government, many of them 
have been eroded over time. The 10th Amendment has been tremendously 
weakened. The commerce clause of the Constitution has been read by the 
courts to be much more broad.
  Indeed, this is a debate about placing some restriction on the power 
of the Federal Government, not to do what it is doing now, not to 
perform the important functions it is engaged in today, not to continue 
the programs we have identified. It is a debate about whether or not we 
ought to make it slightly more difficult, not impossible, to raise 
taxes, to increase the burden on the American people, yet one more 
time. And I suggest that the debate is simple and straightforward.
  For those who believe there should be a broad consensus in this 
country for yet another tax increase, for an increase in the burden of 
the Federal Government on the American people, this is a simple vote, 
vote ``yes.'' For those who oppose this and think it should be easier 
to raise our taxes, vote ``no.'' I think the people will judge what we 
do.
  For our friends who say this calls for the tyranny of the minority, I 
would point out to them that this country and our Constitution long ago 
established the principle that we protect minorities and minority 
rights time and time again in our Constitution and in our system of 
government and we should protect minority rights.
  We, as a Nation, do not accept, indeed we reject, the notion of 
tyranny by the majority. And this measure simply says we can have tax 
tyranny by the majority if we allow taxes to go up and up and up. And 
it does not repeal tax. It does not decrease taxes. It simply says we 
should not make it easier, indeed we should make it marginally harder, 
to raise the tax burden on the American people yet one more time.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support H.J. Res. 37.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, if my friend from Arizona believes this is not a show 
boat or it is not a stage prop, I wish he would get out to the 
Washington Post and tell the editorial writer.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague read the 
Washington Post editorial this morning, and I understand that the 
Washington Post thinks that this is a show boat. That is their opinion. 
They also say it is the view of the minority. The polling data that I 
have shows it is the view of 68 percent of Democrats in America and 75 
percent of Republicans.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have not seen 
their statement yet.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Let us just really go to the point here. This is special interest 
legislation. It has a name. It is the ``foreign corporate freeloader 
special interest tax loophole big contributor protection act.'' It is 
simply cloaked in helping average American families. But what they want 
to do is lock in place an incredibly unfair and complex tax system 
which favors the privileged and the wealthy.
  A few examples: The Government Accounting Office says, over the last 
6-year period they have numbers for 70 percent of the large foreign 
corporations operating in the United States that avoided all U.S. taxes 
despite their profits. They want to lock that system in place. They 
want to lock that system in place.
  The Intel Corporation got a ruling that a large part of their income 
should be treated as income in Japan for tax purposes. Unfortunately, 
the United States of America has a treaty with Japan which says it has 
to be treated as American income. So guess what? The Intel Corporation 
paid no tax. They did not pay tax on that income.
  Now, would not average Americans like to have that kind of a break, 
that kind of a loophole? They want to lock that unfair system in place.
  And most recently it has come to light that the cruise ship industry 
operating in America, 95 percent of their passengers are American, is 
paying no income tax in this country because they are registered in 
countries like Liberia, where theoretically they would pay taxes if 
there was a government and if they levied taxes, but there is not and 
they do not.
  The Republicans want to lock that system in place with this two-
thirds requirement under the cynical guise of

[[Page 6577]]

 giving suffering average Americans relief. They are in the majority. 
Why do they not pass legislation to give relief to average Americans? 
Why do they not take up a bill today, tomorrow, every day and send it 
to the President? They are not doing that.
  This is special-interest legislation, plain and simple. This is just 
unbelievably cynical, my friends, unbelievably cynical. Average 
Americans are suffering under this system. They are paying more than 
their fair share, while foreign corporations, huge U.S. corporations, 
and immensely profitable, privately held businesses, like the cruise 
ship industry, pay not a dime for the services they use in this 
country. And with this two-thirds requirement, that would never change.
  And beyond that, I guess I have got to wonder, since they are in the 
majority, who are they protecting us against? Are they protecting us 
against themselves? They control the House of Representatives. They 
will never bring a bill to the House to raise taxes on these special 
interests. But they want to be sure that they lock those loopholes, 
those special protections, those privileges in place for all time for 
their big campaign contributors.
  Vote ``no'' on this cynical amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I plead guilty. I raise my hand 
and I plead guilty. I want to make it more difficult to raise taxes on 
the American people. I am sorry, but that is the way I feel.
  Let us just do a little basic math. Most of us took fractions back in 
elementary school. At least I did at Travis Elementary in Bryan, Texas. 
Which is the bigger fraction, one-half or two-thirds? When we run the 
math, we find out, at least in Ennis, Texas, and Travis Elementary in 
Bryan, Texas, that two-thirds is the bigger fraction by one-sixth.
  Now, if we convert that one-sixth increase to 435 Members of the 
House of Representatives, it means it would make it more difficult to 
raise taxes by approximately 70 votes in the House of Representatives. 
I think that is a good thing, not a bad thing.
  Now, to my good friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), if he is still on 
the House floor, he may have already left, but if he is still on the 
House floor, I hope he understands that by the end of the day, American 
taxpayers will have paid to the U.S. Treasury $828 billion. $828 
billion. If we add the Social Security taxes, which are over $300 
billion, the American taxpayers will have paid over $1 trillion to the 
U.S. Treasury this year. $1 trillion. That is a thousand billion 
dollars.
  How much is enough? Why not raise the bar? Why not go to two-thirds 
vote in the House and the Senate to raise taxes instead of the one-
half?
  Now, to my constitutional friends who say, why should we monkey with 
the Constitution, I answer, because we already have back in 1913 when 
we amended the Constitution to make the Federal income tax legal. 
Before that point we could not have a direct tax like an income tax. It 
was unconstitutional; 100 percent prohibition against an income tax 
until 1913.
  How high has the marginal tax rate gone since 1913? It has gone up 
4,000 percent. 4,000 percent.
  So this debate today is very simple. Do my colleagues understand 
fractions? I assume my friends on the Democratic side understand 
fractions. Two-thirds is bigger than one-half. We would make it more 
difficult, not impossible, to raise taxes.
  If they think that is a good thing, call their congressman, say, vote 
for the tax limitation amendment; help us get 290 votes to send it to 
the Senate; and then help the Senate get 67 votes to send it to the 
States; and then help the States get three-fourths of them to pass it 
and put it in the Constitution so that we make it a little bit tougher 
to raise taxes. That is what this vote is all about.
  The rule that is before us is a good rule. It allows the Democrat 
minority, if they wish to, to amend it. We have had process debate on 
this before. It is time to vote it out today and send it to the Senate.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  To my colleague that just spoke, I will tell him, we do understand 
fractions over here. In fact, we have 49 percent of the House and we 
only got 43 percent of the seats. So we know how those fractions work.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, it seems to me that one of the hallmarks 
of this majority since they have resumed that responsibility in this 
House has been a clearer suspicion of democratic rule and a denial of 
democratic principles.
  The first indication of that was in the campaign of 1994 when we 
heard so many of them talk about the need for term limits, not trusting 
the voters to make judgments about whether or not people should be 
elected to office. They wanted people to be restricted to the number of 
terms that they could run. Now they seem to have had a different 
attitude about that. Now that the time period has run out, many of them 
are reconsidering that whole business.
  But now we have something new here, another denial of democracy, 
denial of majority rule. They want to create a circumstance whereby it 
takes two-thirds rather than a simple majority to pass an important 
measure, a tax measure, in the House of Representatives.
  If we were to begin that process, obviously we would start down a 
road that is going to lead us to a place where we are going to be not a 
democracy but a plutocracy, a government run by a handful of people, a 
diminishing number of people, plutocratic rule. That seems to be the 
hallmark of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
  We believe in democratic principles. We believe in the right of the 
majority. We believe in democratic rule and we believe in majority 
rule. And that is why our opposition to this rule and to this bill is 
so solid and so firm.
  Let us not deny democracy and move toward plutocracy. Let us keep the 
democratic principles upon which this country is based and keep simple 
majority rule in order to pass important measures in this Congress.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Madam Speaker, I would just like to say to the 
previous speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) that we are 
not suspicious, as he said, of democratic rule and democratic 
principles. We are suspicious of Democrats ruling and of the Democratic 
Party's principles, who over the past 40 years have raised taxes time 
and time and time again on the American people.
  Also, I find it very interesting that since the 1950s and 1960s, our 
friends on the left have been talking about the tyranny of the majority 
and how we must protect the American people against the tyranny of the 
majority and the will of the majority, and now all of a sudden they are 
embracing it as tightly as William Rehnquist.
  So we are not suspicious of democratic rule and principle. We are 
suspicious of what would happen again if the Democrats controlled this 
Chamber. And that is what we are trying to protect American people 
against, raising taxes over and over again like they did in 1993.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If I may once again remind my Republican colleagues, at the beginning 
of the 104th Congress, they changed the House rule to require three-
fifths of the majority for tax increases and then they waived that 
requirement each and every time it came up. If they cannot abide by 
House rules with the supermajority, how are they going to abide by 
changing the Constitution?
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am confused by this. It does tend to 
imbalance things.

[[Page 6578]]

  I am not so sure that if they had a two-thirds majority to cut taxes 
along with the two-thirds majority to raise it that I would not go 
along with them. I am not so sure that if they had a two-thirds 
majority to increase defense spending, I would not go along with them. 
I am not so sure if they had a two-thirds majority to cut payments to 
children, to cut Medicare, to cut benefits for the poor and the 
disabled that I would not go along with them.
  Because those right-wing, radical Republicans, with their majority, 
have been doing just that. They have been cutting money for education. 
They have been cutting money for health care. They have been cutting 
money for the impoverished. And all they want to do is give a big tax 
cut to the 2 or 3 percent richest people in the country for which they 
do not have the votes.
  And so they are stacking the deck. It is wrong. It is a way, in the 
case of Medicare, to see that we disband Medicare, to let it wither on 
the vine, as their former Speaker, a couple of iterations ago, decided 
to do.
  So what they cannot do within their own party with a simple majority 
they are trying to do by obfuscation and indirection and misuses of the 
Constitution, create an unbalanced situation where a small radical 
group of right-wing reactionaries can begin to control the spending in 
this country to disadvantage the majority.
  This constitutional amendment, if it ever came up, it certainly has 
gone through no committee hearings, it is reported out of the 
Republican leadership without any hearings, without any markup, and if 
it were ever to see the light of day, it would proceed to destroy the 
Medicare system, it would destroy Social Security, and eventually, I 
suppose, reach that goal of these radical right-wing Republicans, and 
that is to destroy Federal Government as we know it today.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) is recognized for 10\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time. I have not had 10 minutes to talk about anything 
on the floor of the House in so long, I feel like I am filibustering if 
I take 10 minutes.
  Let me talk about this in a historical framework first and see if we 
can figure out what is going on here. On April 15 of 1996, this 
amendment came to the House floor. On April 15 of 1997, this amendment 
came to the House floor. On April 22, I think that was tax filing day 
last year, of 1998, this amendment came to the House floor. On April 
15, 1999, this amendment is back on the House floor.
  Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) talked to us about 
arithmetic and fractions. Let me ask the statistical probability that a 
single measure which has failed in the House consistently will show up 
on the floor of the House 4 consecutive years on the same tax filing 
day. What is the statistical probability that that could happen by 
chance?
  It is not by chance that this matter is here today. This is politics 
and the desire of my Republican colleagues to make a statement about 
taxation, which is fine, but we ought to be honest about that. If 
people want to come to the floor and give a speech about taxes being 
too high in this country, taxes are too high in this country. But this 
is about amending the Constitution of the United States, and I am 
embarrassed that we are here playing political games with the 
Constitution of the United States. It embarrasses me. We ought to take 
this more seriously.
  And if my Republican colleagues were taking this seriously, let me 
tell Members what would have happened. I am the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary in 
this House. I have not seen this constitutional amendment come to the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution of this House. I am a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary in this House. We did not consider this 
amendment in the Committee on the Judiciary. We did not even have 
notice that this constitutional amendment to amend the most important 
document that we serve under was going to be on the House floor until 
several days ago, came to the Committee on Rules, never went through 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution, never went through the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Now, if they were serious about the constitutional obligation that we 
are about to undertake here, one would think that even after it went to 
the Committee on Rules, the Committee on Rules would at least make in 
order the possibility of amendments that we could consider on the floor 
of the House to improve this bill. If it is a good idea, why can we not 
have a debate on potential amendments that would improve the bill?
  We said to them, ``Look, there is nothing in the United States 
Constitution now that mentions the words de minimis.'' There is not a 
person sitting on this floor or in the gallery who knows what ``de 
minimis'' means. And yet we are going to give a Constitution to the 
Supreme Court of the United States and say to the Supreme Court, ``You 
tell us what a de minimis tax increase is.''
  This is the same group who within the next several weeks will be back 
here on the floor trying to amend the Constitution because they do not 
like what the Supreme Court told them about what the First Amendment 
means. So when the Supreme Court says what a de minimis tax increase 
is, then they are going to be unhappy about that.
  So we tried to offer an amendment that would get us out of that bind. 
If my colleagues are serious about that, at least let the Congress 
decide what a de minimis increase is and give the Supreme Court 
responsibility only for determining whether the Congress has followed 
its own rules. Do not get us into a posture of the Congress saying, 
``This is a de minimis increase'' and then the Supreme Court saying, 
``Oh, no, that's not de minimis,'' because nobody knows what this 
language means.
  But do you think we got the opportunity to offer this amendment? We 
did not get the opportunity in the Subcommittee on the Constitution, it 
never came there. We did not get the opportunity in the Committee on 
the Judiciary, it never came there. We did not get the opportunity on 
the floor of the House because the Committee on Rules said, ``Oh, no, 
you might disrupt our political message if we give you the opportunity 
to talk about the merits of this bill, to talk about the merits of our 
democracy, to talk about the merits of setting up a conflict between 
the Congress of the United States and the Supreme Court of the United 
States. That would interrupt our political message, and our political 
message today is that taxes are too high.''
  My political message to you is a constitutional message. I represent 
almost 600,000 people. Every single Member of this body represents 
almost 600,000 people. I cannot think of any reason that some small 
group of people would want to elevate their constituency above the 
value of my constituency. That is what majority rule is about. I do not 
like to lose votes, but majority rule is the essence of democracy.
  That is what this debate is about. What the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has said is absolutely correct. They want 70 more people above 
majority rule to decide when taxes can be imposed. He is right. That is 
exactly what this debate is about. But let me tell you that that 
undermines in the most profound and basic way the principles on which 
our democracy is founded, one of those primary principles being 
majority rule.
  If we are going to do it, we at least ought to be serious about it. 
We at least ought to let the Subcommittee on the Constitution consider 
the bill. We at least ought to let the Committee on the Judiciary 
consider the bill. We at least ought to have a full and fair debate on 
this issue on the floor and allow the possibility of amendments.
  This is not about what my colleagues would have you believe it is 
about.

[[Page 6579]]

This is political fun and games. Let me join my Republican colleagues 
in saying what everybody agrees to, that taxes are too high. I do not 
make any apologies for that. We all ought to vote for it every time we 
get the opportunity to reduce taxes. But that is not an argument for a 
supermajority. That is an argument for responsibility and majority 
rule, and we ought not upset the basic fabric of our democracy to 
accomplish it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), a member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is 
recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank my very distinguished friend, a 
member of the Committee on Rules of senior standing from Washington 
State, for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this very 
appropriate structured rule.
  To the gentleman who just spoke who is concerned about this being the 
fourth year in a row, I would say unless this passes today, do not make 
any plans for April 15 next year, either. I think we can all agree that 
on a matter of principle such as this, which involves a change to our 
Constitution, we must eagerly seek and accept a more rigorous debate 
structure, and the Committee on Rules has tried to provide for that.

                              {time}  1130

  In the Committee on Rules on Tuesday, proponents of this tax 
limitation constitutional amendment were accused of attempting a 
symbolic gesture. Well, the truth is that symbolism of considering this 
measure on this day, Tax Filing Day for working Americans, is extremely 
important. Every year on April 15 many Americans are reminded in a very 
personal, up-front and direct way of what their government costs them. 
It is on this day that many families and businesses come face-to-face 
with the enormity of the Federal tax bite, and so it makes perfect 
sense that this Congress would on this day focus on a means to decrease 
the tax bite, Madam Speaker.
  But the fact is that too many other Americans view April 15 in a 
dramatically different context. As refund checks go out from Uncle Sam, 
millions of Americans will not feel the big sting of our overwhelming 
tax bite, but will be insulated from the real cost of our Federal 
Government, perhaps forgetting that they have been paying by 
withholding all year.
  Whether writing a big payment check today or not, one thing is very 
certain. The tax burden placed on all Americans is too great, and it is 
too confusing. Most of us cannot even get the same conclusion when we 
follow the form. It is in a large part the result of incremental tax 
increases that are buried in big bills for which Congress has not been 
held properly accountable. The constitutional amendment we consider 
today is an accountability measure designed to require a higher 
standard of proof for Congress when tax increases are considered.
  That makes sense, Madam Speaker. After all, the money belongs first 
to the people, not first to the government. Some folks forget that from 
time to time inside the beltway. It seems to me that too many people 
have forgotten that truth, that government does not have some innate 
right to confiscate the earnings of the people it serves.
  Tuesday morning I heard a news report on the radio that stunned me 
and, I hope, anybody else who heard it. A professor who has studied the 
historical trends in IRS audits was interviewed about his research, and 
in his commentary he said the following, and I quote:
  ``Tax enforcement is the essential sort of function for the 
government.''
  I wonder if that gentleman's history lessons took him back to Boston 
Harbor in something called the tax about tea, and the gentleman from 
Boston (Mr. Moakley) has properly reminded me that is in his district, 
and I know he learned the lesson well. Madam Speaker, was he there?
  How far we have come from the model envisaged by our Founding 
Fathers.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to understand the symbolism of 
today's debate, but then, and more importantly, to vote for the 
substance of the amendment being proposed to require a tougher standard 
and a greater accountability on those in government seeking to raise 
the taxes that all Americans must pay, whether that payment is by 
withholding throughout the year or by writing a large check to the 
government on April 15, or, perish the thought, both.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 139, I 
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 37) proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
139, the joint resolution is considered read for amendment.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 37 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 37

       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. After 3 hours of debate on the joint 
resolution, it shall be in order to consider one motion to amend, if 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), or his designee, 
which shall be considered read and debatable for 1 hour, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 1\1/2\ hours of debate on the 
joint resolution.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Madam Speaker, I will be controlling the time for 
the first part of this debate, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the sponsor of the constitutional 
amendment, be permitted to control the time during the second portion 
of this debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Today is a very important day for us to be bringing up this tax 
limitation amendment, and is there some political symbolism?

[[Page 6580]]

  Certainly.
  Madam Speaker, I cannot think of a day that would be more important 
to bring this up, the day that millions of Americans across the country 
are going to their accountants, going to their local IRS offices and 
filing their tax returns. They have seen over the past decade taxes 
increase at a larger rate, at a faster rate than at any time in this 
country's history. In fact, the 1993 tax increase that so many 
Democrats I have heard are still proud of today in 1999 was, in fact, 
the largest tax increase that the American taxpayers have ever been 
faced with. Of course I believe in large part that is the one reason 
why the Republican party was swept to a majority in 1994, and, as my 
colleagues know, the common wisdom was that somehow left-wing liberals, 
big spenders, had learned their lessons and that raising taxes would no 
longer be acceptable to an overwhelming majority of the American 
people.
  But the bottom line is that is not the case. In fact, the President's 
budget and the blueprint of many people on the left in this House 
actually contains tax increases in their proposed budget for the next 
few years. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation has a study that shows that 
over 60 percent of the taxes in the President's budget will be 
shouldered by those Americans earning less than $50,000. The lesson has 
not been learned. Again, Madam Speaker, I can think of nothing that 
would protect the American taxpayer more than this amendment that would 
require a supermajority.
  As my colleagues know, we have heard arguments from the left today 
that somehow this would cripple our government, that somehow it would 
destroy the economy and that it is unconstitutional. The fact is that 
we already have 10 instances where supermajorities are required in 
Congress for things to happen. I think this is the time and this is the 
place to pass one more example of where a supermajority must be passed 
before tax burdens are raised on American taxpayers.
  I also have heard time and time again in the past hour the fact that 
we have done this before and it has failed, and, since it has failed, 
we should not do it again. But again I want to remind my friends on the 
left that our efforts at welfare reform that have transformed the 
welfare state failed three times before the President finally signed 
the bill.
  I also want to remind my friends on the left that opposed a balanced 
budget for as long as they did that the President opposed that for 
months after we came to the majority. In fact, he said that balancing 
the budget in 7 years would destroy the economy.
  Madam Speaker, we fought the President, and we fought the liberals on 
welfare reform, we fought them on balancing the budget, and we proved, 
even though it did not pass the first, second or third time, we proved 
that our ideas were correct; and I think this tax limitation amendment 
is also the thing to do to ensure that the free market, the free 
enterprise system that has made this country what it is in 1999 will be 
able to survive into the next century and that the Federal Government 
will not be able to remain as oppressive as they have been on 
taxpayers.
  And again, if my colleagues want any example of this, they do not 
need to go back 20, 30, 50 years. All they have to do is see what has 
happened in the 1990's: This Congress and this Federal Government have 
raised taxes at an alarming rate throughout this decade. In fact, Madam 
Speaker, it has been unprecedented, and that is why I think, as we go 
into the 21st century, we must protect not only those Americans that 
are filing taxes today, but Americans and their children and their 
grandchildren that will be filing tax forms in the next century.
  Madam Speaker, the way we do that is by passing this supermajority 
amendment. It is an idea whose time has come, and I hope my friends on 
the left can recognize that and can support this very, very meaningful 
and important amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, it needs to be pointed out from the very beginning 
that the Committee on the Judiciary has not ordered reported H.J. Res. 
37 proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
respect to tax limitations. This has not occurred, notwithstanding a 
communication forwarded by the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), to the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules saying that this has taken place.
  In addition, I have never been contacted, or written, or telephoned 
even, about a constitutional amendment that cannot in due fairness come 
before the Congress without any, any committee proceedings in the House 
Committee on the Judiciary. We have never witnessed this before.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is a disgrace to the process and borders on 
legislative malpractice. This amendment is an insult to the legislative 
process and to the principle of democracy itself. The absence, the 
total absence of any committee hearings, of any markup, without any 
prior consultation, makes this failure one that ought to send this 
committee and the vote on this amendment off the floor today on this 
important day. When the matter involved is a constitutional amendment 
which would forever limit the voting rights of Members, such lack of 
process is shocking and unconscionable.
  Now we all know the real reason the resolution is being rushed to the 
floor, to provide another symbolic gesture on Income Tax Day and divert 
attention from the real issues that matter to voters. The fact that the 
amendment will not pass or has never passed hardly constitutes a valid 
reason for waiving the Committee on the Judiciary's historic 
jurisdiction over constitutional amendments.
  The substantive implications of this amendment are even more 
problematic. First and foremost, the amendment undercuts the very 
cornerstone of democracy, the theory that majority rules. By requiring 
a two-thirds majority to adopt certain legislation, the amendment 
diminishes the vote of every Member of the House and the Senate.
  Now the framers of the Constitution wisely rejected the principle of 
requiring a supermajority for basic government functions. James Madison 
argued at the time of the Constitutional Convention that under a 
supermajority requirement the fundamental principle of free government 
would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule; 
the power would be transferred to the minority.

                              {time}  1145

  The fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It 
would no longer be the majority that would rule. The power would be 
transferred to the minority.
  In addition, the amendment would permanently enshrine some $450 
billion of special corporate tax favors in the Constitution, nearly 
three times as much as all the means-tested entitlement programs 
combined.
  Could that be a motive for bringing this measure forward, by a 
majority which already violates its own House rules on the requirement 
of a three-fifths majority for these kinds of votes?
  It would be next to impossible to change the law to require foreign 
corporations to pay their fair share of taxes on income earned in this 
country or to repeal loopholes which encourage United States companies 
to relocate overseas.
  In fact, under this amendment, it would take more votes to close a 
tax loophole engineered by powerful interest groups than to cut Social 
Security, Medicare and education programs.
  So the amendment would also make major deficit reduction measures 
much harder to pass when they are needed. Five of the six major deficit 
reduction acts that have been enacted since 1982, measures which fully 
allow us to balance the budget, include a combination of revenue 
increases and program cuts. It includes both increases and cuts.

