[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 5417]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 471 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 471

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 94) proposing an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States with respect to tax 
     limitations. The joint resolution shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the joint resolution and any amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two 
     hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; (2) an amendment printed in the Congressional 
     Record pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee, which shall be considered as 
     read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 
the distinguished ranking member of 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.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 471 is a structured rule providing for 
the consideration of H.J. Res. 94, proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations. The 
rule provides for 2 hours of debate in the House equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary. The rule provides for one amendment printed in the 
Congressional Record if offered by the minority leader or his designee 
which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. 
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, with tax day arriving at the end of this week, there is 
certainly no better time for the House to consider this important 
constitutional amendment. The tax limitation amendment starts from this 
very simple premise that it should be harder, not easier, for 
government to raise taxes. The average American pays more in taxes than 
it does in food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. For 
too long, the tax burden imposed by the Government has been going up, 
not going down. I am very, very proud to sponsor this constitutional 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will allow the House to begin 
debate on one of the most serious matters to be considered by this 
House, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. When our 
Founding Fathers met more than 200 years ago to draft what became the 
Constitution of the United States, there was agreement on what problems 
our Nation faced and our Constitution was drafted to address these 
problems.
  In many instances, they wrote specific language protecting people 
from what at times could be an oppressive, intrusive, or overbearing 
Federal Government. They protected bedrock foundations to our liberty 
and freedom, such as life, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech 
and freedom of religion. Just as importantly, the Founding Fathers 
required certain actions and laws passed by Congress to obtain a 
supermajority vote, not just a simple majority because they foresaw 
that the people must overwhelmingly support some action.
  Our Founding Fathers were so insightful and ingenious in their 
preparation of the Constitution that they enlisted within our system of 
checks and balances a Constitution which would clearly enumerate 
occasions where a supermajority would be appropriate as a guardian of 
the people. A vote of two-thirds of both houses, for example, is 
required to override a presidential veto. A two-thirds vote of the 
Senate is required to approve treaties or to convict an impeached 
Federal official.
  But a two-thirds vote in Congress is not yet required for raising 
taxes. In my view, our Founding Fathers would recognize that under the 
current system there is an inherent bias towards raising taxes and 
might have supported this constitutional amendment.

                              {time}  1030

  There has long been a bias towards raising taxes under the current 
system. Spending benefits are targeted at specific groups. These 
special interests successfully lobby Congress and the President for 
more and more spending. Taxes, on the other hand, are spread among 
millions of people. Taxpayers usually cannot come together as 
efficiently as a special interest group with a specific appropriation 
in mind.
  As Congress seeks to keep the budget in balance, yet spending has 
still remained high, the easiest answer always for Congress is simply 
to raise taxes.
  The Federal budget is currently in balance, in part due to spending 
constraints by Congress, as well as hard work and global-leading 
productivity of American workers, but short economic downturns can be 
expected. Future Congresses may not be as fiscally responsible and 
return to the ways of deficit spending.
  The easy answer then is to raise taxes.
  Making it more difficult to raise taxes balances the options 
available to Congress and makes decisions on the size of government. It 
is critical that this balance be achieved. By requiring a supermajority 
to raise taxes, an incentive for government agencies would be created 
to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and to create efficiency rather 
than simply turning to more deficit spending or to increase taxes.
  It is important to remember that there was no Federal income tax when 
our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution. Not until 1913 was the 
16th amendment of the Constitution passed to allow Congress to tax the 
American people. The first tax ranged from 1 to 7 percent and only 
applied to the wealthiest Americans. Today, some taxes are collected by 
the Federal Government at a 50 percent rate.
  Medieval serfs gave 30 percent of their output to the lord of the 