[[Page 6581]]

  President Reagan signed three of these measures into law and 
Presidents Bush and Clinton signed one each. None of these five 
measures received a two-thirds majority in both Houses. So had the 
proposed constitutional amendment been in effect during this period, 
substantial budget deficits would still be with us today.
  Finally, I remind my colleagues that this amendment is the height of 
hypocrisy. Four years ago, the majority changed the House rules so that 
they could not increase tax rates without a three-fifths vote. Does 
anyone on the other side remember this? On six separate occasions since 
then the majority has ignored or waived their own House rules.
  Question. If the supermajority requirement has not worked as a House 
rule, why in the world would anyone think that it could work any better 
as a constitutional amendment? I think the answer is obvious. It would 
not.
  House Joint Resolution 37 is strongly opposed by the administration. 
It is opposed by a wide variety of groups that are concerned about 
sound fiscal policy and good government, including the Concord 
Coalition, Common Cause, Citizens for Tax Justice and the AFL-CIO.
  I urge my colleagues to do what we have always done. Give this their 
careful consideration and vote against this ill-conceived, 
antidemocratic constitutional amendment that is brought before us again 
on this day.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough) for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I do not entirely disagree with the policy concerns 
that were expressed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), but I 
do want to say in reference to his concerns about the process that it 
is true this is a constitutional amendment, and we did not have 
hearings on it this year. However, in the past we have had hearings 
after hearings after hearings.
  This is essentially quite a simple matter. It does not require a lot 
of testimony, although we could probably have heard from academicians 
from here to San Francisco and back. We know what the issue is. We know 
what the policy problems are, and so it was an effort to get this up on 
this most symbolic of days, the day when tax returns are to be filed.
  I do not think anybody who will vote on this issue is in doubt as to 
what the issue is all about and will be lacking information because we 
did not have hearings.
  I will concede that hearings are appropriate. If we hadn't had so 
many hearings in the past on this essentially uncomplicated matter, why 
we would have held hearings. I think everyone understands the issue and 
so we are trying to get on with it by bringing it to this floor today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I would like indicate how honored I am to be on the 
floor with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
that has taken our country through a great struggle with our 
Constitution. It allows us to believe that we can survive another 200 
years if we just do not tinker with it.
  Now comes the time, whereas the late President Kennedy once said that 
sometimes our party asks too much of us; sometimes our party asks too 
much of us. A man that loves his country, and his Constitution even 
better, is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), a man that is so 
proud to be there when his country needs him to direct this great 
committee, not for the next election but for the history that lies 
ahead of us.
  Now this committee is being asked by its, for lack of a better word, 
leadership, to let us do something for April 15. Let us give a present 
to the taxpayers on April 15. Let us take this great document and 
tinker with it for April 15. Let us not have hearings. Let us not have 
discussions, because we know we are not serious. It is only a gimmick, 
after all. It is good for the party. It might be good for the next 
election. We might hold on to the majority.
  Sometimes my party asks too much of me, and fortunately we do not 
have to make these decisions being in the minority, but I do hope that 
this great Constitution will not be attacked every time a party thinks 
that it has a political problem at the polls.
  They should be able to understand that if they want to change the 
law, they do not have to have a two-thirds majority. That is the way it 
works in this country. If we really do not like the tax system, we do 
not have to run to try to change the Constitution. One has the guts to 
say, I have a proposal and I am prepared to present it to the American 
people and ask them to vote for it.
  It is true that realistically we have to work with the other party if 
we are going to do it. It is true that no great reform comes without a 
bipartisan effort. But that is not on the agenda, is it, because we are 
looking for the next election. So whether we are talking about tax 
reform, whether we are talking about campaign finance reform, whether 
we are talking about Medicare, whether we are talking about Social 
Security, if we want to do something about it, the only way to do it is 
in a bipartisan way. They cannot go in the back room and come up with a 
Republican solution no more than we can with a Democratic solution, and 
they cannot do it with a make-believe April 15, and it should be April 
1, and attempt to change the Constitution.
  Sometimes I try to find ways to rationalize why we are in the 
minority, but if we were in the majority and I was the chairman of a 
committee and had the responsibility to protect our Constitution and 
they asked me to do this gimmick, I hope I would have enough courage to 
say that sometimes my party asks too much of me.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, to help the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) with 
his rationalization on why they are in the minority, they are in the 
minority because they passed the largest tax increase in the history of 
the world in 1993; because they did it for the 40 years when they were 
in the majority.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), a very strong leader on a very strong leadership team.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough) for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, it is amazing to me that the name of the Constitution 
is invoked when it is convenient, and protecting the Constitution is 
invoked when it is convenient, but for the last 40 or 50 years, members 
of the minority have come to this well, and I have seen them even in my 
short time of being in this House and talking about it, the 
Constitution is irrelevant.
  It has been said here in this Chamber that the Constitution is a 
living document. Therefore, we should read between the lines, that when 
the Constitution gets in the way, we just disregard it and throw it 
aside.
  Now when the majority is trying to make a statement about the fact 
that the Constitution has been totally disregarded over the last 40 or 
50 years, we are all willing and able to come down here and protect the 
Constitution from assault.
  Madam Speaker, it is days like this that never cease to amaze me in 
serving in this House. This day of all days is when millions of 
Americans will rush to the post office, rush to the post office, in 
order to get a postmark on an envelope so that they can get their taxes 
filed on time.
  While these hardworking taxpayers scurry to comply with our 
cumbersome, antiquated Tax Code, we are here on the House Floor today 
to debate a very modest bill, in my opinion, that they would love for 
us to pass. It

[[Page 6582]]

is designed to make it a little more difficult for Uncle Sam to reach 
into the pockets of the already overtaxed and extract even more of 
their hard-earned money.
  Listen to just a few of the dramatic statistics. Since this 
administration took office, Federal tax receipts have risen from 19 
percent of the gross domestic product to an all-time record of 21.7 
percent. Over this period of time, the Federal tax burden has risen to 
a staggering 45 percent per person, 45 percent per person, from $4,600 
in 1992 to $6,700 today, according to the Tax Foundation. Including 
State and local taxes, the average taxpayer shelled out over $9,800 
last year.
  In fact, the average American family today, if they take the cost of 
government, that is, the taxes of State and local and Federal 
Government, and add to that the cost of regulations imposed upon them, 
over 50 cents out of every hard-earned dollar that the American family 
makes today goes to the government. No wonder they are squeaking and 
yelling and screaming.
  Madam Speaker, what really astounds me is that there are actually 
people opposed to this proposal. Requiring just a two-thirds majority 
vote to raise taxes, I think, is a very common-sense idea.
  Raising taxes should not be easy. The problem is, this town is still 
full of people who mistakenly believe that big government is the answer 
to all of our problems, and they fail to recognize that the surplus is 
not, is not, the property of the United States Government.

                              {time}  1200

  I have a message for those big government bureaucrats and others who 
would want tax hikes to be easily accomplished: It is not their money.
  Madam Speaker, a two-thirds majority is required for all of our most 
important decisions in America, whether it is amending the Constitution 
or ratifying treaties. Is not taking the hard-earned money out of the 
pockets of the American family important enough to require a two-thirds 
majority?
  The Federal Government operates under this mentality of what is mine 
is mine, and what is yours is mine, too. Well, this has to stop, so 
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this tax 
limitation amendment. Let us really put a stop to this era of big 
government and high taxes, not just pay it lip service when it is 
convenient.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Texas for supporting the leadership and putting this on the Floor.
  Secondly, I have in my hand a copy of the Constitution of the United 
States. I know the gentleman from Texas has one.
  Mr. DeLAY. I also carry one in my pocket.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will look under Section 9.
  Mr. DeLAY. By the way, I carry this to constantly remind me that 
there still is such a thing. I keep sending them to their offices, but 
I do not know what happens to them.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will look under 
Article I, Section 9, he will see that it says, ``No capitation, or 
other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or 
Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.'' That prohibited 
income tax on people until February, 1913.
  If we look over in Amendment XVI, it says, ``The Congress shall have 
power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source 
derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without 
regard to any census or enumeration.'' That is why we need this 
constitutional amendment, to put the Constitution back like it was.
  Mr. DeLAY. How dare the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) actually 
read from the Constitution on the Floor of this House?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I know. We are uncouth in Texas.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, could I point out to the distinguished Whip of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), that we have a GAO study 
that finds the majority of the large international corporations paid no 
U.S. income taxes?
  It could not be that he would want to protect these corporations; 
that as American taxpayers struggle to meet their April 15 income tax 
deadline, that a majority of the international corporations doing 
business in the United States could pay no Federal income taxes? I 
would ask, what, Madam Speaker, do we do about that, if we were to 
unwisely enact this provision?
  The international companies paying no U.S. income tax have trillions 
of dollars of assets and annual sales in this country, and nothing has 
been done about it, even though we have a three-fifths rule in the 
House that is always waived. There are no proposals on the Floor.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  I want to start by responding to a few comments that were made by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) in his presentation.
  Madam Speaker, one would think that all of this talk about how taxes 
have gone up and revenues have gone up during the President's tenure, 
that it was the Democrats who were in the majority of the House and 
Senate during that period of time. Oh, no. Madam Speaker, the 
Republicans were in the majority during that period of time.
  So we can come and try to make a political point today on April 15, 
but the truth of the matter is that this debate is not about whether 
taxes are too high or whether President Clinton increased taxes or the 
Republicans are responsible for increasing taxes. That is really not 
what this debate is about. The debate is about the little document that 
my colleagues were waving around and using as a prop in this debate.
  Every once in a while it would be nice if my colleagues would 
actually pay some heed to that document. They came in here in 1994, 
1995, and said that they were the most conservative group that was ever 
going to hit this place.
  Well, what is the most conservative document that we have in this 
country? The Constitution. Yet, during the 2-year period after they 
came to the majority, over 100 proposed amendments to the United States 
Constitution were filed. They think they know how to put the government 
together better than our Founding Fathers knew how to put it together. 
That is really what they think. That is a very cavalier notion.
  Our Founding Fathers said that majority rule is the essence of 
democracy. That is really what this debate is about. It is about 
whether we will protect the rights of individual citizens to have an 
equal voice in their government, or whether we will have some 
supermajority or a small minority that just frustrates the will of the 
majority. That is really what this debate is about. It is about 
democracy.
  Every single decision in our government, with the exception of two, 
under the Constitution of the United States, is reserved for majority 
decision. Somehow or another my colleagues who think they are better or 
would be better at shaping a constitutional government than our 
Founding Fathers, those same Founding Fathers whose Constitution has 
survived over 200 years, my colleagues think they can do it better, so 
they come and say, on tax day we want to make a political point, and we 
want to bring this two-thirds majority vote requirement before it, not 
because we think it is going to pass but because we want to make a 
political point.
  Madam Speaker, I am embarrassed that we would play political games 
with the Constitution of the United States. We are in serious debate 
about a range of issues, some of major magnitude, some of minor 
magnitude.
  I can understand when we play politics with minor issues, but when we

[[Page 6583]]

come to the Floor of the House and we wave in front of the American 
people the Constitution of the United States and treat it like a prop 
for a political sideshow, and for 4 straight years we bring the same 
constitutional amendment which has been defeated four straight times, 
bring it to the Floor of the House on tax filing day, we are playing 
political games.
  We heard the gentleman who followed me on the debate on the rule on 
this issue. He got up and told me to be prepared for April 15 of the 
year 2000, because they are going to be back next year with the same 
constitutional amendment, not because even a majority of them think it 
has merit. If they had to really live under this system they would not 
support it, because it would be their constituencies whose vote would 
be diminished, just as it would be my constituencies' vote which is 
diminished.
  But on April 15 of next year, they are going to be right back here 
with the same political charade. That ought not to be what we are 
engaged in here. If they are serious, this amendment should have gone 
through the regular committee process. It never did. We should have had 
the opportunity to offer amendments to it that would make this bill 
better. We do not, all because it would have interrupted the ability of 
the majority to get this matter to the Floor of the House on April 15, 
the same day they brought it to the Floor of the House in 1998, 1997, 
1996, and will bring it again in the year 2000.
  Madam Speaker, this is not about substance, this is about trying to 
gain some political advantage. We should reject this amendment, and at 
least if we are going to consider it, send it to the committee and let 
us do some serious work on it so that we can address the flaws that 
exist in it.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentleman, who somehow is confused 
about who is responsible for tax rates increasing in this decade, that 
in 1993 the Democrats passed the largest tax increase in the history of 
this Republic, without a single Republican vote.
  I would like to also say again that just because the Democrats and 
those on the extreme left have fought against this bill for the past 3 
or 4 years does not mean that it is not a good idea.
  It took us three or four times to get the President to actually agree 
that welfare reform is a good thing. It took us 6 or 7 months to get 
the President of the United States to actually agree that balancing the 
budget was a good idea. Maybe it will take us another year or two to 
have those on the extreme left agree that protecting taxpayers is also 
a very good thing, but we are very patient people and we will still be 
here.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Foley), a good friend who is also a champion on the taxpayers and a 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. FOLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding time to me.
  Madam Speaker, so as not to be not patriotic, I will not wave the 
Constitution in the air, I will simply read from it.
  Section 9 of the original Constitution, which has been referred to 
numerous times today, by the Founding Fathers, prohibited taxation. It 
was an amendment to the Constitution that allowed this Nation to tax 
its people.
  Yesterday we heard in the debate about the Census language, ignore 
the Constitution, it suggests enumeration, but in order to help the 
minorities we would forget the writing of the Constitution and we will 
now do a statistical sampling.
  Madam Speaker, the Constitution is very clear. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Scarborough) has raised many times the tax vote in 1993, 
and that one Member from Pennsylvania, whose arm was twisted and was 
launched down to the Floor to change her vote in the last seconds of 
the vote that day, Ms. Mezvinsky from Pennsylvania, changed her vote 
from a nay to a yea and passed the tax bill. She was defeated by her 
constituents for raising taxes.
  I remember the comment by the President of the United States, I 
believe I raised your taxes too much. It was a little late for Ms. 
Mezvinsky, who could not apologize. She had lost her office. By one 
vote they were able to achieve a tax increase that then this president 
has denounced as maybe it was a bit too ambitious.
  Let us talk about some of the States that are apparently so backward 
they cannot figure things out. The birthplace of our President, 
Arkansas, passed in 1934 a three-quarters majority to raise all taxes.
  California, the site of so much new technology, I have heard 
repeatedly on the Floor from Members of California, then I would ask 
the delegation from California, in 1978 they passed a two-thirds 
requirement of all taxes. What say those people in California? Are they 
backwards?
  Then Delaware, 1980, a three-fifths majority to raise taxes; Florida, 
1971, three-fifths; Louisiana, two-thirds in 1966; hardly trailblazers 
here, Madam Speaker. They were listening to their constituents.
  I believe we have a fundamental problem in America, but I have also 
heard that we have to give more voice to the minority so they can 
participate in our system of government. I also heard today on this 
Floor that by initiating this two-thirds, we would give more power to 
the minority, so that should be welcome news in this Chamber, so people 
through simple majority cannot run ramrod over the constituents of this 
Nation.
  We are talking about debate on social security reform, Medicare 
reform, and all these are important topics for the American public. But 
I also think it is a clear recognition when we have these kinds of 
surplus dollars, before we start raising taxes, we ought to look at the 
more prudent way of managing the resources we have been given.

                              {time}  1215

  I am such an advocate for this because I heard our Vice President 
suggest the other day he created the Internet. I know one thing he did 
create, it was a tax on the Internet. We were not able to vote on it, 
but it was initiated in our phone bills. Now I have to get mail from my 
constituents every day about this tax on their phone bills that I did 
not get to vote on.
  I want a chance to have a two-thirds majority. I want a chance to 
debate the issues, because I believe in this Chamber. Democracy 
flourishes when all people can participate.
  If it is such a good idea, it will be easy to get a two-thirds 
majority, it will be easy to talk about what is necessary in America, 
it will be easy to do in States like Florida when we have had to step 
up to the challenge of dealing with education, of dealing with welfare, 
of dealing with issues that confront the American public, we are able 
to do it and able to get a majority, not on a partisan basis, but on a 
bipartisan basis that increases the opportunity of Floridians.
  So I join with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and 
others in supporting this amendment on this very serious day, April 15, 
where Americans are called forward to pay their taxes their government 
asks of them, not always willingly, but they certainly pay them.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes while the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) is on the floor.
  First, the 1993 vote was far more than a tax increase. It had tax 
increases and deductions, and many other changes.
  Secondly, if one measures State and local revenues, in looking at the 
States with a supermajority requirement, we find that five of the seven 
States with supermajority requirements experienced lower than average 
economic growth as measured by changes in per capita personal incomes. 
Both of these years were business cycle peaks, 1979 and 1989. If 
economic growth during this period is measured by changes in gross 
State product, four of the seven supermajority States had lower than 
average growth.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to today's 
constitutional

[[Page 6584]]

amendment. If this proposal to amend the Constitution is intended to be 
anything more than an April 15 political gimmick, there is great reason 
for concern on policy grounds, particularly two.
  First of all, we have to note what the amendment does because it is a 
recipe for fiscal disaster. This amendment will allow unlimited new 
spending based on a simple majority vote. However, to pay for that new 
spending will require a two-thirds vote.
  A lot has been said about the vote in 1993. I would point out that 
our deficit at that time was $260 billion, and that vote has been 
responsible for reducing the deficit down to where we have a technical 
surplus right now.
  So if we want to allow unlimited additional spending on a simple 
majority vote, we ought to have the ability to pay for it by the same 
vote, not risk requiring a supermajority.
  The other thing is, this thing locks in corporate loopholes. We can 
pass a corporate loophole with a simple majority, but to repeal it 
takes two-thirds. We would have either a little more than one-third of 
either the House or the Senate that can protect the corporate loophole.
  If we passed a corporate loophole thinking it would just make a small 
amount of difference, but looked up and saw it was costing billions of 
dollars, we could not close that loophole if just over one-third of 
either the House or the Senate objected.
  To offset this corporate largess, we would have to look somewhere 
else, maybe Social Security and Medicare, which we could cut with a 
simple majority. But we would need a two-thirds majority to close that 
loophole.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the policy, this amendment in terms of 
details is vague and unworkable. We had no hearings this year on the 
current bill. But when we did have hearings in 1997, both Democratic 
and Republican witnesses expressed serious concerns about the details 
of the amendment.
  Former Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Miller, a tax 
limitation amendment supporter, even went so far as to call some of the 
language ``silly.'' For example, the language before us requires a two-
thirds majority vote to increase the internal revenue by more than a de 
minimis amount.
  No one in our hearing seemed to have a good idea of what constitutes 
internal revenue or what exactly would be considered a de minimis 
amount. Who will get to decide whether a bill increases the special 
revenue by more than a de minimis amount?
  Some supporters suggested that one-tenth of 1 percent of the total 
revenues would be de minimis. Out of a trillion-dollar budget, that is 
$1 billion. Is it a billion? Is it a half a billion? Two billion? Ten 
billion?
  When we are talking about tax bills, we are talking about an 
estimate. Who gets to estimate? What happens if the estimate is wrong? 
What happens if there is a disagreement over the estimate? How many 
votes does it take to pass the bill?
  These are questions that the American public deserve answers to 
before and not after we have made a mess that cannot be cleaned up. 
These are questions that could have been addressed responsibly in 
committee, but there were no committee hearings this year, just today's 
April 15 vote.
  This resolution is an insult to our Constitution. It is a recipe for 
financial disaster, and it protects corporate loopholes and, therefore, 
should be defeated.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, had 
given some statistics in States that did not prosper in 1979. He said 
it is because of tax limitations in their own States. His suggestion 
that tax increases equal economic prosperity, I find, is about as 
difficult to believe as 1979 is actually a time of economic prosperity. 
If that is the case, somebody needs to call Jimmy Carter in Plains, 
Georgia, and let him know that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the sheriff.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, this could have had hearings, but that 
will not stop me from voting for this joint resolution. I do not know 
how many Democrats will vote for this, but I encourage them to do just 
that. Number one, not just because our taxes are too high.
  We have income taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, capital 
gains taxes, service fees, old taxes, new taxes, hidden taxes, tobacco 
taxes, gas taxes, aviation taxes, tobacco taxes. The American people 
are literally taxed off. It has rather been a political process and too 
easy to tinker with this code, which should be thrown out by the way, 
and raise taxes.
  But I want to take issue with the constitutional scholars. Our 
Founders never intended an income tax. I could say on the floor that, 
if they did, they would have put a two-thirds supermajority; and here 
is why.
  The only revenue in that Constitution was in the form of treaties and 
international trade. It carried a two-thirds supermajority. We went 
from trade and treaty and taxing on products and imports and threw that 
out and went to income. That cannot be laid on our Founders. Our 
Founders never intended to tax achievement and initiative. By God, I do 
not.
  But do my colleagues know, there is another thing here. Every time we 
talk about salient points of differences of opinion, we get into some 
class warfare: we, they; they, we; old, young; black, white; man, 
woman; management, labor. Let us get off that. There are many people in 
my district that are taxed off. They believe they are taxed too high.
  Who has fought more against foreign corporations getting away with 
taxes than the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and Jim Traficant 
together? But let me say this now to this Congress: 13 years it took me 
to change the burden of proof in the civil tax case. The Democrats 
would not hold a hearing on it. Thirteen years it took to change the 
seizure laws so the IRS could not come in and seize my constituents' 
home without a good order.
  Democrats would not have a hearing on the Traficant bill. Democrats 
would not support Traficant's position to allow our taxpayers who are 
ripped off to sue the IRS. That is why we are in the damn minority 
here.
  Now let us talk business. We pay much too high a level of taxes. We 
also pay them in the form of income, which in fact kills initiative. We 
are at the right time, April 15, talking about the right issue here.
  As far as constitutional amendments are concerned, I think it is 
absolutely necessary, because it is too easy politically to twist arms 
in Washington, D.C. But as far as constitutional amendments are 
concerned, I want to applaud everyone who has enough passion to believe 
they can improve upon America. If they cannot get enough votes, then 
they do not.
  By the way, I have a constitutional amendment before this Congress. I 
heard all the talk about Social Security and Medicare. I want the 
chairman who may be the next chairman of Ways and Means to hear it. The 
Traficant amendment to the Constitution would say no more touching the 
trust fund from Social Security, and Social Security could be used only 
for Social Security and Medicare. I have not heard anybody rallying 
around that.
  I support this two-thirds vote, a supermajority. Our Founders in 
their wisdom would have placed this supermajority on an income tax, but 
they were not that foolish to impose an income tax.
  In closing, let me let the Congress know this: There is a woman in 
America who hit the American dream yesterday. She hit the lottery for 
$190 million. That is unbelievable. She will take home $70 million. She 
won $190 million lottery, but when everybody is done running their 
fingers through it, she will take home $70 million.
  Everybody is all excited about the refunds they get of the money the 
IRS has been holding interest free on our accounts. Beam me up. We need 
a constitutional amendment to ensure there will be no more chicanery 
with the easy business of being seduced to find more dollars for this 
government.

[[Page 6585]]

  With that, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) for 
the time, and I urge an ``aye'' vote for this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to remind the previous speaker that the AFL-CIO has 
urged a vote against the proposed constitutional amendment that would 
require a two-thirds majority in the United States House and Senate to 
increase Federal revenues. Why? Because this amendment would undermine 
the principle of majority rule in our Federal Government by allowing 
one-third of either the U.S. House or Senate to hold tax bills hostage.
  Since many of the terms in this resolution, as previously pointed 
out, are extremely vague, this proposed constitutional amendment would 
undoubtedly lead to endless litigation in our courts. It would also 
hurt our Nation's working families by making it more difficult to 
extend the lives of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
  In fact, this proposed constitutional amendment would also make it 
more difficult to close tax loopholes, including the foreign tax credit 
and the deferral of the United States taxes on foreign income which 
encourage U.S. companies to move American jobs overseas.
  Why, since last April 15, 1998, have not the majority brought forward 
any of these bills that would close tax loopholes? It seems to me that 
the income tax was approved by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution 
in the year 1913. It was passed because huge tycoons were earning 
hundreds of millions of dollars without paying taxes: the Rockefellers, 
the Morgans, the Vanderbilts. Without the 16th Amendment, we would have 
had no way to prosecute a World War I, not to mention a World War II.

                              {time}  1230

  So it is important that we put these matters in perspective.
  We have an accounting analysis that shows that the Reagan era tax 
cuts were for higher income taxpayers. The Clinton era help for the 
working poor and the targeted tax cuts contained in the 1997 balanced 
budget agreement have all helped keep the Federal taxes for most 
Americans lower than they have been in any time since 1979.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but begin by associating 
myself with the remarks of my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), from the other side. I thought he was brilliant, and I hope 
that our colleagues were listening.
  I have put up here on this poster a quote from John Randolph. John 
Randolph served in this body in the late 1800s as a Member of the U.S. 
House and then as a Member of the United States Senate. And he said 
what this debate is really all about, and that is that ``One of the 
most delicious of privileges is that of spending other people's 
money.'' That, Members, is fundamentally what we do here when we spend 
taxpayers' dollars. When we enact program after program and tax 
increase after tax increase, we indulge ourselves in that delicious 
privilege of spending other people's money.
  That is what this debate is about. This debate is about should it be 
easier to continue to spend ever increasing numbers of other people's 
money, ever increasing amounts of other people's money. Not our money, 
not our money out of our own wallet, but money taken out of the wallets 
of the taxpayers of America. Should we make it easier to do that or 
slightly harder?
  The answer is that those who oppose this amendment want it to be easy 
to take money out of other people's wallets because they enjoy the 
privilege of spending other people's money. But the sad truth is it is 
never enough for those who want to spend other people's money.
  In 1950, just a few short years ago, in my lifetime, the average 
taxpayer sent $1 to Washington for every $50 that they earned. Today it 
is $1 for every $4 and approaching $1 for every $3. It has become a 
radical increase in the growth and the size of the Federal Government 
and its tax bite so that people in this body can enjoy that privilege 
of spending other people's money.
  Now, what is it that we propose to do about it? We propose to do 
something that has in fact been called radical on this floor today, but 
is indeed not radical, and that is to put in a rational limitation on 
the power of this Congress to increase taxes once again.
  And do not be fooled by these constitutional arguments. As the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) pointed out, the Founding Fathers 
did not impose an income tax. They did not believe there should be an 
income tax. Indeed, that was not adopted until the 16th Amendment. So 
the argument that we should not have this kind of a constitutional 
amendment, and that the Founding Fathers rejected it, is simply false.
  Now, what is our idea? Impose a constitutional amendment that makes 
it slightly harder, a two-thirds majority, not a simple majority, to 
raise taxes. This poster shows that 68 percent of all Americans live in 
States where the same type of limitation has been passed. Indeed, 14 
States, from Arizona to the State of Washington, listed here, have all 
enacted similar measures, saying, ``No, you should require a 
supermajority before you raise taxes yet one more time.'' It is not a 
radical idea, it is a commonsense idea.
  I was reading a statistic earlier today that went to the issue of 
this debate. It pointed out that the IRS sends out 8 billion pages of 
forms and instructions each year, the equivalent of paper made from 
almost 300,000 trees, and receives back enough paperwork to circle the 
earth 36 times.
  I could not help but be struck by the fact that what that proves is 
that, vis-a-vis the IRS, the beavers that we have just learned about 
who on the Tidal Basin in the last few weeks have chewed down one or 
two trees, maybe three or four trees before they were caught, they are 
pikers compared to the IRS. The IRS in 1 year, not one little 
aggressive beaver chewing down four or five of our beautiful cherry 
trees in any given year, the IRS with its 8 billion pages of forms and 
instructions each year consumes almost 300,000 trees.
  Maybe the IRS should employ those beavers.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Is there any truth to the rumor that the beavers 
are actually contract employees of the IRS?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman, who makes a good point, if they are not now, perhaps they 
should be.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the 
latest episode of ``Leave It To Beaver,'' but I have never really been 
a big fan of reruns.
  What we are seeing today is the end of a romance, and it is a sad 
day. This should not have come on tax day; maybe it should have come on 
Valentine's Day. The romance that we are seeing come to an end is that 
between the Republican Party and their view of the people.
  When the current majority first took office in 1994, they were full 
of announcements that they were here to carry out the will of the 
people. They were, they said, the embodiment of the American public's 
will. Well, they have run into some rocky times. The public has not 
been nearly as supportive of their agenda as they wish.
  And, increasingly, their irritation with the public comes through. It 
reached, of course, a high point last year on impeachment. And by the 
time that impeachment came to the floor, we had Republicans talking 
about their duty to disregard the public will because they knew much 
better than the public what should be going on.

[[Page 6586]]

  Now, this is the logical conclusion of that. We have had a system in 
this country called democracy, in which a majority of the people vote 
for Members of Congress. It is not strictly majoritarian in the Senate, 
obviously, because of the two Senators per State, but the notion was we 
would get a majority and the majority would then decide.
  Well, the Republicans are here telling us today what they told us in 
December: ``That majority of the American people ain't all it was 
cracked up to be. You can't trust them. You can't trust the American 
people through the electoral process to have representatives who will 
do the right thing.'' So let us say when it comes to a policy the 
Republicans do not like, such as taxes, then we will have to have a 
supermajority.
  The gentleman from Arizona said we now collect more in taxes than we 
did in 1950. That is true. There was no Medicare program in 1950. Of 
course, if it was up to the Republican Party, there still would not be. 
They were opposed to it. And it is true that because we have a Medicare 
program, that requires taxes that were not levied in 1950.
  We did not have any serious environmental programs in the United 
States in 1950. I notice the Charles River has now just been declared 
open for swimming to a great extent. We can give people a tax cut, and 
there is not much they can do to clean up the rivers or clean up the 
air.
  So it is true, the billions we spend on environmental protection, 
cleaning up Superfund sites, cleaning up the air, cleaning up the 
water, those take taxes and they did not exist in 1950.
  But this is not a substantive argument, it is a procedural one, and 
we should go back again to the fundamental issue here. The Republican 
Party is making it clear today that they have lost trust with the 
American people. Indeed, it became very clear during impeachment that 
if the American people worked for us instead of the other way around, 
the Republicans would have fired them. They were very disappointed in 
the people.
  And they are institutionalizing today, if they are successful, in the 
Constitution their distrust of the people: ``Don't let a majority make 
these important decisions. You can't trust a majority of the voters. 
You take a majority of the voters who elect Members of the House of 
representatives; we don't like what they are going to do.''
  Now, I have to say, in fairness to the Republicans, they did not rush 
to this repudiation of the public will. They were much happier when 
they could claim to be the tribunes of the public. The problem was that 
the public ran out on them and they were upset. I noticed that during 
impeachment, and I think these are very connected, because it was the 
dislike of the American public's decision that came out in impeachment 
that is really the same force that we have today.
  Now, I can say, because I was there in the Committee on the 
Judiciary, that the Republican Party did not start out to repudiate the 
public. In fact, when the impeachment thing started, they were sure the 
public was on their side. To their horror, they saw the public moving 
away, so they tried to make a virtue out of necessity by saying how 
proud they were to stand up to public opinion.
  Having the Republicans announce during impeachment that they were 
pleased to show that they could resist public opinion would have been a 
little bit like Pharaohs' soldiers, as the Red Sea closed in on them, 
announcing that it was a wonderful day to go swimming. This was not 
something they wanted to happen, but if it was happening, they had 
better make the best of it.
  Now they are taking it one step further. It is one thing to find 
ourselves embarrassed by the public differing with us and to announce 
how wonderful we are because we have stood up to the public, but it is 
another to write it into the Constitution of the United States.
  The Constitution of the United States leads us to ask on this 
fundamental public policy question, and here it is, do there need to be 
some things that are important for the quality of our life that we do 
jointly? I do not know how we provide public safety with a tax cut. I 
do not know how we clean up the air or the water or take care of the 
health of poor children. There are some things we can only do, that are 
important for this country, if we do them jointly.
  There is, I think, a difference on the part of some people in the 
public. It is true if we ask people about government spending in 
general, they will be very negative. But if we ask them about the 
specific parts of government spending, they are often quite positive.
  People, I think, would like to see more spending in the Medicare 
program. They would like to see a prescription drug program. If we are 
going to do a prescription drug program, that is going to take taxes. 
If we are going to keep cops on the street, that takes taxes. If we are 
going to clean up the air and the water, that takes taxes.
  Now, people can say, ``No, we don't want to see that happen. We don't 
want a prescription drug program in Medicare. We don't want to help 
people build new schools with Federal money. We're against any 
revenues.'' That is a legitimate decision. But why are they unwilling 
to let it be decided by majority rule? Why this repudiation of the 
majority?
  By the way, when it comes to majority rule, among the majorities they 
do not trust, apparently, is the very House Committee on the Judiciary, 
that bulwark of Republican rectitude against an improvident public, 
because this bill did not get voted on in committee. I am on the 
Committee on the Judiciary; I am even on this subcommittee. I must have 
been absent that year because we did not have a hearing on it this 
year. We did not have a markup in subcommittee. We did not have a 
markup in committee.
  This radical revision of the notion that a majority should rule, 
which the Republicans used to hold when they still thought the majority 
was backing them up, comes to this floor untouched by human hands. This 
comes to us without a hearing, without a markup, without a committee 
meeting. Not only have the Republicans decided to repudiate the notion 
of majority rule in representing the public, whom they do not trust on 
this, they have apparently forgotten what they said a few years ago 
about procedural regularity, about committees. This one just comes 
right to the floor.
  Now, I understand why. I understand that there are members of the 
committee who have more regard for the majority principle, who would 
have been a little embarrassed by it. But when we try to accomplish a 
bad idea by a bad procedure, two wrongs do not make a right. And I hope 
this effort to right the repudiation of the public's right to make 
decisions by a majority into the Constitution is defeated.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, just to 
thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for being concerned about that 
end of a romance.
  Actually, fortunately, given the choice between the arms they would 
be driven into, with Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore and those of the left who 
are now proposing a new tax increase, I think over $100 billion in tax 
increases, 60 percent of those going to Americans making less than 
$50,000, I am quite comfortable that that romance will take us well 
into the 21st century.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. My only question is why is the gentleman 
not willing to let the American people decide that by a majority?
  The gentleman may be right or wrong substantively, but why this fear 
of letting the majority decide by majority rule?
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond 
that we certainly have no fear of it. We fear that no more than 
Democrats fear talking about taxes overall.
  I have heard discussions about impeachment. I even heard the ghost of 
Newt Gingrich rise from the mist in the rules debate and about 
Medicare. We have no fear about that. Our fear is

[[Page 6587]]

that the Democrats, given their will in the future, will do exactly 
what Bill Clinton and Al Gore want to do right now in their budget, and 
that is raise taxes on hard-working Americans.
  So I do not think the romance is over. In fact, a poll that was taken 
last year shows that 73 percent of Americans support tax limitation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Cannon), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I was impressed by the point made by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that major international 
corporations pay virtually no taxes, and that despite the valiant 
efforts of the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) and others over most of the last 40 years of Democrat 
control of this House. That illustrates the point that people pay 
taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, America is great for many reasons. We have a larger 
population base than, say, Germany. We have massive natural resources. 
But the key to America being the world's only superpower is not in the 
numbers of our people or in the size of our cornfields but in the 
creativity of the American people. Our creativity derives from the way 
our predecessors framed the role of government.

                              {time}  1245

  They recognize government for what it is, force. Some forces are 
necessary in order to secure the blessings of liberty, but the 
challenge we will always face is balancing government's access to force 
and constraining that force. And nowhere is the coercive force of 
government more broadly felt than in ripping from the laborer a portion 
of his wages.
  We, the Federal Government, are now tearing from our citizens a 
larger portion of their earnings than ever before in our history, more 
than during the struggle for freedom during World War II.
  My friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), is 
embarrassed apparently by the waiving of the Constitution on April 15. 
This is the day that people feel that pain. Let me just say that when 
we changed the Constitution and allowed for an income tax, it was only 
the most farsighted of the men involved and women involved in that 
process who foresaw, over the promises of everyone, the extent to which 
we would actually raise taxes in America.
  As Americans, as representatives of the American people who hold the 
common dream that makes us Americans, we have an obligation to limit 
the force brought against us collectively by the grasping government 
bureaucracy. That may mean that we in Congress must restrain ourselves 
from attempting to have another program to deal with society's ills.
  But let me remind my colleagues that compassion does not always mean 
intervention. If we just do not spend the surplus, we will either 
continue to grow the economy at phenomenal rates, bidding up salaries 
in the process, or interest rates will fall. I believe that no 
bureaucrat will ever come up with a program as compassionate as a 4 
percent interest rate.
  So I believe that we should not expand government, and I also believe 
that we should constrain our ability to tax. Therefore, I support and I 
ask my colleagues for their support of this tax limitation amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair the time 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) has 54 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Scarborough) has 60 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
and able gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished and 
able ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision should be defeated, for three reasons. 
One, it is an exercise in hypocrisy. Secondly, history has shown that 
it does not work. And thirdly, it may mitigate against this Congress 
making the kind of very difficult decisions that may be necessitated in 
the near future.
  I say that it is an exercise in hypocrisy because, in January of 
1995, in the Contract with America, the new Republican majority 
included this as a rule that would guide the House, and it passed in 
the House. But every single time that we have had a tax bill, primarily 
a tax cut bill, but a bill that had provisions that actually increased 
taxes, the Committee on Rules had to waive this very rule. So every 
time that we have had a tax bill, the Committee on Rules included in 
the rule a waiver of this very provision.
  So for us now to consider this and even to consider voting for it in 
light of our past experience, it seems to me, is an exercise in 
hypocrisy. We know it will not work. And yet the same Republican 
majority that voted this as a rule voted for each individual rule that 
waived this rule as it would apply to any subsequent tax bill.
  Secondly, my recollection is that the Articles of Confederation 
actually had this as a requirement as well, a supermajority for any tax 
increase, and it did not work. Minority rule meant that our young 
country was not able to function effectively. They went back and they 
had to change it. And there are some very extensive debates that we can 
consult that shows the reason why it did not work, why they had to go 
to majority rule to be able to make the kind of difficult decisions 
that this Congress has elected to make.
  Now, thirdly, it seems to me that there are a number of things that 
this Congress is going to have to do in the near future. One is to make 
the kinds of difficult decisions that will be necessitated to ensure 
that our retirement security programs are sustainable. They may, in 
fact, include raising some additional revenue in order to be fair and 
to be sustainably financed into the long term. I do not know that. But 
I do know that we will never get two-thirds of this House to make those 
kinds of votes no matter how compelling the arguments are in favor of 
those votes.
  There are other areas in which I think that we certainly should get 
two-thirds. Corporate welfare, some of the loopholes that are used to 
abuse. History tells us this does not work. We know that these tax 
issues are the most difficult issues. They take leadership and they 
take courage and they take majority rule.
  Almost all of these difficult issues have only passed by a slim 
majority no matter how compelling, as I say, are the arguments. We need 
to enable doing the right thing for this country, and doing the right 
thing is not the easy thing. Let us defeat this bill.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I were a permanent resident at 
my apartment in Arlington, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) 
would be my congressman. I get all his mailings. And he does an 
excellent job, so I want to commend him on this.
  I want to comment about having to waive the rule that we pass. My 
colleague correctly pointed out that when it was waived, it was waived 
because we were trying to cut the capital gains. And the way the 
capital gains code is structured, we actually have to increase the rate 
in order to lower the net effect of the total tax. So we have protected 
that in the tax limitation amendment because of the de minimis 
requirement, and we have a specific section in there about capital 
gains.
  So I just wanted to point that out. I know the gentleman may not have 
known that.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I do know that. In fact, I spoke to that when 
the tax bill came up to that very provision. It was the Matsui 
provision, as I recall, on capital gains. We had to change that because 
it applied to small capitalized companies. But in the next tax cut 
bill, there was a Medicare revenue increase where we also had to waive 
the rule.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

[[Page 6588]]

  Since the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) knows that, he must know 
that there were some other reasons that there were other exceptions 
made. That was not the only one for increases in Medicare. For 
increases in Medicare, we had to again waive that rule. So let us bring 
this thing to a fuller conclusion than that.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inject some 
Midwestern common sense into this debate. The taxpayers of our Nation 
do not care which party deserves greater blame for tax increases. For 
them, this issue is not about conservatives versus liberals or 
Republicans versus Democrats. For them, it is not about parties; it is 
about pocketbooks.
  Survey after survey shows that Americans support the proposal before 
us. Why? Because they know that if we do not take steps to protect them 
against tax increases now when we have an operating budget surplus, 
then we never will. They know that if we do not act now when our tax 
burden is higher than it has been anytime since World War II, then we 
never will. And they know that if we do not act now when 56 percent of 
Americans find the Tax Code so confusing, complicated, and complex, 
that they turn to outside experts for help, then we never will.
  Working families know that this is precisely the time, the year, and, 
yes, the date to make this proposal on to protect their pocketbooks, to 
protect their future.
  Now, a little earlier I heard so many arguments against the concept 
of a three-fifths vote, a supermajority requirement, saying that it 
does injustice to the Constitution. But, of course, the greater 
injustice is the one done to our working families every year around 
this time.
  Now, this is not news. That is why State after State has passed a law 
like the one before us. Some of these States have had their 
supermajority requirements, their tax limitation provisions for years. 
And the evidence shows clearly, unmistakably that these provisions 
work. And, of course, that is the most important thing to remember.
  And the critics of this amendment know it very well. Make no mistake, 
they do not oppose this plan because it will not work. They oppose it 
because it will work, it will prevent taxes from growing faster than 
our ability to pay, and it will limit the growth of government.
  I urge support for this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) a senior member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding me this time and congratulate him on the work 
that he has done in the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this constitutional amendment. 
It reminds me of the debate that we had on another constitutional 
change that would have provided for a balanced Federal budget. During 
that debate, many of us pointed out that the Constitution is not the 
problem, that we have all the tools here in this body where we can do 
what is right, we can pass the necessary laws to make the necessary 
corrections.
  In 1993, we acted, we acted on the imbalance in our Federal budget. 
We passed a new economic program for this Nation; and as a result of 
the action that we took in 1993, we are enjoying a balanced Federal 
budget, we are enjoying economic prosperity, we are able to have more 
rational budget debates now in these halls.
  But, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that if this constitutional 
change would have been in the Constitution in 1993, we would not have 
been able to put this Nation back on a path of a balanced Federal 
budget, for it was a controversial bill. It passed by only one vote in 
this body or in the other body. We were able to do that because 
democracy worked, majority worked, and we could benefit as a result of 
that action.
  The Constitution is not the problem with our Tax Code. Yes, Americans 
are rightly upset with the taxes they have to pay and the way in which 
we collect those taxes. We need tax reform. The current majority has 
been talking about that during the last 4 years, and yet we have not 
had a single moment of debate in this body, on this floor, on tax 
reform.
  Bring out what the public really wants. Let us change our Tax Code. 
We have the power to do that. But instead, one day a year, on April 15 
each year, we debate a constitutional change. The Constitution is not 
the problem.

                              {time}  1300

  As my colleague from Virginia pointed out, this will not work. We 
reserve supermajorities in the Constitution for process issues, not to 
enact substantive legislation. To override a presidential veto, to pass 
a constitutional amendment, to expel a Member, that is what we reserve 
extraordinary supermajority votes for, not policy determinations.
  My friend from Virginia pointed out that in the 104th Congress, 4 
years ago, the Republican majority put this in our rules. It has not 
worked. It did not work. Every time that there was an opportunity for 
the rule to prevent congressional action, we waived it. As the 
gentleman from Texas pointed out, well, we changed that. Yes, we 
changed it 2 years later. It did not work, so we changed the rule.
  We could do that when it is a rule. You cannot do it when it is a 
constitutional change. You cannot just go back and say, ``Oh, we made a 
mistake, let's change it.'' It will not work. We know that. Yet every 
April 15 we come to the floor and tell the American people we are 
trying to do something about their frustration with paying taxes.
  We have the tools. As we had the tools to deal with the balanced 
budget, we have the tools to deal with tax reform. Why are we not 
spending today debating what type of a tax structure we should have for 
this Nation? Why have you not brought out in 4 years a bill that would 
reform our tax structure? Then we could have the debate that the 
American people would like us to have. Let us stop blaming the 
Constitution of the United States. It is our responsibility, and let us 
use our time to have a constructive debate.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, today is April 15. I would like to take 
this time to congratulate my tax accountant, my wife Karen, who has 
gone through the last few months having to confront taxpayer after 
taxpayer. I have to apologize to Karen, her staff and every tax 
consultant in America, and yes, every taxpayer in America that we have 
put them through what we have done in the last few months.
  Now, I keep hearing from Members of Congress about how the taxes only 
affect the rich and how the rich need to pay more and that every time a 
tax increase goes through, it is only on the rich. Let me tell my 
colleagues something. Those of us who represent the working class 
people of the United States and people that work in businesses like my 
wife, that have no client, not one client who makes over $100,000 a 
year, know the great lie that comes out of these chambers and out of 
this Capitol about ``The rich are going to be taxed, but don't worry, 
working class, you'll be held harmless.''
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, is that our Tax Code needs to have a 
supermajority to control the abuses of the majority. That is what the 
Constitution is about, to protect the individual from the confiscation 
of their property by the Congress of the United States. It should be an 
extraordinary issue. In California, where 32 million people live, the 
most progressive State of this Union, we have had for decades the fact 
that we have addressed the issue; there should be a supermajority 
before government goes in and confiscates private property in the form 
of taxes.
  Now, the people in California, Mr. Speaker, have the right of 
initiative. They can sign petitions, get it on the ballot and force it 
on the legislature to give them the protection of a supermajority when 
it comes time to confiscate their assets in taxes. The people

[[Page 6589]]

of the United States do not have that right under our Constitution. 
That responsibility lies with this body, to initiate a constitutional 
amendment to make sure we do not abuse those actions like we have in 
the past. I stand in favor of the constitutional amendment. I apologize 
to the taxpayers and thank the gentleman from Florida for this action.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax 
limitation amendment to the Constitution. I wish to commend the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his continuing vigilance on this 
important amendment.
  The need for this amendment is obvious. Not since World War II has 
the tax burden on American workers been so high. The Federal Government 
already has a lot more money than it needs. Some people in Washington 
still do not think that is enough. I am not one of those people. 
Americans work hard for their money and they deserve to keep more of 
it.
  It comes down to a simple matter of trust. I trust the American 
people to use their money directly, as they see fit, rather than having 
a government making even more of those decisions for people. Changing 
the Constitution to make it more difficult to raise taxes to fund new 
spending programs and increase additional pet projects is absolutely 
necessary and appropriate to make that more difficult.
  Do not fall for the sky-is-falling arguments from some who say this 
amendment would tie the hands of government in times of war or economic 
downturn. The tax limitation amendment directly accommodates such 
situations. Consider the source of those arguments. They are made by 
the very same people who through their voting records show that they 
think taxes are actually too low.
  Our Nation was founded on the principle that ability and hard work 
should be rewarded with economic prosperity. America has moved toward 
the government bearing the fruit of its citizens' efforts, and I think 
we need to reverse that course. Let us pass the tax limitation 
amendment.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint 
Resolution 37, the tax limitation amendment. It is April 15 again and 
many Americans are scrambling to finish preparing their tax returns. 
The multiple, confusing and ultimately costly forms remind us of one 
thing. We are taxed too much, not too little. The average American 
today pays over 20 percent of his or her income just in Federal taxes. 
That is up from 5 percent in 1934 and is the highest since World War 
II.
  We now have surpluses as far as the eye can see, hundreds of billions 
of dollars each year. One would think that tax cuts would top the 
President's agenda. But this year he has proposed more than $100 
billion in new taxes and fees to fund new government spending. I guess 
old habits die hard.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's proposed tax increases in an era of 
budget surplus merely emphasize that we need to limit the government's 
ability to tax its citizens. The tax limitation amendment does this. It 
would require a two-thirds supermajority vote in both houses of 
Congress to raise or create new taxes.
  That tax money is our money and we should make it harder for the 
government to take it. We pay taxes today with the knowledge that we 
must still work for another month before reaching Tax Freedom Day. Last 
year, Tax Freedom Day in Illinois was May 13, the seventh latest in the 
country. That means that most Illinoisans had to work almost half the 
year to pay their Federal, State and local taxes. We are taxed too 
much, not too little.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time for the tax limitation amendment. I urge 
all my colleagues to do the right thing this afternoon and vote to give 
Congress the means to restore the fiscal discipline that has for so 
long been missing.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Scarborough) for his leadership and that of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) on this issue.
  I know we are fortunate to be going through very good times right 
now, but when I listen to my neighbors and the families that I 
represent, we have an awful lot of families that are struggling to make 
ends meet each month. School, clothes, the cost of medicine, car 
insurance, college is all so expensive, we have so many families, both 
parents working as hard as they can, working harder than they ever have 
before, keeping less than they ever have before and really living 
paycheck to paycheck.
  All it takes is one of your kids gets sick and that cost is 
expensive, then one of your family members passes away unexpectedly, 
you have got to figure out a way to travel there. I can guarantee you, 
just when you think things could not get worse financially, your car 
will break down. There must be a Federal law that requires that to 
happen. But it always seems like those things occur. The worst feeling 
in the world, whether you are a student or a parent or a senior, is to 
lie awake at night, it is a sick feeling to lie awake at night thinking 
``How in heaven's name am I going to make it through this time?''
  The opponents of this bill say, ``Look, if you will send us more of 
your paycheck, just send us more of your money, and then you can go 
down to a government office and maybe stand in line and fill out these 
forms. In a month or so come back and we'll let you know if you are 
eligible so we can help you.'' Our belief is just the opposite. We want 
you to keep more of what you earn. We think it ought to be a little 
easier to make ends meet each month. We think you can make better 
decisions. It is your money, after all.
  This constitutional amendment ties the hands of Washington so we can 
untie the hands of our families and our working families. I think 
Ronald Reagan said it best. It is time someone stood up to those in 
Washington who say, ``Look, here are the keys to the Treasury, spend 
all you want of the hard-earned tax dollars. It is not yours, anyway.'' 
This amendment stands up for families and taxpayers, and I support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was old Ben Franklin who said, 
``In this world nothing is as certain as death and taxes.'' He could 
have well added, in the present era in our country's life, a third, 
which is the determination, come April 15, of the Republican Party to 
resurrect dead issues. We go along in this Congress for months upon 
months on end and little or nothing happens. Certainly little or 
nothing happens about simplifying the Tax Code, about having genuine 
reform.
  But somewhere, I guess around April Fool's Day each year, the 
Republican leadership here in the House, they scratch their head and 
they ponder what simplistic approach to come out with that is already 
dead, that will not pass, but that will give the American people the 
appearance that someone is on their side on the tax issue? And so some 
years it is abolish the Internal Revenue Service while not replacing it 
with anything; other years like this it is hike up the amount of votes 
it will take to approve a tax change.
  In the meantime, the hardworking American taxpayer who is out there, 
who would like to see a system in place for the collection of the taxes 
that are necessary to be the strongest and greatest Nation in the 
world, is out there wondering why the Congress does not get to work 
with real tax reform, with tax simplification, with meaningful changes 
that would make a difference in what we all do here come April 15 in 
paying our taxes. What they are getting instead is most days, most 
weeks, most months this Congress doing little or nothing about tax

[[Page 6590]]

issues, until April 15 comes along and they resurrect one of these old 
dead ideas that they know is going nowhere, in order to give the 
appearance that they are on the side of the American taxpayer.
  Let me assume for just a minute that we work to put this sorry idea 
into the United States Constitution, and I have to pause just a minute 
there. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has so ably pointed 
this out already. It points to one of the other really strange 
contradictions of this place. When these Republicans came blazing in 
here with Newt Gingrich back in 1995, they professed to be great 
conservatives.
  Well, it is strange what labels they put on themselves, because when 
you come to the United States Constitution, they are about the most 
ultraliberal group I have ever come across in my life. They view the 
United States Constitution a little like the D.C. municipal traffic 
code. They have got an idea out here to amend it, to edit it, to change 
it, to alter it, as if our Founding Fathers had little or no sense 
about the future good of this country.
  You can mark your calendar now. Come next April 14 or 15, they will 
be back here with some other idea to wreck the Constitution by putting 
in unworkable provisions, knowing that they are dead, that they are not 
going to be approved in the Congress, but that they have some good 
political cover that they offer in presenting such a proposed edit of 
the United States Constitution.
  But let us assume for a moment that we were to adopt this provision. 
What would the effect be? Well, I think that it would be a great boon 
for Washington insiders and Washington lobbyists in doing things the 
way they have always been done here. Because if you can get a special 
provision of the type that American citizens are so outraged about 
Washington, a special preference, a special advantage, a special tax 
loophole written into the Tax Code here in Washington by your lobbyist, 
so that the people across America that do not have a lobbyist up here, 
they have to pay a little more taxes so that someone who has got a 
lobbyist and a fleet of limousines here in Washington can pay a little 
less, guess what kind of vote it is going to take to eliminate and 
reform that system if we are ever going to change it?
  It is not going to take the same simple majority that got the 
provision stuck in there to advantage some special interest group. It 
is going to take, not 51 percent, it is going to take two-thirds to 
eliminate that special interest provision. That is why I call this 
amendment, as it is offered by its name in fact, by its true name, 
which is the ``Tax Loophole Preservation'' amendment. That is what it 
is all about.
  And some of our colleagues in the Republican leadership, I mean, to 
borrow from Will Rogers, they have never met a tax loophole they did 
not like. They think if you get a tax loophole into this Constitution, 
it is good. If the President comes along and he proposes to eliminate 
some tax loophole, ``Oh, my gosh, that's a revenue raiser.''
  It may be a revenue raiser that facilitates our ability to provide 
prescription drugs to our senior citizens that are overburdened with 
prescription drug costs. It may be a tax loophole that closing it will 
allow us to provide some assistance to working families who may need a 
child care tax credit. But they see it as a revenue raiser and 
therefore, by its very nature, a very bad and evil thing that ought to 
have not half of this Congress plus one but two-thirds of the Congress 
required to eliminate it.
  If they pass this amendment, what they will be doing is freezing into 
the Tax Code all of the various special provisions, advantages, 
preferences, loopholes that are already there, that America has been 
complaining about and asking this Congress to do something about from 
time on end.

                              {time}  1315

  What is an example of this kind of provision put in place by this 
very House? It would have become law had not it been brought to public 
attention. Mr. Speaker, it is one I think this body is very familiar 
with, though it certainly was not one of its prouder moments.
  As my colleagues know, many of us are concerned with the problems of 
nicotine addiction, one of the most serious drug problems we face in 
this country. There has been great public interest in having some 
legislation to prevent youth smoking. What proposal did this Republican 
leadership offer as a solution? A $50 billion tax credit for the 
tobacco industry snuck into a bill under a title for small business tax 
relief, and they actually passed that through this House. Fortunately 
some reporters found out about it being hidden around page 317 of the 
bill, and we were able to eliminate it.
  But it is that kind of provision that, if snuck into the Tax Code, we 
will not be able to eliminate it except by a two-thirds vote. That 
would be a serious mistake for all of us who recognize the need for tax 
simplification, tax reform and true assistance to working Americans.
  Do not approve an amendment that tinkers with our Constitution but 
would actually set back the reform movement once we get a Congress in 
place that genuinely wants tax reform and expresses some concern about 
it on more than one day of the year.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds just to say 
again any change in the Tax Code regarding these loopholes that they 
are so concerned about, and they should be concerned about the 
loopholes because they perfected them over 40 years while they were in 
the majority before the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) was elected 
in 1994; all we need is a simple majority.
  I will once again say perhaps this is in my colleague's eyes a dead 
issue. Perhaps it has come up before. But as my colleagues know, 
welfare reform was killed three times by the left before we passed it, 
and, of course, the balanced budget. The President and many on the left 
said a balanced budget in 1995 would destroy the economy. Well, we have 
done it in 4 years instead of 7.
  Likewise, hope springs eternal. We do not want this to come up again 
next year. We believe it should be done this year, and with the help of 
many on the left who are now born again tax reformers, maybe it will.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I say to my friend from Texas that we have been pushing 
for tax relief across the board. We have been pushing to scrap the 
entire Internal Revenue Code which would eliminate the vast majority, 
if not all of the so-called loopholes he refers to which were created 
overwhelmingly during his party's majority rule in this House for more 
than four decades. I would say to the gentleman that we simply want to 
correct this problem, and obfuscation about it is not the way to cure 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
for sponsoring this important legislation which I rise today to 
strongly support.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1913 taxpayers remitted an average of about 8 percent 
of their total income in Federal, State and local taxes. Today's 
average family is paying almost 40 percent of their income on taxes. 
That amounts to more than the typical family spends on food, clothing 
and housing combined. Not since World War II has the tax burden on 
American workers been so high.
  Mr. Speaker, even with the federal budget surplus projected at $4.9 
trillion over the next 15 years, many in Congress and the 
administration are calling for even higher taxes on American families. 
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why we need a tax limitation amendment. 
This is the surest way to keep the hard-earned money of American 
families out of the hands of the Washington politicians who want to 
raise their taxes and spend their money and keep it in the hands of 
those who know best how it should be spent, the American taxpayer.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

[[Page 6591]]


  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my colleagues that a lot 
of progress is being made on tax reform, and in case my colleagues have 
not had a chance to keep up this week, we have passed a budget that 
protects Social Security and Medicare better than the President, 
continues funding for education programs and promises to return over 
$800 billion of hard-earned dollars to the American taxpayers. So we 
are making a lot of progress, and there will be real tax reform.
  The question is when today when I leave this meeting to introduce one 
tax reform proposal, and my colleagues will see several from the 
leadership over the next couple of weeks, will our colleagues join in 
the debate to truly reform this Tax Code? We will have to wait and see. 
But in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, all of us need to recognize that 
history has confirmed, and all of us know it, that the temptation to 
spend money in this Congress is too great for this body to resist.
  We know that over the last 86 years this government has asked the 
American people to sacrifice their income and their prosperity to make 
government more prosperous. Today all we are doing is asking the 
government to sacrifice its income to make the American people more 
prosperous. We have got to make it harder for Congress to spend the 
money, the hard-earned money, of the American taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, there are so many good things to do that come up every 
day that we want to help with, good causes that sound so good when they 
are presented. But every little good thing that we try to do, in spite 
of evidence over the years that we cannot do it nearly as well as 
individuals and communities, every time we spend money, we take that 
money out of the pockets of the American taxpayers. We have got to make 
it harder to spend money. We have got to stop making it harder for 
Americans to live their lives the way they want, to keep what they 
earn, to spend it and make decisions in their own lives.
  Mr. Speaker, all this amendment will do will make it a little harder 
for this Congress to spend the money of the American people. It does 
not cut one program, it does not give one penny to the rich, it takes 
nothing away. All it does is force us to make it a little harder to 
spend the hard-earned money of the American people.
  I support the amendment, and I hope all of my colleagues will join 
me.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina for yielding this time to me.
  The previous speaker made an eloquent plea on behalf of the American 
people, and I wish today, on April 15, a day of course that many of our 
constituents are making their way to the post office or finding other 
ways to send in their taxes, that we were truly deliberating on, I 
think, real issues about both the Internal Revenue Service and taxes.
  One, I think it is important to note and it is important for America 
to know that this resolution that is on the floor today would damage, 
interfere with and maybe keep this body from seriously looking at a 
real review of the Tax Code to avoid some of those loopholes of which 
enormous sums of money pass the hands of those who really need it and 
go into the wealthy. At the same time I wish the American constituency 
would realize that in our attempt to save and preserve Social Security 
and Medicare some amount more than de minimis might come about in terms 
of a tax increase, and this resolution will put a dagger in the heart 
of saving Social Security and saving Medicare.
  I believe the weight of that would be, in fact, more burdensome to 
our constituents, the demise of Social Security and Medicare, than we 
could ever imagine by bringing into the forefront a two-thirds 
supermajority under this resolution to allegedly stop tax increases.
  Mr. Speaker, this is again, as I have previously noted, a feel-good 
piece of legislation. It was fundamentally wrong in the time when the 
13 colonies were there under the Articles of Confederation in the 
1780's when they wanted nine of the colonies to vote on something. The 
government did not work then, and our Founding Fathers in their wisdom 
designed the Constitution and the House of Representatives and the U.S. 
Senate on many of these issues on a simple majority. But yet today we 
want to put a knife in the Constitution, a dagger in some of the major 
programs that this country has come to appreciate, the preservation of 
their national archives and monuments and parks; as I said, education, 
building new schools, insuring a secure and a, if my colleagues will, 
strong military, dealing with the terrible humanitarian crisis in 
Kosovar, requiring appropriations. And yet what we are saying is that 
we want to deny this House of Representatives to do what it should or 
do what it does best, to deliberate on behalf of the American people in 
a representative manner with the right to deliberate and debate with a 
simple majority under the Constitution.
  I finally say, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me a tragedy when we have 
procedures in this House and we do not follow them. This legislation 
did not go to the Committee on the Judiciary, and I think this 
legislation should go nowhere, and we should vote on behalf of the 
American people and defeat this legislation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I also like to compliment and thank the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for yielding me this time and also on 
his hard and, I think, great efforts to get this tax limitation 
amendment passed.
  I just want to say a couple of things. One is on substance, and one 
is on process.
  On the substance of the matter, I think this is a great debate. For 
those who believe that the American people are overtaxed, they have an 
opportunity to stand up for the American people, the American taxpayer, 
and they can vote ``yes'' on this tax limitation amendment which would 
simply make it more difficult for the Congress to raise taxes like so 
many States across this country.
  With respect to process, colleagues can be consistent to vote for the 
tax limitation amendment, and, if they so desire, when the vote comes 
to raise taxes, they can vote for the tax increase as well. So 
colleagues can have it both ways. They can say, ``You know what? We 
ought to make it more difficult for the Members of Congress to raise 
taxes on the American people, but I also want to have the flexibility 
that when a tax increase bill comes to the floor, I can vote for it.'' 
And if they get 150, those who want to see and do not believe the 
American people overtaxed, if they get about 150 Members under this 
legislation who believe the American people deserve higher taxes, then 
do my colleagues know what? They can rally, and they can get 150 
Members, or 160, 170, whatever that is, and they can raise taxes.
  So my colleagues can have it both ways if they are on the fence, and 
if 40 Members of this body who did not vote for this last year vote 
today, guess what? We will make it more difficult, something the 
American people expect and deserve, the Congress to raise taxes.
  If my colleagues do not believe that the American people are 
overtaxed, if they do not want to make it more difficult for the 
Congress to raise taxes, then they should oppose this legislation, and 
they should go back home and explain to the people they represent: 
``You know what? We want to have as much flexibility as possible to 
raise money.''
  On Tax Day, when so many people that I represent in Brooklyn and 
Staten Island are writing checks to the Federal Government after 
working hard all year? I do not think so.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the resolution.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

[[Page 6592]]


  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution that is on the 
floor now. Here we are once again. Americans are participating in the 
annual rite of spring; of course, that is tax day, April 15. If one 
thinks it is a painful day for them, think of my family. It is my 
husband's birthday and he has to spend this day doing the painful task 
of paying taxes.
  We all can take legitimate pride in the democratic pageantry of 
voluntary compliance. Tax compliance, like voter turnout, is a 
sensitive measure of civic health and it is based on an American sense 
of fairness. That is the main reason I oppose this resolution, which 
has become part of the rite of spring, an attempt largely on the part 
of our Republican colleagues to grandstand the tax issue.
  Certainly we would all love to live in a world where we did not have 
to have any responsibility and pay any taxes, but that is not the world 
that we live in. Certainly we want our people to pay the least amount 
of tax that should be required of them, but it has to be based on tax 
fairness.
  It is so ironic that just yesterday the House Republicans ran through 
a $1.74 trillion budget resolution for fiscal year 2000 that was 
absurdly fixated on huge tax cuts for the rich, does absolutely nothing 
to extend the solvency of Medicare, and assumes deep cuts in key 
domestic programs.
  Today the GAO reports that a majority of the largest international 
corporations doing business in the United States continue to pay no 
Federal income tax, and today, with this resolution, our Republican 
colleagues want to make sure that that does not change and to make sure 
that it is more difficult to close any tax loopholes.
  Our Founding Fathers considered this, as has been mentioned by my 
colleagues. They considered and rejected this supermajority, this two-
thirds requirement, because of the majority rule that they were wedded 
to and which has served our country so well.
  Sometimes I think that the attempts of my colleagues to protect the 
assets of the very wealthy in our country are subscribing to the Leona 
Helmsley quote, ``Taxes are for little people.'' Well, I want to spend 
a moment talking about the real little people of America.
  The real little people of America are children, the very destiny of 
our civilization, who continue to suffer the insult and injury of 
Republican budgets. The latest Republican budget, to take the most 
egregious example, has privileged tax relief for the prosperous over 
Head Start funding for children.
  Is it fair to deny a child a proper start in life? Will that child 
grow up to comply voluntarily with this Tax Code, if that is our issue? 
Crucial to America's children is the economic security of their 
families. That includes the pension security of their grandparents, and 
that means a living wage for all working adults, and saving Social 
Security, which the Democratic budget did a better job at, in addition 
to extending Medicare.
  In addition to that, access to quality health care and high-quality 
education to large segments of the American population are values that 
the American people have. Our budget, how we take in revenue, how we 
spend it, should be a statement of our values. It should be based on 
fairness and it should prepare us for the future.
  I think the budget yesterday and this resolution today do neither, 
and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), happy birthday to her husband who is working 
all day today for the Federal Government, because he will continue to 
work all the way until the end of May to pay for all of his taxes that 
he has to pay.
  Ms. PELOSI. At least.
  Mr. STEARNS. At least. So I think that this is a fair example of why 
we need to have this tax limitation amendment.
  Benjamin Franklin did say, as the gentleman from Texas said, that in 
the end it is all death and taxes; but the problem is, he goes on to 
say that this is a dead idea. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 
they have passed this; Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota and 
Washington. So these are States that believe in this concept, and I 
think it is a time that has come to this House, just like the balanced 
budget amendment and like welfare reform.
  I remember this side of the aisle saying, oh, no, we cannot have 
welfare reform. We cannot have immigration reform. We cannot have 
balanced budget reform.
  When we look at our Constitution, we have had lots of amendments to 
try and improve it. In this case, a simple two-thirds vote by both the 
House and Senate for taxes is extremely important, because most 
Americans today are paying almost 40 percent of their income for taxes. 
In 1941, Federal taxes were 6.7 percent of the gross domestic product. 
During the 1960s, Federal taxes approached as much as 20 percent.
  So we need to set in place a system that we cannot have taxes without 
a supermajority, and of course, in the Constitution we had this 
supermajority standard for amending the Constitution, impeaching the 
President, ratifying international treaties. So why not have the same 
standard when deciding to take money, literally money, from the 
American people out of their pockets? So I think a supermajority is 
very necessary.
  Although the economy is in good shape right now, taxes are still the 
highest they have been since World War II.
  When I hear this side say that this vote is going to allow tax loops 
for the wealthy or this bill provides special provision for people, I 
do not know what they are talking about because basically whenever they 
start talking about tax cuts for the rich they are talking about 
increasing big government. It is just a cover for it.
  So all this amendment basically does is say, let us try to limit this 
Federal Government from taking more money out of our pockets. Let us 
have a supermajority to do so. I hope all of my colleagues will support 
it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege and 
high honor to yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey), the majority leader of the House of Representatives, who 
represents the 26th District of Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose it will come as any big surprise to the 
American people that whenever they turn their eyes towards Washington, 
they will always find that in this town there is always a certain class 
of people that have this compelling need to raise their taxes and take 
more of their money.
  We have watched this debate today. We have seen a provision brought 
before this body by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that says 
that class of people ought to be restrained, restrained by the simple 
requirement that it takes a two-thirds majority to raise the taxes.
  It seems fairly obvious that almost every person that has risen to 
speak on behalf of that restraint has come from this side of the aisle 
and virtually everybody who has spoken opposing that restraint has come 
from that side of the aisle. So it seems fairly obvious to me, I would 
say to Mr. and Mrs. America, when they turn their eyes towards 
Washington and they want to know who is it in this town that insists on 
having an easier time taking their money, look to the Democratic side 
of the aisle. They are the ones making the argument.
  Democrats, for years, when we had budget deficits, said, well, the 
solution is raise taxes. Today we have budget surpluses; the solution 
is, raise taxes. Yes, President Clinton and Vice President Gore, in 
this surplus budget, propose over 80 different tax increases resulting 
in $52 billion worth of tax increases.

[[Page 6593]]

  Now, when we Republicans say, let us cut taxes, their counter is, oh, 
yes, the Republicans want to give a tax break to their rich friends. 
Well, we do not believe that is true, but I can say what is true. When 
the President and the Vice President raise taxes, they are raising 
taxes on whom? The poor.
  This chart shows us that clearly. In this chart here we show that a 
clear majority of the taxes go to people that earn $50,000 a year or 
less.
  So here we have the situation: We have this great debate going on. We 
need to restrain people from raising taxes and, in particular, in this 
administration, from raising taxes on the poor.
  Why do they fight against it? Why do they avoid this restraint? Well, 
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I have studied these things for a lot of 
years and I can say I have identified three groups of people that have 
the privilege of taking and spending other people's money. They are 
children, thieves and politicians, and they all need more adult 
supervision. That is precisely what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) offers, more adult supervision.
  I would say to Mr. and Mrs. America, if we have a two-thirds majority 
requirement to raise their taxes, do they believe there will be 
sufficient enough adult supervision to protect them from those who 
would practice the politics of greed with their money and wrap it in 
the language of love?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to 
respond to the majority leader, although I am tempted not even to 
flatter it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about amending the Constitution. We can 
pretend that it is a debate about whether we raise taxes or not, but I 
want to remind all my colleagues that the Republicans have been in 
control of this Congress for the last 4 years. They cannot get a 
majority to cut taxes, much less a two-thirds majority to do anything. 
So we can come to the floor of the House and harangue the President for 
doing this or doing that all we want, but remember, both the United 
States House and the United States Senate are controlled by a majority 
of the Republicans, and if they want to do something constructive about 
it, then do it. Do not come down and go through a political charade on 
tax day.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Commerce, who represents with distinction the Seventh District of 
Virginia.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of amending the 
Constitution to require a super two-thirds majority of both Houses of 
Congress to increase Federal taxes.
  I want to applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Commerce, 
for bringing this measure to the floor on this day, the day when most 
Americans are painfully aware of how expensive government is.
  Today we will pay more in taxes than at any time since 1944, when we 
were in the middle of the great World War II. It is too easy to raise 
people's taxes. That should be the last resort and not the first 
resort. So I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and I urge 
all my colleagues to support this measure and send it on to the States 
for ratification.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of amending the Constitution to 
require a two-thirds super-majority of both Houses of Congress to 
increase Federal taxes.
  Today, our nation's tax policy stands at a crossroads. We can either 
continue down the path preferred by President Clinton and continue to 
increase the tax burden on American families. Or, we can draw a line in 
the sand and take steps to make it more difficult to raise Federal 
taxes.
  By passing the Tax Limitation Amendment, we have the power to make it 
more difficult for the Federal Government to endlessly reach into 
Americans' pockets to fund increased spending.
  The Tax Limitation Amendment will require Congress to be more 
fiscally responsible and think twice before increasing the tax burden.
  Mr. Speaker, 14 states have already seen the wisdom of passing tax 
limitation protections, with more states soon to follow. It is time for 
the Congress to follow their lead.
  The government's ability to dip into one's hard earned paycheck 
should never be allowed by a mere majority. A two-thirds super majority 
will ensure Congress never raises taxes to pay for wasteful government 
spending.
  Americans pay more in taxes than in food, clothing, and shelter 
combined. Put simply, this is a travesty.
  By passing the Tax Limitation Amendment, Congress can send a clear 
message to the American people--tax hikes are for emergency situations. 
Absent war, Congress should never be able to raise taxes on the middle 
class with a mere majority.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Tax Limitation Amendment to help 
protect American paychecks from future tax increases.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here today to rise 
in support of H.J. Res. 37, the tax limitation amendment. I admire and 
certainly appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and my own 
colleague over on the Democratic side, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goode), and others, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), who have 
worked so hard on this.
  I thank the Speaker for giving us April 15 to pursue the passage of 
this amendment, and that pursuit and that determination is offset by 
the graciousness of my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt), and his innate fairness to allow me to speak on his time 
when he opposes the amendment. I thank him for that.
  I want to be simple and to the point here if I can. Today is a day 
that millions of hardworking Americans have filed their tax returns 
with the Federal Government. It is a tough day for a lot of people. It 
is also a day that most have come to dread because they feel that the 
government continues to take their taxes. We have created a situation 
in which many Americans do not feel that their government responds to 
their needs, taxes them excessively, continuing to spend without 
regard.

                              {time}  1345

  I hope today is the day we can return some of the confidence in the 
government to the people. The tax limitation amendment will return 
confidence by promising that the Congress will no longer raise their 
taxes without careful consideration and a two-thirds vote in support.
  This would have precluded the passage of a lot of bad so-called tax 
reform acts. There would have to be a strong consensus among members of 
both parties, not just one side, to raise taxes, making sure it would 
be a necessity.
  This is a simple, straightforward proposition that a number of States 
have already adopted and a number of others are expected to consider 
this year, including my home State of Texas. In States that require a 
two-thirds vote to increase tax rates, growth in both spending and 
taxing is lower than in States without it. This simple fact is proof 
that the intent of this legislation can and will accomplish its goal if 
we just pass it today.
  The amendment would require a two-thirds supermajority vote in both 
chambers of Congress to pass any legislation that raises taxes by more 
than a minimal amount. This resolution would cover income taxes, estate 
and gift taxes, payroll taxes, excise taxes. It would not cover 
tariffs, user fees, voluntary premiums, and other items which are not 
part of the Internal Revenue laws.
  The two-thirds standard is reserved for the most important decisions, 
including amending the Constitution, ratifying international treaties, 
impeaching the President, and on and on. It is time we elevate raising 
taxes on the American people to this same high standard that it takes 
to carry out any of these other obligations.
  I have worked hard to push for a balanced budget amendment and 
control spending and taxing while in Congress. The tax limitation 
amendment makes good sense by restoring discipline to our system, which 
has spun out of control.

[[Page 6594]]

  Today, April 15, we can tell our constituents we will no longer slip 
tax increases through by slim margins, and commit ourselves to a direct 
yes or no when their pocketbooks are at stake.
  I am proud to join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Virgil Goode) as 
the lead Democrat on this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting to pass the tax limitation amendment.
  In summation, if we ever have a balanced budget amendment, we need 
this amendment to stand side by side. Otherwise, a future Congress 
could balance the budget by simply raising our taxes with a slim 
majority vote. That should not be.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman 
from Texas for his leadership. He has been an original leader of this 
since 1995. His job is more difficult because, while the Republican 
leadership supports this amendment, the Democratic leadership does not, 
so I want to appreciate how hard he has worked on it and how successful 
he has been in getting support on the Democratic side.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I thank the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for his graciousness in giving 
me this time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Colorado (Mr. Hefley), 
who has been very patient.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, once again Congress finds itself in the midst of one of 
the most important debates that we have of our generation, this tax 
limitation amendment.
  As I listen to the debate, it seems there are some in this body who 
feel that everything that the working people of America earn belongs to 
the government, and if they are good, we will give them back a little 
of it. We will let them keep a little of it.
  There are others of us that seem to feel that a person is entitled to 
the fruits of their labor, and it ought to be very difficult to take it 
away. In fact, one of the previous speakers said that we do not want to 
limit this body from doing what it does best, and they are right, 
probably. What we do best is tax people. What we want to do, on this 
side, at least, and some on that side, is to stop doing what we do best 
in taxing people.
  We must ask ourselves, what kind of life are we going to leave to our 
grandchildren? What will our children point to and say, this was our 
legacy? There are few votes we will make in Congress that could have 
such a profound effect on our grandchildren. We will balance the budget 
this year, we will probably cut taxes over the next several years, but 
nothing that we do will prevent future Congresses from easily undoing 
that hard work.
  This vote today is about being right and being responsible. It is 
about leaving a better life for our children. It is about making it 
more difficult to force my children and grandchildren to be faced with 
even higher taxes than the record taxes we are now forced to pay. They 
should be able to keep more of the money that they earn.
  Unlike some individuals here in our Nation's Capitol, I trust that 
the American people can decide for themselves better how to spend their 
own money, and think giving too much of it to the Federal Government is 
creating enormous difficulty for families all across America.
  The average working person today spends over 40 cents of every dollar 
they earn in taxes and government fees, if we can figure all of that, 
almost half. Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for our children and 
grandchildren and all Americans, and support for this amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding time to me.
  During the 1970s, I think there was a trashy novel that was quite 
popular. I think the title was, Fear of Flying. I have thought about it 
often as I listen to debate about this, because it seems to me another 
novel could be written by my friends on the Democratic side of the 
aisle called Fear of Freedom, something like that, because it really 
does characterize what I hear from everyone who stands up at this 
microphone and talks about what would happen, what a catastrophe would 
befall us, if in fact we were to reduce our ability to tax the people 
and give them greater freedom.
  That is the peculiar nature of this debate, because that is truly 
what we are arguing here, whether or not we are on the side of greater 
individual freedom, we believe that people should have more of an 
opportunity to keep the money that they earn, or if we believe the 
government should have the ability to tax it away from them, and in a 
way that makes it extremely easy, and as we can see over the last 40 or 
50 years, that all kinds of bad things have happened in that process.
  The tax loopholes that my friends on the left talk about, where did 
they come from? When my friends from the Democratic side come up and 
talk about tax loopholes being a problem, it does remind me a little 
bit of the child that kills his parents and then throws himself on the 
mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
  The fact is, of course, these are the problems that were brought to 
us over 40 years of Democratic rule in this body, and on the Senate 
side.
  In Colorado we had a similar debate. The same exact kind of thing 
happened when we started talking about an attempt by an actual citizen 
of the State, he kept putting an initiative on the ballot called the 
tax limitation, and it is now referred to in Colorado as the Taber 
amendment.
  A gentleman by the name of Douglas Bruce four or five times with his 
own money put it in at his own initiative. It finally passed. Every 
time it was debated, exactly the same sort of sentiments were expressed 
by the people on the other side.
  What it said is no tax at the State or local level can be increased 
without a majority vote of the people, which is much more severe, by 
the way, certainly than a majority or two-thirds vote of the 
legislature. We are talking about a majority of hundreds of thousands 
of people who have to vote on every tax increase. Exactly the same 
thing was stated, that it would be the end of the world as we know it. 
Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the same thing that they proposed, that in 
fact blood would run in the streets, it would be the end of 
civilization, everything would collapse.
  But in fact do Members know what has happened? We passed this in 
1992. We have never had a more robust economy in the State of Colorado. 
Jobs increased by the thousands, by the tens of thousands. It has never 
ever had the kind of dismal effect that was projected. Why? Because 
people kept more of their own money and invested it and created jobs. 
That is exactly what happens when we give people control over their own 
dollars.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their 
leadership on this most important issue. I also want to thank the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for yielding a part of his 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time when such a large portion of our income 
goes to taxes, I firmly believe that we should have no new national tax 
increases unless there is a consensus in this body and a consensus in 
the country.
  I was not here in 1993 when we had a very divisive tax hike in this 
body and in the country, but if we had had the tax limitation 
amendment, we would not have had a number of recent tax increases over 
the last decade.
  A vote for the TLA is a vote for consensus, a vote for the tax 
limitation amendment is a vote for bipartisanship, because rarely in 
the history of this body or in the history of the U.S.

[[Page 6595]]

Senate have there been two-thirds of one party in control.
  With the TLA, we would have to have a two-thirds vote in both bodies 
before any tax increase would take effect. That would demand consensus 
and bipartisanship. I believe the families and businesses in this 
country support consensus and bipartisanship. I firmly believe if we 
submit this amendment to the States, that it would be quickly adopted 
and ratified by three-fourths.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) for yielding time to me, and allowing me an opportunity to 
stand up once again and to talk about why we need this important 
balanced budget limitation amendment.
  Last year we received 238 votes on the Floor of the House of 
Representatives. I believe that the importance of this vote means that 
we are talking about the future of our country. I think what we are 
talking about is accountability. I believe what we are talking about is 
responsibility.
  Just a few short years ago it was Republicans who made the case, as 
we argued all across this country, that millions, billions, and 
trillions, which is the amount of money that Congress deals with, was 
unwisely managed by the 40 years of Democrat control. We argued that we 
as conservatives and Republicans would respect the people who earned 
this money, for in the Fifth District of Texas, people deal with 
thousands of dollars and hundreds of dollars, not millions, billions, 
and trillions, so they were looking for someone to come to Congress who 
would understand that difference.
  I believe that is what I have done. I have brought to Washington, 
D.C. the same kind of responsibility and accountability that my 
colleagues have brought. Why does this matter? This matters because we 
have been able to control the spending that takes place here in 
Washington.
  Today we are talking about how we are going to control the tax scene. 
We both understand, all on this side understand, that the liberals in 
this country are all about tax and spend, tax and spend. Today 
accountability and responsibility will have another ring to it. When we 
talk about limiting taxes because of a supermajority, we are talking 
about helping once again interest rates in this country to go down even 
further.
  If we will guarantee that we will not raise taxes, I think we would 
see another reduction in interest rates, interest rates that rob each 
and every citizen in this country of the money they earn, also.
  Millions, billions, and trillions are not always easy to understand. 
I want to say for the American public, to put it into context for them 
today, put into other words, 1 million seconds equals 11 days, 1 
billion seconds equals 32 years, and 1 trillion seconds equals 3,200 
years. We do not confuse million, billion, and trillion on this side.
  The other side talks about tax and spend. I believe they do not 
understand where it comes from. We are going to ensure that we limit 
this taxing and spending. We are going to assure that we talk about 
accountability and responsibility, and it is the Republican Party that 
is standing up today, and conservatives across this country, who 
recognize that today, April 15, is the day the truth should be told 
once again. I support this bill.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, if the famous TV character George Costanza were watching 
this show today, he would say simply, ``This was a show about 
nothing.'' Nothing. It was a show about nothing when the other side 
demanded the line item veto to cut the budget be applied, and then 
screamed when the President used it, and they were relieved when the 
courts rejected it.
  It was a show about nothing when the other side demanded a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget as the only way to solve 
our deficit problems. When it turned out that the real way to do it was 
the way the Constitution intended, all they had to do was vote for the 
President's budget in 1993, or for that matter, vote for George Bush's 
budget in 1991.
  It was a show about nothing when term limits were used as a campaign 
device, the problem being that many of the devotees must have meant 
that it should apply to somebody else other than to them.
  This is the latest show here about nothing. What they have got going 
at this moment is another government-like gimmick. We will hear today 
why this is bad legislation. It certainly undermines majority rule.
  It hearkens back to the Articles of the Confederation which we could 
not live under. It is even harsher than House rules that the other side 
passed a few years ago, which they also were not able to live under. It 
enshrines corporate tax loopholes which the Treasury Department 
recently pointed out are expanding at a tremendous pace.
  But what offends me the most about this is it is inconsistent with 
our Constitution. The Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in 
this House in only three instances: overriding a President's veto, 
submission of a constitutional amendment to the States, and expelling a 
Member from the House.
  This issue at this moment does not rise to the level of that 
seriousness. We should be doing some real work today on April 15. The 
other bill on the floor is a serious bipartisan bill.
  Yesterday I introduced a major simplification bill that the Committee 
on Ways and Means chairman last year accepted, at least in part. I 
would much rather be talking to my colleagues today about those issues.
  But there is one good thing we can say about this bill today, this 
proposal in front of us. We did not waste any time having any hearings 
on it. So I guess it was not quite that serious. No one can argue that 
we wasted too much time debating it, because it will be over this 
afternoon.
  But more than anything else, this constitutional amendment we have 
before us is a gimmick. The three items I cited earlier are very clear. 
Let us end this notion of having government by gimmick and get on with 
the real business of this Nation. As George Costanza might say, ``It 
was a show about nothing.''
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I want to put into the Record at this point in time a letter from the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Executive Department, signed by the 
Governor of the Commonwealth, Governor Cellucci. It says, ``On behalf 
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I am pleased to express my 
support for the Tax Limitation Amendment.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include the letter as follows:


                                Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

                                     Boston, MA, February 4, 1999.
     Grover G. Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Norquist: On behalf of the Commonwealth of 
     Massachusetts, I am pleased to express my support for the Tax 
     Limitation Amendment (TLA).
       During the current time of economic prosperity, we must 
     wisely prepare for the often unpredictable tides of our 
     national economy. The passage of the TLA will safeguard the 
     needs of our taxpayers and provide protection against 
     unnecessary future tax increases.
           Sincerely,
                                              Argeo Paul Cellucci,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the great gentleman from the 
State of Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, the question is: Why are we here 
particularly today in addition to it being tax day?
  When the Republicans took over Congress in January of 1995, the first 
major legislative vote for me as a Member of Congress was the first 
item of the Contract with America.
  A significant number of Members in the class of 1994 were very 
concerned because that balanced budget amendment had this particular 
clause taken

[[Page 6596]]

out. The protection against tax increases, that had been part of our 
Contract with America. We at that point in our first legislative vote 
developed our reputation as a bunch of troublemakers in this House.
  As part of that compromise, we were promised that, on April 15, we 
would have the opportunity, thanks to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Shadegg), who then worked with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
who had been a champion of this long before we got here, who worked out 
with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, who had 
always been a leading tax cutter, that we would have the opportunity to 
point this out to the American people on this day.
  Although I still voted against that balanced budget amendment for 
this reason, a balanced budget will not work unless we have tax 
protections, because if we can increase taxes, we can balance a budget 
superficially because it will look like we are raising revenue the 
first year, but in fact it will continue to contract.
  The only way really to save Social Security in this country, the only 
way to really balance the budget in this country is by cutting taxes 
because of economic growth, an increasing pie. The Reaganomics have 
been proven to work once in the 1980s.
  This time, by combining a government growth less than the combined 
rate of inflation and the economic growth of society, we were able to 
get an annual surplus but only because we had the tax cuts with it that 
stimulated the growth.
  The President can submit a balanced budget here, as our majority 
leader said a little while ago and the other speakers said, one can 
present a balanced budget, all one has to do is raise taxes.
  The fact is this about our President and, in particular, the Vice 
President: Vice President Al Gore did not invent the Internet. Vice 
President Al Gore invented the Internet tax.
  That is the approach of this administration. Their approach is how to 
raise revenues through tax increases or, at the very least, keep the 
money here when the tax cuts generated the additional revenue.
  This Congress is already proving that, even with the Republican 
majority, when we see a surplus, we tend to spend it. We have millions 
and millions of dollars being spent every day now over in the Balkans. 
We have many demands on us. We cannot in this society succeed without 
economic growth. That means lower taxes and stop any tax increases.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me this time.
  I would like to start off by saying that I admire political courage. 
I have been fascinated by the Members from the other side of the aisle 
who have been willing, in the light of day and before the American 
people, to stand up and tell us that they do like it to be easy to 
raise taxes, and they object to making it more difficult to raise 
taxes. So I admire them for that.
  But we must ask, why are taxes high? Taxes are high because 
government is big. We are dealing with only one-half of the equation. 
As long as the American people want big government, as long as they 
want a welfare state, and as long as they believe we should police the 
world, taxes will remain high.
  This is a token effort to move in the right direction of eliminating 
taxes. Big government is financed in three different ways. First, we 
borrow money. Borrowing is legal under the Constitution, although that 
was debated at the Constitutional Convention, and the Jeffersonians 
lost. Someday we should deal with that. We should not be able to borrow 
to finance big government.
  Something that we do here in Washington which is also 
unconstitutional is to inflate the currency to pay for debt. Last year 
the Federal Reserve bought Treasury debt to the tune of $43 billion. 
This helps finance big government. This is illegal, unconstitutional, 
and is damaging to our economy.
  But we are dealing with taxes today. Taxes today are at the highest 
peacetime level ever, going over 21 percent of the GDP. The problem is 
that taxes are too high.
  I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for bringing this 
measure to the floor. I would say this is a modest approach. Today we 
can raise taxes with a 50 percent vote. I and others would like to make 
it 100 percent. It would be great if we needed 100 percent of the 
people to vote to raise taxes. I see this as a modest compromise and 
one of moderation. So I would say that I strongly endorse this move to 
make it more difficult in a very modest way.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just 
for the purpose of asking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) a 
question.
  I take it that the gentleman believes that government is too big and 
that is a function of both what it takes in and what goes out, what it 
spends out.
  So would it be fair to say that the gentleman would support a 
constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote for expenditures, 
too?
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that sounds like 
a pretty good idea.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thought that might be the 
case.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), one of the great congressmen from the 
Palmetto State.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this. There has been a lot of humor passed about between both sides of 
the aisle. That is good. We ought to be able to debate things and have 
a smile on our face.
  There are a lot of people not smiling today because they are having 
to pay taxes. This is the worst day in the world to be a Democrat 
because they have to come up here and tell everybody this Tax Code is a 
little bit off, and we would fix it if we could get on with fixing it.
  Somebody said, ``This is a show about nothing.'' Well, they have got 
to remember this: Their show got cancelled. The tax-and-spend show got 
cancelled by the American people. If they all do not get with the 
program, they you are never going to get back on TV.
  People are tired of 1,000 reasons not to be responsible up here. 
There will be 10,000 reasons offered today why we cannot put some 
discipline in Congress to tax the American people.
  States have done this amendment. Those States that have passed the 
tax limitation amendment requiring a two-thirds vote have taken less of 
the people's money. The day we pass this amendment up here is the day 
we take less of the American people's money.
  But there will never be a better issue to define the parties than 
this issue. Four years in a row we have had a vote on this. Every year, 
we have got a majority. But our friends on the left are never going to 
let go of the ability to take one's money easily until the American 
people get more involved in this debate.
  But the day we lose control of this House, if that ever happens, one 
thing is for sure, we will never have this amendment talked about ever 
again. There will never be another proposal as long as the other side 
is in charge to limit the ability of the Federal Government to take 
one's money in some reasonable way.
  That is what this debate is about. That is what the next century is 
about. Every year we need to have this debate. Every year we are going 
to get more votes than we did the year before because they are running 
out of excuses of how to grow the government and explain the Tax Code 
in some understandable way.
  I regret we are denying the Democratic Party the ability to fix the 
Tax Code for a few hours, but it is great to have this debate. When 
this debate is over, I welcome their efforts to help us simplify the 
Tax Code. I am sorry we took a day out of their efforts to change the 
Tax Code.

[[Page 6597]]


  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for 
yielding me this time.
  It is April 15. In April, the Republican constitutional amendment of 
the month is always the same. Let us try once again to pass a 
constitutional amendment that would require a two-thirds majority to 
raise taxes in any amount. So here we go again. They have lost before 
over and over again, but let us try again.
  The previous Speaker said, ``Why are taxes high?'' We have got 
government that is too big. On the other hand, they are always tax 
talking, always talking about taking the people's money. Well, the 
people's money goes for defense. It goes for Social Security. It goes 
for health care. It goes for education.
  James Madison would be turning over in his grave today because there 
are only three reasons in which the Constitution requires a 
supermajority vote. They are all procedural matters: the removal of a 
Member of the House, the passage of a constitutional amendment, and 
overriding a presidential veto.
  James Madison realized the importance of majority rule. What this 
amendment attempts to do is empower one-third of this House plus one to 
block measures that would be good for the American people. It would do 
so in perpetuity.
  We do not know what this place will be like or what issues we will 
have to deal with 50 years from now. We will not be here, but other 
people will, and they may decide that it is more important to improve 
education or improve health care and have some increase in taxes 
perhaps on the wealthy, and we, today, the majority would take away 
that opportunity.
  We look back. Let us look back at the last few years. Since 1982, 
there have been six major deficit reduction acts that have been 
enacted, six major laws since 1982. Five of those six have included a 
combination of revenue increases and program cuts, five of the six. 
President Reagan signed three of them. George Bush signed one of them. 
President Clinton signed one of them. They included revenue increases.
  Let us take the one that President Clinton signed in 1993. Not one 
Republican in the House or Senate voted for that. It raised taxes on 1 
percent of the American people. It drove down interest rates. It 
improved our economy to an extent that we could then have only 
imagined.
  In fact, if the President had said in 1993, if the President had 
said, ``I have a plan that will lead this country to greater prosperity 
than it has ever been known before, and here is the package that will 
do it,'' no one would have believed President Clinton in 1993 if he had 
said what his plan would accomplish and has accomplished over the last 
6 years.
  We have a level of prosperity that is unmatched in American history, 
and it is due to the fact that we bit the bullet and made a tough 
decision then.
  Now, what this rule proposes is that it is okay for this House to 
have 51 percent vote to go to war, but we need a two-thirds to close a 
tax loophole.

                              {time}  1415

   We would need 51 percent to do something about Social Security and 
Medicare that might involve some increase in revenues, but we would 
need two-thirds to close a tax loophole.
  This is a bill, a constitutional amendment, that basically says we 
want to make sure that we can cut taxes for the wealthy, but we prevent 
this Congress from doing anything else of significance without a two-
thirds majority if it requires some increase in revenues.
  Now, there have been a number of statements made about the States, 
but the States are not responsible for Medicare, the States are not 
responsible for Social Security, the States are not responsible for 
national defense. And if we go into a recession, the people of this 
country will not be looking to the States to pull us out of it again.
  This bill is not needed. It is not needed. We have lived with this 
arrangement where we have majority rule on substantive matters for 200 
years. The next 200 years will be better if we have majority rule on 
substantive matters and we do not try to empower a minority of one-
third plus one to make the decisions in this House of Representatives.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the newest Member of the House but one of 
the most effective Members.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) for the introduction of this amendment.
  I have listened with interest to the constitutional references, so I 
would make just a few points. It is correct that there are only three 
places in the Constitution where a two-thirds vote is required, but one 
of those is to amend the Constitution.
  Our Founding Fathers knew they could not contemplate everything that 
would happen, but they knew a legislative body needed to be prepared to 
deal with it. That is why they had a constitutional amendment 
privilege. That is why we have an income tax today, because a Congress 
saw fit to impose one, not our Founding Fathers, and it reached a 
supermajority to do so.
  Our Founding Fathers did not contemplate limiting the President of 
the United States in his terms of service, but following the Roosevelt 
administration this Congress and the people decided a limitation was 
appropriate.
  I would submit to my colleagues that Madison does not roll over in 
his grave nor does Jefferson. In fact, they probably stand with pride 
that the document they created let us respond, in a time far different 
from theirs, to what is truly in America a very valid question, because 
they did not contemplate that the citizens of the United States of 
America would pay marginal rates equal to 40.6 percent of their income.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support as a proud 
cosponsor of this amendment, and I am proud to submit for the Record a 
letter from the great governor of my great State, Tom Ridge, who like 
so many other governors across this country endorses this amendment.
  I find it ironic that some of my Democratic colleagues find this 
amendment such a grave assault on the principle of majority rule, yet 
this very amendment will not succeed unless it garners a supermajority 
in this House.
  Now, I have heard no opposition to the constitutional requirement for 
a supermajority to amend the Constitution, nor have I heard any 
objection to the supermajorities required by our Constitution to ratify 
a treaty or convict on articles of impeachment. It is clear to me the 
opponents of this amendment do not oppose all supermajority 
requirements. Rather, they simply oppose those which get in their way.
  And of what does this amendment get in the way? It gets in the way of 
future easy tax increases. This amendment merely says it will require a 
broader consensus of this Congress before we take even more money from 
the American workers than we take already.
  There are many issues on which we require more than a simple 
majority, we require a broader consensus than just 50 percent plus one, 
and taking still more of the fruits of American labor should also 
require a broader consensus of Congress. I urge my colleagues to stand 
up for the American taxpayers and support this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the letter I referred to earlier for the 
Record:

                                     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                     Harrisburg, January 15, 1999.
     Mr. Grover G. Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Norquist: I am very pleased to add my name to the 
     list of Governors endorsing the Tax Limitation Amendments: to 
     the Constitution to require a supermajority vote of the 
     Congress to increase all federal taxes. The TLA will better 
     protect taxpayers and restrain government spending and 
     taxation.
       I have proposed a supermajority requirement for the 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. My Taxpayer Protection 
     Amendment

[[Page 6598]]

     is a guarantee to Pennsylvania families and employers that 
     their taxes will not increase absent a broader consensus in 
     the legislature. We need to make it harder for government to 
     take more of the hard-earned dollars of our citizens.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Ridge,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from the Arizona (Mr. J.D. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  It is important for this House to note, and for those who are 
citizens of this constitutional Republic to note, that what we are 
talking about today is other people's money. The money spent in our 
Treasury is not the money of the government; it belongs to the people. 
And yet what we have found over the years is that it has been easy time 
and again for those in this body to raise taxes.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence that one of the reasons 
I am now here in this Chamber, representing the good people of the 
Sixth Congressional District, is that they would not stand idly by when 
a previous House levied on the American people the largest tax increase 
in the history of the world, to quote the senior Senator from New York, 
who happens to be a Member of the Democratic party.
  So this amendment simply says when we are going to raise taxes, we 
will make it more difficult. We will require a supermajority. As my 
colleague from Pennsylvania noted, it will take a supermajority to pass 
this amendment. And as American taxpayers know, this is the right thing 
to do.
  I urge passage of the amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a distinguished war veteran and member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats controlled 
Congress during 1982 to 1993, they voted to increase taxes on hard-
working Americans by $666 billion. The new revenue was not used to put 
toward the debt or used to eliminate the deficit; it was used to 
increase the size and scope of government.
  History has shown us that every time Congress increases taxes they 
also increase spending. This year President Clinton has proposed to 
raise taxes by $174 billion over the next 10 years.
  This Tax Limitation Amendment will provide a safeguard for taxpayers 
and force the Congress and the President to reduce spending and return 
the surplus to its rightful owner, the American taxpayers. Americans 
are overtaxed and the government is too big. This Tax Limitation 
Amendment will solve both of these problems.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats controlled Congress during 1982 to 
1993, they voted to increase taxes on hard working Americans by $666 
billion. This new revenue was not put toward the debt or used to 
eliminate the deficit. Instead, it was used to increase the size and 
scope of Government. And history has shown us that every time Congress 
increases taxes, they also increase spending.
  This year, President Clinton proposes to raise taxes by $174 billion 
over the next 10 years.
  What this tax limitation amendment will do is provide a safeguard for 
taxpayers and force Congress and the President to reduce spending and 
return the surplus to its rightful owner--the American taxpayer.
  Not only will they get a smaller, more efficient Government, but also 
protection from higher taxes.
  The President and everybody else who is against this amendment is 
simply admitting they can't control their spending habit, and they 
still want the option of heaping the burden onto the American people.
  But, at a time when taxes surpass the amount that families pay for 
food, clothing and shelter combined, something must be done.
  Americans are overtaxed and the Government is too big. The tax 
limitation amendment will solve both of these problems.
  It is time for Congress to quit taking money from the hard working 
families of America. They deserve to keep what they earn. The money is 
not ours, we did not earn it and we should not waste it. Help America's 
families--pass this amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Kansas, (Mr. Ryun), the former world record 
holder in the mile.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the taxation 
amendment.
  By 1950, Americans worked until April 3rd in order to pay for the 
spending of government.
  This year, Americans will have to work until May 11th before they are 
able to take home money for their families. Mr. Speaker, that's 130 
days since January 1 of this year. From New Year's Day to Mother's Day, 
working families are working for the government, not themselves.
  The average hard working American household pays nearly $10,000 in 
federal taxes alone.
  This year, those taxes, paid for by hard working Americans will 
amount to nearly 21% of our gross domestic product.
  Mr. Speaker, our taxes are too high.
  We have a chance today, the day our taxes are due, to make a 
statement to the American people.
  By our vote today, we can tell the American people that the money 
they worked so hard to earn is theirs, not ours. We can tell them that 
they best know how to spend their money, not us.
  Mr. Speaker, we have already spent our children and grandchildren 
$5.5 trillion into debt. We've already spent their tax dollars before 
they have a chance to earn them. We must stop this tax and spend 
mentality that has dominated the last quarter of a century.
  Yesterday we passed a balanced budget to stop easy spending. Today, 
we have the opportunity to stop the easy tax increase.
  By requiring a two-thirds super-majority vote in both houses of 
Congress we ensure true accountability, true consensus, and true 
bipartisanship on the need for any tax increase.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
vote for the Tax Limitation Amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), whose State is the home of the Master's 
Golf Tournament.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this up.
  I rise today with our colleagues to support H.J.Res. 37, the Tax 
Limitation Amendment. The resolution asks simply for a two-thirds 
supermajority in both Houses to approve any Federal income tax.
  Now, I could not help but observe what the gentleman from Maine said. 
He said James Madison would be rolling over in his grave today because 
we might be amending the Constitution. I can tell my colleague what 
would cause James Madison to roll over in his grave today, and that 
would be if he had to file a 1040 form that he could not have had any 
idea that we would have ever gotten to.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts stood up and said this is about 
nothing. Well, I beg his pardon, it is about something. It is about 
taking the livelihood away from hard-working Americans. We do not ask 
them on a voluntary basis to please send in some taxes; or would they 
not like to help out this time. We tell them to send in their taxes to 
this Congress so that we can spend it, or we will turn the Justice 
Department loose on them and put them in jail.
  Now, that is a very serious thing that we do to the American people 
that are trying to prepare to have their first home, trying to prepare 
to send their children to school or prepare for their own retirement.
  I have a question for those who would oppose this amendment. Why are 
they afraid of the American people and the States? If we pass this 
resolution in the House and Senate, we have not passed the amendment, 
we will have only allowed the States and the people to ultimately 
decide this issue.
  Those of my colleagues that would decry this measure to curtail 
unnecessary future tax increases claim, oh, this is unfair; that the 
American people do not really want it, that they prefer it remain very 
easy for Congress to take their dollars that they work so hard for. 
Well, if that is true, what about the reasoning for objecting to the 
resolution? What are my colleagues afraid of; to give the American 
people an opportunity to say no?
  It ought to be very hard for us to take the taxpayers' hard-earned 
money. We do not spend it well, anyway. The taxpayer cannot keep us 
from spending it, so we should at least make it harder for us to 
collect it.

[[Page 6599]]

  Three-quarters of our states would have to approve the Amendment 
before it became law. Are you afraid that in reality, there aren't even 
a dozen states that would agree with you?
  Or maybe you believe the American people and the states just aren't 
knowledgeable enough to make the right decision--at least, the right 
decision according to you, and the inside-the-beltway crowd.
  My friends, that kind of thinking is why we went to war with Great 
Britain to win our independence.
  This city, this Congress, the President, the Supreme Court--none of 
these determine the Constitution. The people do. We serve them--they 
don't serve us.
  They decide the law--and you seek to take their right to self-
government away. If not, what are you afraid of?
  Maybe it's the fact that the American people have different ideas 
about how to run this country--and where I come from, the people still 
rule.
  The American public demands accountability and fiscal responsibility 
on the part of its elected officials when considering tax increases.
  For this reason, nearly two dozen states have either already enacted 
or are considering tax limitation protection.
  These standards of limitation have resulted in the slowing down of 
taxing and spending growth.
  Meanwhile, the job rates in these states have grown, and their 
residents have more money to add to the economy.
  The American economy is on a roll, fueled by hard work, and need not 
be slowed down by future tax increases. A supermajority requirement to 
pass any increase, would validate the fact that two-thirds of residents 
in states that have passed such legislation are in support of doing so.
  In furtherance of states' support for these measures, the governors 
of New York, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and nine other 
states have given their backing.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the sentiments of the American 
public on tax day 1999. I understand that amending the constitution is 
serious business.
  That's why it is left up to the states, instead of this body.
  Let the states and the people decide. They rule, not us. Support the 
Tax Limitation Amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, yes, it is April 15, and 
Americans will pay more in taxes than they have ever paid before this 
year. In fact, they will pay $1.815 trillion. Is that not enough 
government? Can we not fund defense, Medicaid and Social Security with 
$1.815 trillion? You bet we can. Our government is large enough. It 
takes enough of our income.
  Our Tax Code is complex. It is not flat. Every year the taxpayers of 
America have a tax increase unless we cut taxes. Every year they pay a 
bigger percentage. And so if we do nothing in the next 10 years, 
Americans will pay a whole lot more in taxes.
  It is not about nothing, it is about controlling the uncontrolled 
growth of the Federal Government. Congress historically has not made 
the tough decisions to cut wasteful programs that no longer are needed. 
It has been easier to raise taxes, and it should not be.
  This amendment will not make it easier, it will force Congress to do 
its job and allocate $1.815 trillion because that is enough Federal 
Government.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of 
time we have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 15 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) has 
16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, every year we debate a constitutional 
amendment to limit Congress' ability to spend other people's money, and 
every year the tax-and-spend caucus comes down to the floor to tell us 
such an amendment is unnecessary and that it is dangerous.
  Dangerous for whom? Working families that are requiring two incomes 
to pay for their taxes? Overtaxed single mothers who cannot afford to 
feed and clothe their children? How about family businesses that must 
be liquidated to pay the death taxes? Do these people have any reason 
to fear a constitutional amendment? Of course not.
  Even more laughable is the notion that this amendment is unnecessary. 
The American family currently pays over 25 percent of its income to the 
Federal Government in the form of taxes. This figure is up from just 2 
percent 40 years ago.
  In fact, taxes have been become the single largest expenditure for 
the American family. More is spent on taxes than housing, food and 
clothing combined. Yet despite this, opponents of this amendment want 
us to believe this amendment is unnecessary. Give me a break.
  Of course, the real reason for the tax-and-spend caucus opposing this 
amendment is because limiting taxes would limit their power. If 
government confiscates less of the taxpayers' money, it will be harder 
to spend money, which is the sole reason for their existence.
  I freely admit I support this amendment because I believe the Federal 
Government taxes too much and spends too much. It would be nice to see 
similar candor on the other side. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, and I 
appreciate tremendously his leadership on this very, very important 
issue.
  For four decades it has been far too easy for Congress to raise 
taxes. Raising taxes robs senior citizens of their secured retirement. 
Raising taxes robs families of their security. Raising taxes threatens 
jobs and undermines small businesses.
  This constitutional amendment is vital if we are going to make sure 
that the politicians cannot raise taxes easily. It takes a 
supermajority. That is why I rise in support of this most important tax 
limitation constitutional amendment.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for his 
tremendous leadership. God willing, we can get this passed and bring 
justice to this proposition to the American people.
  The combined state, federal and local tax burden is higher now than 
it has ever been. And that is why I sponsored the measure before the 
House today--``The Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment'' (H.J. Res. 
37)--preventing taxes from being raised unless two-thirds of the 
Members of Congress vote for a hike or unless it is needed to protect 
national security.
  The average family of four is bilked to the tune of $3,300 in federal 
income tax and $960 in state and local income tax.
  Excessive Federal taxes work an even greater injustice on Long 
Island, where we pay more for real estate, electricity, food, gasoline 
and other necessities than any other area in the entire country. That 
is why I have made scrapping the current tax code my priority and 
sponsored legislation to that end.
  Until the day we rid ourselves of the current code I will continue to 
fight battles to rectify its worst injustices. For example, I have 
sponsored legislation to eliminate the Marriage Penalty, the Death Tax 
and taxes on Social Security Benefits.
  The government forces the average married working couple, living 
hand-to-mouth, to pay almost $1,400 more in taxes than single people. 
The federal gas tax adds 18.4 cents each time they fill their tank and 
head to work. When they invest what's left of their salary after income 
taxes in order to get ahead, the Federal Government forces them to pay 
an additional Capital Gains Tax on any increase they make from the 
investment.
  Upon retirement, they will become entitled to benefits from the 
Social Security program they have invested in over the years, but the 
government taxes that too. Finally, after decades of working to leave a 
legacy for their children, the Federal Government takes up to 55 
percent of the very same property they've paid taxes on their entire 
live.
  Mr. Speaker, let's not forget the rank and file workers at the 
Internal Revenue Service are injured by the code as well.
  For over 25 years the workers at the IRS Brookhaven Service Center, 
in Holtsville, Brookhaven Town, Long Island, have done their best to 
mentor the taxpayers of Eastern Long Island by answering thousands of 
taxpayers' calls on a toll free line and resolving customer complaint 
cases. In fact, they process approximately 16 million individual and 
business returns from Montauk Point on the East End of Long Island, to 
Atlantic City on the southern shore of New Jersey.

[[Page 6600]]

  Yet IRS employees are working with a code that is confiscatory and 
manifestly unfair. The answer is to tear down the code and limit the 
ability of Congress to build it up again.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of ``The Tax Limitation 
Constitutional Amendment'' and the shield it will provide for Long 
Islanders and all Americans against taxation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have three additional speakers, 
if the Speaker of the House shows up, so we are basically ready to 
close. If the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) or his designee 
wishes to use some time, we would appreciate it.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time, but as opposition it is our right to close anyway.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has the right to close.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. The gentleman from Texas is not a member 
of the jurisdictional committee, and the rules, I believe, say that the 
jurisdictional committee and the person defending the right of the 
jurisdictional committee has the right to close.

                              {time}  1430

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). By order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) was made manager of the bill and, as 
such, has the right to close.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I do not see that anything 
in the rule that brought this matter to the floor mentions the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There was a unanimous consent agreement 
entered into earlier in this debate. There was no objection raised. The 
gentleman from Texas, by unanimous consent, was made manager of this 
piece of legislation on the floor today and, therefore, does in fact 
have the right to close.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have two additional speakers, 
myself and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the original 
cosponsors, plus possibly the Speaker of the House. We have 
approximately the same amount of time.
  Do I have to use time at this point in time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. One of the two parties engaged in this 
debate will yield time or we will move to the conclusion.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. What is the Speaker's recommendation as to who 
should go now? I will follow whatever the precedence of the House is. 
But I would appreciate it if my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. 
Watt) would use some of his time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair thinks the gentleman from North 
Carolina has made it clear he is reserving the balance of his time.
  Does the gentleman from Texas wish to yield time?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by putting into the Record the 
letters from the governors of the States that have endorsed the Tax 
Limitation Amendment.
  Time does not permit me to read each letter. But we have a letter 
from the Governor of Texas. We have a letter from the Governor of New 
York. We have a letter from the Governor of Florida. We have a letter 
from the Governor of New Jersey. We have a letter from the Governor of 
Connecticut. We have a letter from the Governor of Arizona. We have a 
letter from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We have 
a letter from the Governor of the great State of Mississippi. We have a 
letter from the Governor of Oklahoma. We have a letter from the 
Governor of Colorado. We have a letter from the Governor of Arkansas. 
We have a letter from the Governor of North Dakota. And we have 
previously put into the Record a letter from the Governor of 
Pennsylvania.
  These governors support tax limitation, for one simple reason, it 
works.
  There are 14 States that have tax limitation, either constitutional 
requirements or legislative requirements; and in those 14 States, the 
Heritage Foundation did a study several years ago and came to the 
conclusion that in every State that had it, taxes were lower. They went 
up slower. Consequently, economic growth was faster and more people got 
jobs more quickly.
  The original Constitution as passed in 1787 had a direct prohibition 
in Article I, section 9, against direct taxes. We referred to that 
earlier in the debate. We will put that into the Record at the 
appropriate time. But in February of 1913, there was a 16th Amendment 
to the Constitution. That amendment said that it was constitutional to 
levy a direct tax, like an income tax, on the American people.
  Since that time, the marginal tax rate on the American people has 
gone from 1 percent to 39.8 percent. That is an increase of 4,000 
percent. When we finish collecting the income taxes this evening at 
midnight, the American people will have paid in the past tax year in 
income taxes over $800 billion. $800 billion. And if we include Social 
Security tax and Medicare taxes, that tax burden rises to over $1 
trillion on the American taxpayers.
  Enough is enough. To my left, we have the items in the Constitution 
at its passage where a supermajority vote was required. Time does not 
permit me to go through all of them. But we can see that there are 10 
examples for a new State to come into the Union it took a two-thirds 
vote. To ratify a treaty, it took a two-thirds vote. To convict a 
President that had been impeached by the House, it took a two-thirds 
vote. And to amend the Constitution, it took a two-thirds vote.
  It is ironic to me that we are on the floor today, having won this 
debate every year we have had it, we had the majority vote; the three 
previous times that we brought it up on the House floor, we won every 
vote. We got a majority of the Congress, Republicans and some 
Democrats, to vote for tax limitation. But we have not met the 
constitutional burden of a two-thirds supermajority. And I am fine with 
that.
  We are going to win this two-thirds vote some day. Perhaps today is 
the day. But if we do not, we will come back until we do. It only makes 
sense to me, since the original Constitution said we cannot levy an 
income tax. We had 100 percent prohibition against it in 1787. It is 
only since 1913 that we have allowed an income tax. It makes sense to 
me, if we are going to have these direct taxes, we ought to raise the 
bar.
  We ought to require a supermajority, all the Republicans and some 
Democrats, or all the Democrats and some Republicans, or some of both 
parties and maybe the Independents, to vote that there is a consensus 
in the country that taxes need to be raised.
  This is a very simple concept in terms of the amendment. Is one-half 
larger than two-thirds? If my colleagues took fractions back in 
elementary school, they can go through the math better than I. One-half 
equals three-sixths. Two-thirds equals four-sixths. Four-sixths is 
greater than three-sixths by one-sixth. One-sixth is an additional 70 
votes.
  We want to raise the bar in the House by 70 votes to require 291 
votes to raise taxes, and we want to raise the bar in the Senate by 17 
votes to go from 50 to 67. It is basic math. It works. We need to raise 
the bar.
  This shows that in the States that have it, this again is the 
Heritage

[[Page 6601]]

Foundation study, it is several years old so it is not current through 
1997, but it shows the percentages of how each State's tax rate went up 
compared to those States that did not have tax limitation and the 
spending.
  I encourage every Member of the House to listen to their 
constituents, vote for the Tax Limitation Amendment later today.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following governors' 
letters that I referred to:


                                        State of North Dakota,

                                   Bismarck, ND, January 19, 1999.
     Mr. Grover G. Norquist,
     President Americans for Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Norquist: I join with other governors in strongly 
     endorsing your efforts to win passage of the Tax Limitation 
     Amendment. In North Dakota, I used my State to the State 
     address to call for a legislative supermajority to pass any 
     increase in sales or income tax. The need for such 
     institutionalized fiscal discipline is even greater at the 
     federal level.
       Congratulations on your campaign to protect America's 
     taxpayers through the Tax Limitation Amendment! I wish you 
     great success on this important project.
           Sincerely,
                                                Edward T. Schafer,
     Governor.
                                  ____



                                            State of Arkansas,

                                                February 11, 1999.
     Mr. Grover G. Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Grover: Raising taxes on hard-working Arkansans should 
     never be done without a consensus of the members of Congress 
     and the American people. That's why I support the Tax 
     Limitation Amendment.
       This amendment should make it impossible for a bare 
     majority to raise taxes. The current method has led to an 
     intolerable burden on American workers and aided the growth 
     of big government.
       It currently requires the same majority to raise taxes as 
     it does to declare National Banana Peel Week. That is wrong. 
     Raising taxes should require a high enough threshold that 
     elected officials do it only when there is a clear and 
     compelling reason.
       With so many special interests demanding more and more of 
     our tax dollars, I'm thankful you are fighting for the 
     American people. Good luck and God bless.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                    Mike Huckabee,
     Governor.
                                  ____



                                            State of Colorado,

                                      Dever, CO, February 4, 1999.
     Mr. Grover C. Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Grover: It is with pleasure that I join my fellow 
     Governors in supporting the Tax Limitation Amendment. Our 
     Founding Fathers fought for America's independence in part to 
     be free of arbitrary and capricious taxes imposed on the 
     citizenry. I believe that limiting the power of Congress to 
     tax follows in this proud tradition.
       In Colorado, all levels of government--state, county, 
     local--are constrained in their ability to tax without the 
     consent of the governed. It is time that taxpayers be 
     protected in Congress as well.
       You have my support on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bill Owens,
     Governor.
                                  ____



                                            State of Oklahoma,

                                 Oklahoma City, December 15, 1998.
     Mr. Grover C. Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Norquist: I am proud to join my fellow Governors 
     who are supporting the Tax Limitation Amendment. Many states, 
     including Oklahoma, already have similar restrictions on the 
     power of the legislative branch to arbitrarily increase 
     taxes. The TLA should be adopted at the federal level to 
     protect the taxpayer and to restrain spending and taxation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank Keating,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                             State of Mississippi,
                                    Jackson, MS, January 20, 1999.
     Mr. Grover G. Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Grover: I am an ardent proponent of the Tax Limitation 
     Amendment that requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes in 
     the United States Congress. Elected officials have been 
     entrusted by the people to guard their tax dollars vigorously 
     in government treasuries. Every decision should be made with 
     the knowledge that money spent is derived from the toil and 
     sweat of the citizens.
       The growth of government and the increase in taxes 
     necessitate the Tax Limitation Amendment. Raising taxes 
     should require a supermajority. We have all seen the 
     consequences of this restriction's absence. I encourage 
     Congress to pass this amendment. it is critical to our state 
     and nation that the supermajority requirement is enacted by 
     the Congress.
       The State of Mississippi does have a supermajority 
     requirement to raise taxes. However, we also have a 
     requirement that a supermajority is necessary to lower taxes. 
     Changing this restriction has been part of our legislative 
     agenda many times, including this year.
       Thank you for the diligent, effective work of Americans for 
     Tax Reform on behalf of our citizens. I look forward to 
     passage of the Tax Limitation Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Kirk Fordice,
     Governor.
                                  ____



                            The Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

                                     Boston, MA, February 4, 1999.
     Grover G. Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Norquist: On behalf of the Commonwealth of 
     Massachusetts, I am pleased to express my support for the Tax 
     Limitation Amendment (TLA).
       During the current time of economic prosperity, we must 
     wisely prepare for the often unpredictable tides of our 
     national economy. The passage of the TLA will safeguard the 
     needs of our taxpayers and provide protection against 
     unnecessary future tax increases.
           Sincerely,
                                              Argeo Paul Cellucci,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                              State of Arizona, December 30, 1998.
     Mr. Grover G. Norquist,
     President, Americans For Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Norquist: I am pleased to add my name to your list 
     of Governors, State Legislators, Congressmen and women, and 
     others who are endorsing a Federal Tax Limitation Amendment. 
     As you know, this amendment would require a two-thirds 
     majority of Congress to increase all federal taxes. I am also 
     pleased that Arizona's Congressman John Shadegg and Senator 
     Jon Kyl are key sponsors.
       We, in Arizona, have been operating for several years now 
     with a similar amendment to our State Constitution. 
     Proposition 108 was passed by the voters in 1992 and requires 
     a two-thirds majority of the Arizona Legislature to increase 
     state revenues, broadly defined.
       Since the passage of Proposition 108 with 72% of the 
     popular vote, we have been continuously cutting taxes in 
     Arizona. In fact, cumulative tax cuts enacted since 1992 are 
     now over $1.3 billion, which is equivalent to over 20% of 
     Arizona's general operating budget. Meanwhile, state revenues 
     have continued to grow, we have set aside nearly $400 million 
     in budget stabilization funds, and we concluded last fiscal 
     year with a record surplus of over $500 million.
       I am sure you would agree that the government closest to 
     the people governs the best (and probably the least). 
     Therefore, we must hold our President and Congressional 
     leaders to a higher standard when they are inclined to raise 
     our taxes. With federal taxes equal to one-fifth of our total 
     national economic output, it is time to build a higher 
     barrier to further federal tax increases.
       Therefore, I strongly support you in your efforts to secure 
     Congressional passage of the Tax Limitation Amendment!
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jane Dee Hull,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                             State of Connecticut,


                                           Executive Chambers,

                                      Hartford, CT, March 4, 1999.
     Mr. Grover G. Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Norquist: I join with other governors endorsing 
     your efforts to gain support for the Federal Tax Limitation 
     Amendment. This legislation would require a supermajority to 
     increase all federal taxes. Adoption of this amendment would 
     ensure fiscal discipline and protect America's taxpayers.
       I wish you great success on your important project and I 
     look forward to passage of the Tax Limitation Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John G. Rowland,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                              State of New Jersey,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                    Trenton, NJ, February 5, 1999.
     Mr. Grover G. Norquist,
     President, Americans for Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Norquist: Please register my strong support in 
     calling on Congress to pass by April 15, 1999, the bipartisan 
     Tax Limitation Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as drafted 
     by U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, and Rep. Joe Barton, Rep. Ralph 
     Hall, and Rep. John Shadegg.
       I support a two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes both 
     at the federal level and within the New Jersey Legislature as 
     a

[[Page 6602]]

     means of preventing unwarranted tax increases from stifling 
     economic growth and blighting job creation. A super-majority 
     requirement will force budget writers to consider first 
     eliminating unnecessary government spending before rushing to 
     propose tax increases as a way to finance government 
     initiatives. A super-majority requirement will not mandate 
     tax cuts nor will it prohibit tax increases, but it will 
     require a broader consensus among legislators before seeking 
     a greater share of taxpayers' earnings.
       The fiscal policies adopted at any level of government 
     influence the economic well-being of the surrounding 
     community, state, or nation, and requiring a broader 
     consensus to raise taxes is practical change that will likely 
     result in more money circulating in the private sector, the 
     primary creator of jobs and the stimulant for economic 
     growth.
       As a Governor who has used the tax code to stimulate growth 
     and job creation, I call on Congress to enact the Tax 
     Limitation Amendment as a sensible safeguard against 
     unnecessary tax increases.
           Sincerely yours,
                                           Christine Todd Whitman,
                                                         Governor.
                                                 State of Florida,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                  Tallahassee, FL, March 23, 1999.
     Mr. Grover G. Norquist,
     President, American For Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Grover: Tax limitation is important at all levels of 
     government. Reflecting my strong belief in limited 
     government, I recently called for a $1.2 billion tax cut in 
     Florida, the largest in state history. Simply put, it's not 
     our money; it's the people's money. We should protect their 
     savings and income the best we know how.
       This is a philosophy that I think should be practiced at 
     the federal level as well. Therefore, I would be honored to 
     join my fellow Governors in supporting the Tax Limitation 
     Amendment. Thank you again, Grover, for coming to me with 
     such an important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Jeb Bush,
                                                         Governor.
                                                State of New York,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                     Albany, NY, January 28, 1999.
     Mr. Grover G. Norquist,
     President, Americans For Tax Reform,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Norquist, thank you for your recent letter 
     requesting support for the Tax Limitation Amendment vote. I 
     am proud to concur with Americans For Tax Reform in urging 
     Congress to pass the Tax Limitation Amendment.
       Our commitment as public servants ought to be to promote 
     efficient government, which means cutting taxes, first and 
     foremost. It is a commitment to freedom, since we know that 
     to deny people their economic freedom-through excessive 
     taxation or over regulation--is to deny them their right to 
     create opportunities and to pursue their dreams.
       New York is leading the nation in cutting taxes and leading 
     America into a new century of hope and opportunity. Since I 
     have been in office, we have cut taxes 36 times, returning 
     more than $19 billion to taxpayers; created more than 400,000 
     net new private sector jobs, bringing the number of private 
     sector jobs to its highest level in history; reduced the 
     number of people on welfare by 608,000, dropping the rolls to 
     the lowest level since 1968; and led the nation in reducing 
     all crimes in 1997, making our communities safer than they 
     have been since 1970. We have shown that we have the courage 
     to bring about change for the good of ourselves and our 
     children, and for that we can be proud.
       Four years of tax cuts have created stronger families, a 
     stronger economy and a stronger New York. In order to protect 
     taxpayers now and in the future, we must lower taxes and make 
     fiscal integrity the law of the land in New York State. The 
     act of raising taxes is a destructive act and should 
     therefore be a difficult act. To meet that standard, I have 
     proposed a State constitutional amendment to require approval 
     by a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to raise State 
     taxes and also firmly support the enactment of Tax Limitation 
     Amendment at the federal level.
       By putting the people's money in a safe place where it 
     cannot be touched, we are taking the prudent step of 
     guaranteeing that it is returned to the taxpayers.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 George E. Pataki,
                                                         Governor.
                                                   State of Texas,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                        Austin, TX, April 5, 1999.
     Hon. Joe Barton,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC
       Dear Representative Barton: I am pleased that you are 
     continuing your efforts to pass the Tax Limitation Amendment 
     to require a supermajority for the Congress to increase 
     federal taxes.
       Limited government provides the greatest freedom to the 
     American people, and the freedom to spend their hard-earned 
     money as they see fit is a fundamental principle we share. By 
     requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority to raise taxes, 
     we can assure that the federal government will not continue 
     to intrude into the lives of American taxpayers and into 
     affairs that are properly handled by state and local 
     governments.
       Best wishes in your important endeavors.
           Sincerely,
                                                   George W. Bush,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to inquire 
whether the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) made a unanimous consent 
request to offer those matters for the Record?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman did ask unanimous consent to 
revise and extend his remarks.
  Did the gentleman from Texas want to enter the letters that he 
referred to into the Record?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I did, Mr. Speaker, and I thought I had asked 
for unanimous consent to do that.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection. I just 
want to make sure he got them in the Record. I did not think he ever 
did.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the letters referred to 
will be made part of the Record.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
submit for the Record a study of the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, which responds to the Heritage Foundation's study referred 
to by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The study referred to is as follows:

  Do States With Supermajorities Have Smaller Tax Increases or Faster 
                   Economic Growth Than Other States?

                 (By Iris J. Lav and Nicholas Johnson)

       The Heritage Foundation contends that states in which a 
     supermajority vote of the legislature is required to raise 
     taxes have experienced faster economic growth and fewer tax 
     increases than other states. A March 1996 Heritage report 
     looks at the seven states that have had supermajority 
     requirements in place for a number of years--Arkansas, 
     California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
     South Dakota--and finds that five of the seven states 
     experienced slower than average growth in tax revenue. It 
     also finds that five of the seven states (but not the same 
     five states) experienced faster economic growth than the 
     average state. The Heritage report suggests a causal link 
     between supermajority limits, lower taxes, and faster 
     economic growth, saying ``. . . there is no escaping the 
     logical relationship between supermajorities and superior 
     state performance.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Daniel J. Mitchell, ``Why a Supermajority Would Protect 
     Taxpayers,'' The Heritage Foundation, March 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This simplistic analysis is flawed in a number of ways. It 
     relies on only one among a number of possible measures of 
     economic growth. It considers only state-level tax changes 
     rather than changes in total state and local revenues, 
     despite the capacity of states to shift costs and 
     responsibilities to local governments. And it compares 1980, 
     a year in which the economy was turning down into a mild 
     recession, with 1992, a year at the beginning of an economic 
     recovery. If one chooses more appropriate data series to 
     measure revenues and economic growth and adjusts the time 
     periods to represent similar points in the business cycle, 
     conclusions opposite to those Heritage has presented may be 
     drawn. The fact that different analytical choices lead to 
     different results should serve as a caution that no 
     supportable conclusions can be drawn from the type of 
     simplistic analysis Heritage has conducted.
       By some measures, supermajority states have had lower 
     economic growth and more tax increases than other states. For 
     example:
       Five of the seven states with supermajority requirements 
     experienced lower-than-average economic growth measured by 
     change in per capita personal income between 1979 and 1989, 
     two years at similar points in the business cycle.
       Four of the seven supermajority states had lower-than-
     average economic growth measured by change in Gross State 
     Product from 1979 to 1989.
       Six of the seven states with supermajority requirements had 
     higher-than-average growth of state and local revenues as a 
     percent of residents' incomes from 1979 to 1989.
       Five of the seven states had higher-than-average increases 
     in state and local taxes per capita from 1984 to 1993, two 
     other years falling at similar points in the business cycle.
       The factors affecting state economic growth are far more 
     complex than proponents of supermajority requirements 
     typically acknowledge. Such factors include the interplay of 
     state supermajority requirements typically acknowledge. Such 
     factors include the interplay of state resource endowments, 
     labor force skills, location, and

[[Page 6603]]

     level of public investment and state services, among others. 
     A far more sophisticated analysis would be required to 
     discern any effect supermajority requirements might or might 
     not have on state tax burdens or state economies.


              Heritage's Choices of Data May Skew Results

       In preparing its report, the Heritage Foundation made 
     choices that may have skewed the results of its analysis. The 
     questionable choices include the time periods analyzed, the 
     measure of state economic growth, and the measure of tax 
     burden.
       The Heritage report compares state economic growth and 
     changes in taxes from 1980 to 1992, which are years that 
     represent two different points in the ``business cycle.'' In 
     1980, the economy turned down from the peak of an economic 
     expansion into a mild recession; in 1992 the economy was 
     beginning its upswing from the deep 1990-91 recession. State 
     tax policy and state economic growth each are very sensitive 
     to the business cycle, and different state economies react 
     differently to economic downturns and upswings. An accurate 
     picture of state changes requires comparing two years at 
     similar points in the business cycle.
       Heritage chose Gross State Product (GSP) as its measure of 
     state economic growth; GSP measures the total output of all 
     industries within a state. A different measure, personal 
     income, is more often used to gauge state economic activity. 
     Personal income measures the total income of state residents, 
     including income from out-of-state sources. Personal income 
     per capita measures the economic well-being of an average 
     resident, which may best reflect the goal of state economic 
     policy.
       Similarly, Heritage chose to consider only taxes levied at 
     the state level. Yet when state taxes are constrained, state 
     legislatures may meet their responsibilities for providing 
     services by shifting new responsibilities to local 
     governments or by cutting local aid. Either course of action 
     can lead local governments to raise their taxes. Because of 
     these potential shifts, a measure that includes both state 
     and local taxes should be considered.
       An additional shortcoming of the state tax series Heritage 
     uses is that it excludes many tax-like ``fees.'' A more 
     comprehensive measure, state and local revenues, includes 
     revenue sources such as fees and lottery proceeds that may be 
     substituted for revenues from taxes.
       Lastly, the Heritage study measures tax burden by 
     calculating the amount of tax revenue per resident. Many 
     analysts find it more appropriate to measure taxes as a 
     percentage of residents' incomes. Because differing wage 
     levels in different states affect both residents' incomes and 
     the cost of providing government services, measuring taxes as 
     a percentage of income provides a more meaningful comparison 
     of tax levels and changes in tax burden over time.


Alternative Time Periods and Measurements Yield Results Different from 
                          the Heritage Results

       Results quite different from those presented in the 
     Heritage report may be obtained by an analysis that matches 
     up similar points in the business cycle and considers a 
     variety of measurements of economic activity and revenues. 
     Depending on the choice of time frame and methodology, such 
     comparisons may actually show that supermajority requirements 
     are associated with increased taxes and slower economic 
     growth.
       Table 1 compares the economic growth of the seven 
     supermajority states relative to average growth in all 
     states. Three different measures of growth and two different 
     recent time periods beginning and ending at similar points in 
     the business cycle are considered. Taken together, these 
     measures show no clear connection between supermajority 
     requirements and economic growth. (See appendix tables for 
     detailed comparisons.)
       By most measures, the supermajority states split almost 
     down the middle (4-3 or 3-4)--about half experienced stronger 
     economic growth than the national average, while the other 
     half had weaker growth.
       By one method of measuring economic growth--change in per-
     capita personal income from 1979 to 1989--only two of the 
     supermajority states outperformed the national economy; the 
     other five had lower economic growth than the average state.

  TABLE 1.--PORTION OF SUPERMAJORITY STATES WITH STRONGER-THAN-AVERAGE
                             ECONOMIC GROWTH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  1979 to 1989          1984 to 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross State Product.........  3 of 7..............  Not available.
Personal Income.............  3 of 7..............  4 of 7.
Personal Income Per Capita..  2 of 7..............  4 of 7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Based on data from
  Bureau of Economic Analysis, with population adjustments from the
  Bureau of the Census.

       Similar results may be found with respect to levels of 
     revenue increases. Table 2 shows revenue increases in the 
     supermajority states using broader measures of state and 
     local taxes and revenues over the two time periods. The 
     picture that emerges is decidedly mixed.
       In only one of the supermajority states did state and local 
     revenue as a percentage of personal income rise less rapidly 
     than in the average state from 1979 to 1989. In the other six 
     supermajority states, the growth of state and local revenue 
     as a percent of personal income was higher than in the 
     average state.
       Fewer than half the supermajority states showed lower-than-
     average growth in state and local taxes between 1984 and 
     1993, measured either as taxes per capita or taxes as a 
     percentage of residents' incomes.

                              TABLE 2.--PORTION OF SUPERMAJORITY STATES WITH TAX INCREASES LOWER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1979 to 1989                                              1984 to 1993
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    State and local own-source                                State and local own-source
                                         State and local taxes               revenue               State and local taxes               revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax per capita......................  5 of 7.....................  5 of 7.....................  2 of 7.....................  5 of 7.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         TABLE 2.--PORTION OF SUPERMAJORITY STATES WITH TAX INCREASES LOWER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE--Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1979 to 1989                                              1984 to 1993
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    State and local own-source                                State and local own-source
                                         State and local taxes               revenue               State and local taxes               revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxes as a percent of income........  4 of 7.....................  1 of 7.....................  3 of 7.....................  4 of 7.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Based on data from Bureau of the Census, with income adjustments from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

                     trends do not prove causation

       Even if tables 1 and 2 presented clearer trends among the 
     seven supermajority states, it would not be correct to 
     conclude that supermajority requirements were a factor in the 
     economic growth or in the tax decisions in those states. 
     Other factors, such as regional economic variations or 
     changes in political power, are much more likely to affect 
     state economic performance and government finances. A far 
     more sophisticated analysis than either the Heritage study or 
     the analysis presented above would be required to conclude 
     that supermajority requirements have had any substantial 
     effect either on state tax burdens or on state economies.

                                Appendix

               Table A-1.--ECONOMIC GROWTH IN STATES THAT REQUIRED SUPERMAJORITIES TO RAISE TAXES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Change in       Change in personal income     Change in personal income per
                                    gross state  --------------------------------             capita
                                      product                                    -------------------------------
                                 ----------------  1979 to 1989    1984 to 1993
                                   1979 to 1989                                    1979 to 1989    1984 to 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas........................             96%             99%             72%             92%             64%

[[Page 6604]]

 
California......................            143%            142%             79%             93%             49%
Delaware........................            165%            128%             87%            106%             64%
Florida.........................            175%            184%             96%            112%             58%
Louisiana.......................             63%             86%             45%             81%             48%
Mississippi.....................             82%            100%             69%             94%             65%
South Dakota....................             77%             83%             80%             81%             75%
U.S. Average....................            112%            121%             76%            101%             61%
                                 ===============================================================================
Number of supermajority states                3               3               4               2               4
 with economic growth above
 average........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See notes at end of appendix.


     TABLE A-2.--CHANGES IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES AND REVENUE PER CAPITA IN STATES THAT REQUIRED
                                         SUPERMAJORITIES TO RAISE TAXES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1979 to 1989                    1984 to 1993
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     State and                       State and
                                                     State and      local own-       State and      local own-
                                                    local taxes   source revenue    local taxes   source revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas........................................            114%            122%             81%             79%
California......................................            101%            123%             62%             70%
Delaware........................................            103%            140%             66%             68%
Florida.........................................            126%            155%             91%             97%
Louisiana.......................................             87%            119%             49%             56%
Mississippi.....................................             96%            117%             75%             73%
South Dakota....................................             83%             97%             68%             46%
U.S. Average....................................            108%            124%            645%             73%
                                                 ===============================================================
Number of supermajority states with tax or                    5               5               2               5
 revenue growth below average...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See notes at end of appendix.


       TABLE A-3.--CHANGES IN STATE AND LOCAL TAXES AS PERCENT OF PERSONAL INCOME IN STATES THAT REQUIRED
                                         SUPERMAJORITIES TO RAISE TAXES.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1979 to 1989                    1984 to 1993
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     State and                       State and
                                                     State and      local own-       State and      local own-
                                                    local taxes   source revenue    local taxes   source revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas........................................             11%             15%             10%              9%
California......................................              4%             16%              9%             14%
Delaware........................................             -1%             17%              2%              2%
Florida.........................................              7%             20%             21%             24%
Louisiana.......................................              3%             21%              0%              5%
Mississippi.....................................              1%             12%              6%              5%
South Dakota....................................              2%              9%             -4%            -17%
U.S. Average....................................              3%             11%              3%              8%
                                                 ===============================================================
Number of supermajority states with tax or                    4               1               3               4
 revenue growth below average...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Notes.--Gross State Product not available for years after 1992. In cases where the state average equalled the
  national average, the change was computed to additional decimal places to find the correct comparison. U.S.
  average excludes Alaska and the District of Columbia, whose revenue systems are significantly different from
  those of other states. All data are for fiscal years except Gross State Product.
 
 Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Census Bureau. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a reference by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) to how well the States which have supermajority tax 
requirements are doing based on a Heritage Foundation study that was 
done.
  Well, we have a different study. I do not really want this to get 
into a debate about whether taxes are good or bad. I think taxes are 
good sometimes and they are bad sometimes. They can be beneficial; they 
can be detrimental.
  I really think this debate is about the essence of our democracy, 
which is majority rule. It is not about taxes or no taxes.
  None of us look forward to voting for a tax increase. All of us 
should be held accountable if we are irresponsible in voting for tax 
increases, and we are subject to account for that every 2 years when we 
run for office. But I think it would be a mistake for the public to be 
left with the mistaken notion that all States that have supermajority 
requirements somehow have passed a magic bullet and they are doing 
well.
  The actual study indicates that five of the seven States with 
supermajority requirements experienced lower than average economic 
growth measured by change in per capita personal income between 1979 
and 1989. Four of the seven supermajority States had lower than average 
economic growth measured by change in gross State product from 1979 to 
1989.
  Six of the seven States with supermajority requirements had higher 
than average growth of State and local revenues as a percent of 
residents' income from 1979 to 1989, suggesting that if we did this at 
the Federal level, we would be simply passing the buck on for higher 
taxes at the lower level, which is already a problem that all of us 
recognize.
  Five of the seven States had higher than average increases in State 
and local taxes per capita from 1984 to 1993, again suggesting that if 
we do not accept the responsibilities for what we are doing at the 
Federal level and people demand government services, they will have to 
be delivered at the local level and taxes will be lower there.
  Now, I am not getting into a debate about whether taxes are good or 
bad. This is not about that. But we should be clear that this Heritage 
Foundation study, which suggests that just because they have a 
supermajority they have done something magnanimous for the State or for 
the Nation is just absolute baloney.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure and high 
honor to yield 3 minutes to the honorable gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert), the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the constitutional amendment today. 
I commend my colleague from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his long-time 
effort. I think that as long as we have known each other he has been 
working on this issue, and he has exemplified the old

[[Page 6605]]

phrase ``If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.'' But when we 
try and try again, it is for a noble effort.
  We must continue to try again to pass this constitutional amendment, 
as we must continue to try to provide tax relief for the American 
people.
  Make no mistake about it, working Americans are taxed too much. They 
are taxed at a higher rate than since the Second World War. They are 
taxed when they eat. They are taxed when they drink. They are taxed 
when they drive. They are taxed when they work. And they are taxed even 
when they die.
  If we go back a little over a decade ago, we celebrated the 
anniversary of the Constitution of this country. And right before that, 
I remember, as I was teaching history in a small high school in 
Illinois, we were studying the Revolution. This country fought a 
revolution over taxes. It was the vision of our forefathers that the 
people in this country should have economic liberty, they should have 
economic choice, not government choosing how to spend their money, but 
individuals choosing how to spend the money that they earn.

                              {time}  1445

  Higher taxes mean bigger government. If we are going to restore 
balance to our society where individuals and local communities have 
more power, we need to make the Federal Government smaller and smarter. 
Support this constitutional amendment and go on record in support of 
tax relief for the American people.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a minute or two just talking about what 
this bill provides for and putting this in context. But first of all 
let me remind my colleagues of the history again. It is the fourth year 
on or about tax filing day that my colleagues have brought this same 
amendment to the floor of the House. It has failed on each prior 
occasion. They know it will fail again today. And this amendment is not 
here as a serious legislative undertaking; it is here to make a 
political point.
  If it were here to make a serious legislative point, as opposed to 
going through a political charade, this bill would have gone through 
the appropriate committees, one of which would have been the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. I 
cannot imagine bringing a proposed constitutional amendment, an 
amendment to the most sacred document in government that we have, 
without going through the Subcommittee on the Constitution and going 
through the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Now, the reason that we did not go that route, or the majority did 
not go that route is because this is not a serious legislative 
undertaking. If it were a serious legislative undertaking, they would 
have made in order proposed amendments to this constitutional amendment 
because they know that it has serious, serious substantive 
deficiencies. I want to talk about those deficiencies so that everybody 
knows what we are talking about. I want to read from section 1 of the 
bill:
  ``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''--not change the revenue 
law, but increase the internal revenue--``by more than a de minimis 
amount.''
  Now, let me point out three serious problems with the language there. 
First of all, this will be the first time ever in the history of this 
country, if this amendment passed, that the word ``de minimis'' is used 
in the Constitution. The word does not exist. It probably was not even 
a word that was in the vocabulary at the time the Founding Fathers were 
writing the original Constitution.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. ``De minimis'' is a Latin word.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Let me reclaim my time, unless he is 
asking me to yield to tell us differently. Is the word in the 
Constitution?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. No, but there is no prohibition against the word 
being in the Constitution.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Let me get to the point I want to make. 
``De minimis'' is probably no worse than ``reasonable cause'' or other 
general terms that are used in the Constitution. That is not my point.
  My point is that we have gone through 200-plus years of litigation 
determining what those words that are in the Constitution mean, and now 
we are about to set off 200 more years of litigation about what the 
term ``de minimis'' means.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Let me get through it. We can engage in a 
dialogue. The gentleman has got plenty of time to engage in it if he 
wants to on his side.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentleman has more time than I do now.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If we want to set up a judicial process 
where we spend 200 years defining what the word ``de minimis'' means 
and have the courts do it, that is what this bill is going to do.
  But even more important is, we are setting up a direct conflict 
between the Congress' definition of de minimis and the court's 
definition of de minimis. Because when we say the measure is going to 
be measured, determined at the time of the adoption of the bill, we are 
trying to give the Congress the authority to make its decision about 
what the word ``de minimis'' means. But we cannot do that. So basically 
what we have done is set up a direct conflict between the legislative 
branch of the government and the judicial branch of the government. 
That is exactly what we have done.
  Now, I recognize that. I recognized that the first time we debated 
this bill in committee. I recognized it before the Committee on Rules 2 
days ago. I went to the Committee on Rules and I said, would you allow 
me to bring to the floor an amendment which would improve this 
legislation, which would make it clear that the sole authority that the 
Supreme Court will have is to determine whether the Congress has 
followed its own rules in making this determination so that we could 
avoid this conflict between the legislative branch and the executive 
branch?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that 
point? I am going to compliment the gentleman if he will yield.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I appreciate it. Is he going to accept my 
amendment under unanimous consent?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I will yield to the gentleman, so maybe 
we will get a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to compliment the gentleman for his 
effort. We have given it to our constitutional experts. If the 
gentleman will work with me, if we are not successful today, we very 
well could do that. Of course, the gentleman would have to vote with us 
at some point in time on the amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman offering to 
work with me and, of course, if this bill had gone through the 
committee, we could have done the work in a serious legislative manner 
and we could have treated this bill as a serious bill. But it is quite 
obvious that this is not what this is about. It is about political 
theater on the 15th of April.
  We have got to play political theater so that we can tell the 
American people how terrible it is that we have taxes. That is what 
this bill is about today. If it were not about that, we would have 
considered this amendment.
  We even offered an amendment last year that would have taken out the 
term ``de minimis.'' If you do not want to raise taxes, and you want a 
two-

[[Page 6606]]

thirds requirement, you at least would not get into 200 years of 
litigation arguing about what de minimis means if you just said it 
required a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. I mean, that would be clear. 
At least we would not have to look in a Latin dictionary to figure out 
what we are talking about and ask the Supreme Court to tell us what we 
are talking about. At least that would be clear.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I will agree to that.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. We even offered to take that out of the 
bill. You would think that people who were seriously interested in 
passing a constitutional amendment that limited the ability to raise 
taxes would have jumped at that, they would have said, ``Yeah, that's 
absolutely consistent with what we are trying to do.'' But they have 
not demonstrated any degree of seriousness about this issue.
  Everybody has talked about the gentleman from Texas' two-thirds and 
three-fourths, his equations. I want everybody to stay with me now, 
because when you require a two-thirds majority vote to do something, 
what you are saying is, if one-third objects, you cannot do it. So 
everybody has talked about this powerful supermajority. What my 
colleagues need to understand is that we are setting up, not a powerful 
supermajority, what we are doing is setting up a powerful superminority 
which will control the process. It will be one-third of the people in 
this House who will be in control of it. It will not be the two-thirds. 
It will not even be the majority rule. And if that is not 
countermajoritarian, if that is not counterdemocratic, I do not know 
what is.
  We do not require a two-thirds majority to declare war. If the 
President came over here and said, please declare war on Kosovo, as he 
should under the Constitution--the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) and I agree on that--it would not require a two-thirds vote. 
And somehow or another this majority wants to elevate the questions 
about taxation to some higher pedestal even than a declaration of war. 
And so really what you are talking about is giving one-third of the 
people in this House the ability to bring the process to a halt.
  I will tell you what that does to my constituency. If I am in the 
two-thirds or not in the one-third, and I want to get something done, 
what you have said to my constituency is, you are less important than 
that one-third minority over there, because they are controlling the 
agenda. That is not my definition of democracy, my colleagues. We can 
talk all day today about how this is about taxation and whether we are 
paying too much in taxes. I have conceded that. I mean, I do not like 
to pay taxes any more than anybody else. And my constituents do not 
like it any more than anybody else's. But I will tell you that every 
American citizen is entitled to the same representation in this body. 
And any time you create a supermajority and thereby create a super-
superminority that can control the agenda of this House and the agenda 
of this country, you have deprived American citizens of their equal 
representation in the process.
  So it is tax day. You can talk and make it sound like this is about 
taxation, but it is about basic fairness. It is about democracy. It is 
about who has the authority to rule. And in my democracy, that is 50 
percent of the representatives and 50 percent of the people plus one.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the distinguished cosponsor 
of the amendment who has worked long and hard with me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 
6 minutes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by responding to a series of the arguments 
that have been made on the other side, and I suppose the one that I am 
tempted to respond to first is the one we heard repeatedly on the other 
side, that this is not a serious debate or a serious initiative. I have 
put 5 years into my fight for this legislation, I have worked shoulder 
to shoulder with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and let me 
assure my colleagues on behalf of the taxpayers of America this is 
deadly serious. Indeed I think it is vitally important to the survival 
of the Nation.
  Now let me talk about how they say it is not serious. They say it is 
not serious because it is a gimmick because it is brought forth on 
April 15. The date is irrelevant. Would it be a gimmick if it were 
brought forward on Election Day? Would it be a gimmick if it were 
brought forth on the birthday of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
or my birthday? Would it be a gimmick if it were brought forth on 
January 1? It makes it a gimmick because it is brought forth on April 
15? I do not think so. I think it is a substantive provision which is 
appropriate to be brought forward on a time when Americans are focused 
on the tax burden in America.
  The opponents say: ``Well, it's a gimmick, and it's not serious 
because it has failed before.'' That is one of the most stunning 
arguments I have ever heard on the floor of this House. People in this 
room benefit today from changes that were fought for in this country 
over years. The Constitution itself says it can, in fact, be amended by 
a supermajority, and thank God we have in fact on many occasions 
amended it, and that is most appropriate, and none of those amendments 
have passed on the first try. So of course it has required multiple 
tries, and we will try again if it fails today.
  The opponents say: ``Well, if it was serious, they would have taken 
it to committee.'' In point of fact they know full good and well that 
it has been taken to committee. It has been taken to committee more 
than once in the past. Indeed this exact language was taken to 
committee last year. It went through subcommittee and full committee 
and was heard, and the amendment which the ranking member on the other 
side has proposed, which indeed might be a thoughtful amendment, 
limiting the rule of the courts, was not proffered when it went before 
committee last year; it was not proffered until it came to the 
Committee on Rules this year.
  Now I want to turn to another argument. My colleague the other side, 
the ranking member, has talked about de minimis and how this is a great 
legal flaw in this measure, and yet throughout this debate today we 
have heard that this is a terrible provision because it would freeze in 
stone forever and ever our current Tax Code. That argument is not 
genuine, it is not honest, because the opponents of this legislation 
know fully well that it is crafted carefully to allow tax neutral tax 
reform. Indeed the word that the gentleman questions, ``de minimis,'' 
is an attempt to say: ``Look, our goal is to make sure that if you want 
to make tax neutral tax reform; that is, tax reform that does not 
increase the tax burden on the American people, you may do so with a 
simple majority vote.'' Nothing in this measure would inhibit the 
ability to do tax neutral tax reform.
  Now let us talk about the Heritage Foundation study. We have a duel 
of studies. They have their study, we have our study. Let me just 
recite the facts of the Heritage Foundation study because I think it is 
very important. It proves that tax limitation works. As a matter of 
fact, looking at the States where it is enacted, tax limitation, in 
those States taxes go up at a slower rate, only 102 percent. Mr. 
Speaker, 102 percent is quite a bit, but only 102 percent over 12 years 
versus States which have no tax limitation; they have gone up by 112 
percent. Spending? Spending and tax limitations, gone up. It has gone 
up by 132 percent, but not by as much as spending in States without tax 
limitation. In those States it has gone up by 141 percent.
  Fundamentally and most importantly for my colleagues on the minority 
side, the job base grows more rapidly in those States with tax 
limitation. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.

[[Page 6607]]

Traficant) from the other side pointed out, if in fact there was no 
constitutional authority for an income tax when our Constitution was 
adopted and, as my friend, Mr. Traficant from the minority, pointed 
out, he believes that pretty well establishes looking at the tax 
structure then, then it would have required a two-thirds majority and 
the Founders would have supported a two-thirds majority for future tax 
increases.
  But let us talk beyond the studies; let us talk about experience. In 
my State of Arizona, when we adopted this in 1992, our economy had been 
struggling. Since then it has boomed. We have created more jobs than we 
have helped more people.
  Now the last argument and perhaps the most telling argument proffered 
by the other side is that this will create a rule of tyranny by the 
minority. Again, that argument is a fraud. We do not have, and my 
colleagues on the other side understand this and agree with it, we do 
not have the rule of simple majority in this country. We do not in this 
Nation allow majorities to run roughshod over minorities. Throughout 
our Constitution 10 different places require super majorities, but 
throughout all of the rule in law in this Nation we prohibit majorities 
from imposing their will unfairly on minorities. Our Constitution 
protects minorities, as well it should, and that is what this measure 
says.
  But it is interesting. They say do not enact a supermajority 
requirement for tax increases, and what they imply is that we will 
require a supermajority to ever adopt any tax. But this is not being 
offered any point in time when there are no taxes in America, it is not 
being offered at a time when we will repeal every tax and say we will 
only pass any new taxes. We will have no tax in America without a 
supermajority to impose any taxes.
  That is not the situation. What this measure says is we have a very 
heavy tax burden today. It consumes 20 percent of the gross domestic 
product, and before we raise it yet one more time, before we increase 
it to 25, or 30, or 35, or 40 percent, or 50 or 60 percent, we ought to 
have a broad consensus.
  I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 37. We need a tax 
limitation amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are again. For the 4th year in 
a row--the majority will take the House through the motions of 
attempting to pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring two-thirds 
supermajority of the House and Senate in order to pass a tax cut.
  Today is the Republican equivalent of Ground Hog Day. Each year at 
this time the Republican leadership comes out of its hole, sees its 
shadow, and dusts off this proposed Constitutional Amendment that 
essentially says, ``stop us before we tax again!''
  I said the majority is taking us through the motions because this is 
the same bill they've brought to the Floor in 1996, 1997 and 1998. Each 
time, the bill goes down to defeat. The majority knows it won't pass 
again today, but they can't help themselves.
  The irony here is that there is actually broad support on both sides 
of the aisle for cutting taxes, not raising them. There is some 
difference of opinion on who's taxes should be cut. I would argue that 
the lion's share of any tax relief should be targeted to working 
American families and not the very rich. The other key debate concerns 
Social Security and Medicare. In my view, it is simply irresponsible to 
move ahead with a $778 billion tax cut before taking action to assure 
the long-term financial health of Social Security and Medicare. The 
budget surplus gives us a unique opportunity to address these programs. 
We should save the entire surplus until we've taken care of Social 
Security and Medicare.
  I urge the House to reject this ill-conceived effort to tamper with 
the Constitution. Instead of wasting more time debating bills that all 
of us know will never pass, we should roll up our sleeves and get to 
work on saving Social Security and Medicare. Then we can take up tax 
relief for working American families.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Tax 
Limitation Amendment that Representative Barton has introduced. This 
amendment protects every American citizen. It protects them by making 
it more difficult for Congress to increase taxes on their hard earned 
money--and, indeed, it is there money that Congress is charged with 
allocating and protecting. It should not be easy for Congress to pass a 
tax increase that will drastically affect American families. Americans 
work hard for the money that they earn. It is not easy to be a working 
mother or father. It is not easy to be the head of a household working 
two jobs to make ends meet. It is not easy for families to watch up to 
40 percent of their hard-earned money taken out of their paychecks and 
sent to the Federal, State and Local governments. And it should not be 
easy for Congress to increase the tax burden on Americans.
  The Tax Limitation Amendment is a common sense piece of legislation. 
There are 14 states, including the state of Florida, which I represent, 
that have enacted legislation similar to the proposed amendment which 
would require a two-thirds majority vote to raise taxes. Congress 
should not automatically look to tax hikes to raise revenue for 
government operations. Just as American taxpayers must show restraint 
in their spending in order to live within their means, Congress must do 
the same.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the tax 
limitation amendment. Never before has the need for this amendment been 
more obvious. Let me touch on a few well-known numbers. The typical 
American family pays 38 percent of its income in taxes. This is more 
than it pays for food, clothing or shelter. Not since World War II has 
the tax burden on American workers been so high. At the start of this 
century, Federal, State, and local taxes combined comprised only 8 
percent of Americans' income. At the start of this century, Federal, 
State, and local taxes combined comprised only 8 percent of Americans' 
income.
  Despite the fact taxes are at a peace-time high, the Clinton-Gore 
administration's new budget--which the House and Senate soundly 
rejected--called for $175 billion in new taxes and fees.
  With the Federal budget surplus projected at $4.9 trillion over the 
next 15 years, I can't imagine why anyone would want to raise our 
taxes, but the administration does.
  The temptation to raise a tax here and raise a tax there even in 
years of surplus and prosperity is just too much. They can't resist. 
This House is the first line resistance to further skyrocketing of 
taxes that have soared sharply this past century. We must hold the 
line. We must help our successors hold the line. We owe it to working 
American families, the single moms and dads, struggling under a tax 
burden that has nearly quadrupled in this century to hold the line on 
taxes. Not just today, when the concept of a tax increase is ludicrous, 
but for years to come.
  The most meaningful way we can do that is by passing the Tax 
Limitation Amendment today. This amendment does not prohibit tax 
increases in some future years should an urgent need arise. Though, 
after 5 years of common-sense Republican leadership, our budget and 
revenues are in such great shape that it's hard to imagine such a day.
  But the amendment does require that the need be so clear and so 
compelling that two-thirds of each House must vote for the tax 
increase. This amendment is simple, practical and urgently needed. It 
is an outrage to have working families struggling under an already 
weighty burden to be weighted down further by an unnecessary tax 
increase that passes by a handful of votes in a last-minute partisan 
push. We saw that in 1992. We have seen since how unnecessary that tax 
increase was. But we are still fighting to roll that tax increase back.
  As high as people's taxes get, and as big as the Government gets, the 
truth is that some people in Washington never think that it's enough. 
They believe that Government has the right to take as much of a working 
American's money as it wants to take and to spend it however it wants 
to spend it.
  I don't share that attitude. The American people work hard for their 
money. They deserve to keep more of it--not less. I believe the tax 
burden on working Americans should only be increased when the need is 
so urgent, clear and compelling that two-thirds of the House and Senate 
will vote for such an increase. An increase under any other 
circumstances is an affront and outrage to the American people.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to stand in support of H.J. 
Res. 37, which will make it more difficult to raise taxes. It is time 
Congress puts a stop to the raid on the pocket books of American 
citizens.
  H.J. Res. 37 will require a two-thirds supermajority vote in the 
House and Senate for any net tax increase. This is not a new concept. 
Fourteen states already require a supermajority in their state 
legislatures to raise the tax burden on their citizens. It's a simple 
equation, when taxes are limited, big government spending remains low 
and economies flourish.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans already send an average of 38 percent of their 
income back to the government in taxes. This is more than

[[Page 6608]]

families pay for food, clothing, and shelter combined! Last year, 
federal taxes consumed 20.5 percent of GNP. This number will only keep 
increasing unless we put a stop to it.
  While our country is experiencing a projected budget surplus of over 
$4 trillion for the next 15 years, the President wants to waste this 
surplus and continue to raise taxes by $108 billion. this spending 
mentality explains why federal income taxes have grown by more than 70 
percent during the Clinton-Gore administration. Any surplus is nothing 
more than an overpayment to Washington by America's taxpayers and we 
should give it back.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm tired of Washington dipping their hands into the 
pocket of American taxpayers. This legislation will keep the hard-
earned money of American citizens out of the hands of Washington 
politicians who want to continue to raise taxes for big government 
programs.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution.
  The framers of our Constitution recognized that certain key 
questions--such as treaty ratification, conviction in impeachment 
trials, or expulsion of a member on Congress--demand more than the 
customary majority.
  But with regard to the normal operations of the government, they 
provided--in all cases--for a simple majority vote.
  They made no exception for taxation. Pause and reflect: they made no 
exception even for declarations of war.
  What the framers feared was that a supermajority requirement would 
give special interests a veto over the political process.
  As James Madison wrote, ``It would be no longer the majority that 
would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. . . . [A]n 
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.''
  Madison could have been describing the very amendment before us 
today. It would give a veto over revenue bills to a minority of members 
of either House. It would enable Members of Congress representing one-
third of the population--or Senators chosen by one-tenth of the 
population--to block tax measures supported by the vast majority of 
Americans. It would give those minorities enormous leverage in an 
emergency to extract concessions in exchange for their support.
  The resolution pays lip service to this concern by allowing the two-
thirds requirement to be waived in the event of war. Yet what about 
other perilous circumstances? Such as hurricanes, floods, terrorist 
attacks or other localized disasters? A severe economic crisis or a 
breakdown in the financial system itself? For these emergencies, the 
resolution makes no exception. Furthermore, it would make it virtually 
impossible to eliminate corporate subsidies and other loopholes in the 
tax system.
  The proponents of the resolution are content to live with those 
consequences. Two years ago, they rejected a series of amendments in 
committee that would have addressed at least some of those concerns. 
This year, in their haste, they didn't even bother with the committee, 
but have brought the resolution directly to the floor.
  The proponents of the resolution also seem determined to repeat their 
past mistakes. I was not a member of Congress when the current majority 
took control in 1995, but I understand the House adopted a rule at that 
time requiring a three-fifths majority to raise taxes. Unfortunately, 
having created this rule, the majority found it impossible to govern in 
accordance with it, and it was repeatedly waived or ignored.
  Today that same majority invites us to graft this failed motion onto 
the Constitution of the United States--where it cannot be waived or 
ignored. This is an invitation that we should and must decline.
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in 
support of House Joint Resolution 37, the ``Tax Limitation Amendment.'' 
The question is--How hard should it be for government to take someone 
else's hard-earned money? We know it is very easy for government to 
spend the money it has taken, but how hard should it be to take an 
American worker's money?
  I think it should be very difficult. We should be absolutely sure 
before allowing the government to take money someone else has earned by 
their hard work and sweat. I do not know if a two-thirds vote of 
Congress should be enough to take an American worker's money, but I 
strongly support it as a minimum requirement.
  Just look at the growth of Federal taxes: Families paid just 5 
percent of income in Federal taxes in 1934. Today, the average family 
pays over 20 percent of its income in Federal taxes; That is the 
highest peacetime rate ever and the highest overall rate since WW II; 
18 of the last 19 Democrat controlled Congresses passed tax hikes, 
including the $241 billion hike in 1993; Just during the Clinton 
Administration taxes have grown by over 54 percent, from $1.154 
trillion in 1993 to $1.784 trillion in 1999; State and local income 
taxes are increasing at the same time so that Federal, State, and local 
taxation is a record 32 percent of national income.
  The Founding Fathers created a Republic, instead of a pure Democracy, 
to protect citizens' basic rights from the ``Tyranny of the Majority.'' 
I believe it is a basic right to keep what you have earned, and I 
believe it should take more than 51 percent of Congress to take money 
from 100 percent of Americans. I encourage each of my colleagues to 
support the ``Tax Limitation Amendment.''
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for 
the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment.
  I applaud my colleagues--Representatives Barton, Shadegg, Goode, and 
Ralph Hall--for their perseverance in offering this important 
bipartisan legislation once again. The Tax Limitation Constitutional 
Amendment (House Joint Resolution 37) would amend the Constitution to 
require a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress for 
passage of legislation that would result in any significant tax 
increase. This supermajority vote requirement would mean that only true 
national emergencies would be an excuse for raising even higher the tax 
burden on all Americans.
  Now that the Republican-inspired Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has led 
to the prospect of increasing budget surpluses in the years ahead, it 
is time to return tax dollars--in excess of Social Security receipts--
to the taxpayers who are responsible for the present tax overpayment. 
Every year around Tax Day my desk is covered with letters and phone 
messages from constituents who want tax relief--in the form of lower 
taxes and a simplified tax code. Since my first election to Congress, I 
have eagerly worked with my colleagues to enact tax relief for 
individuals and small businesses.
  Conversely, I have supported initiatives--like the Tax Limitation 
Constitutional Amendment--to insure that Federal taxes are not 
increased. The last thing our citizens and economy need is another 
round of tax increases like $108 billion which President Clinton 
proposed in his fiscal year 2000 budget.
  It is urgent that we lock into place the discipline we need to 
maintain a balanced Federal budget and the opportunity for tax relief 
for our citizens. I call on my colleagues to join me in guaranteeing 
the American people that we will block the pro-tax crowd in Washington, 
D.C., through this amendment. Please vote for H.J. Res. 37.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the validation of this conference report, which includes in it the 
details of the Budget Resolution passed just a few weeks ago by the 
Republicans.
  At that time I spoke vigorously against the Budget Resolution because 
I felt it shortchanged the American people. Also at that time, I spoke 
in favor of the Democratic Budget, offered by Ranking Member Spratt 
because it was a responsible budget done right. Thereafter, when this 
resolution once again came before us as it was sent to conference, I 
supported Ranking Member Spratt's motion to instruct the conferees to 
hold off on their submission of the report until we had passed 
legislation addressing the concerns of our party, and of most 
Americans--in this case, preserving and extending the life of Social 
Security and Medicare. I go over this litany of details not to open old 
wounds, but rather to demonstrate and testify to the American people 
that the Republicans have had multiple opportunities to save Social 
Security and Medicare--and each time they turned away.
  As I vote to strike down this report, I do so only with the well-
being of our constituents in mind. I know that we should be approving a 
budget that protects the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds by 
putting money back into those accounts. It should be a budget that will 
maintain our current Social Security and Medicare benefits, and extend 
their lives until decades from now, so that all Americans will be able 
to take advantage of them. This is especially true for women, because 
due to their longer life expectancy, they must rely on Social Security 
and Medicare longer than must most men.
  I know that we should be appropriating the proper resources to 
modernize, and some would say revitalize, our public schools. This 
budget does the opposite; in fact, it reduces our domestic spending on 
programs that protect the interest of our children. This budget 
jeopardizes the well being of successful programs by taking $425 
million from WIC, and $501 million from Head Start. Nevertheless, in 
this budget most of that money--$800 million of it--goes instead to tax 
cuts for the wealthy.
  I know that what we should be doing at this time is authorizing a 
budget that will protect

[[Page 6609]]

America's families. It should be a budget that fully funds the Summer 
Youth Employment Program, which is cut by over $90 million. It could be 
a budget that saves the Community Development Block Grant Program the 
indignity of a $50 million cut.
  This budget could be more, it could address the needs of our 
veterans. We could have and should have passed the Spratt Amendment, 
which would have added an additional $9 billion for veterans programs. 
We should be voting to pass a budget that fully funds LIHEAP, which 
provides for necessary heating and cooling for low-income families in 
times of extreme weather. LIHEAP literally saved lives in my district 
last summer, and I intend to do what I can to ensure that it is fully 
funded every year that I serve in Congress.
  I had hoped that during conference, that we would have seen drastic 
improvements in this resolution, improvements that could have been done 
in a bipartisan and responsible manner. I had hoped that my colleagues 
across the aisle could be more persuaded by the dedication of 
Congressmen Spratt and McDermott. I desperately wanted to take home to 
my district a budget that respected our children, our families, our 
veterans, and our elderly--and I still hope to do so.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference 
report, and instead work with us to forge a new budget that will grow 
America into the 21st century.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in principled opposition 
to House Joint Resolution 37, 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 increases. However, as a matter of 
principle and conscience, this Member cannot do that.
  As this Member stated when a similar amendment was considered by the 
House in the past, there is a great burden of proof to 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 is consistent or complementary to this important 
principle.
  There should be no question of this Member's continued and 
enthusiastic support for a balanced budget and a constitutional 
amendment requiring such a balanced budget. In my judgment, tax 
increases should not be employed to achieve a balanced budget; balanced 
budgets should be achieved by economic growth and, as appropriate, tax 
cuts. That is why this Member in the past has supported the inclusion 
of a supermajority requirement for tax increases in the rules of the 
House. However, to go beyond that and amend the Constitution is, in 
this Member's opinion, inappropriate and, therefore, the reason why 
this Member will vote against House Joint Resolution 37.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). All time for debate having 
expired, and there being no amendment offered, pursuant to House 
Resolution 139, the previous question is ordered on the joint 
resolution.
  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 passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 199, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 90]

                               YEAS--229

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Dicks
     Hastings (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Waxman

                              {time}  1528

  So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof), the joint 
resolution was not passed.

[[Page 6610]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  House Resolution 140 was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 90, I inadvertently pressed 
the ``nay'' button. I obviously meant to vote ``aye'' to require a two-
third vote by the Congress to raise taxes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to responsibilities in my 
congressional district that today I was unable to vote on H.J. Res. 37, 
the Tax Limitation Amendment. If I were able to vote today I would have 
cast my vote in support of H.J. Res. 37. As a cosponsor of the Tax 
Limitation Amendment, I strongly support its attempt to make it more 
difficult for Congress to raise taxes. We in Washington should be 
working to cut taxes, not raise them, and passage of the Tax Limitation 
Amendment is a step in the right direction in our efforts to allow more 
Americans to keep more of their own hard-earned money. In conclusion, I 
wholeheartedly support H.J. Res. 37 and urge its passage.

                          ____________________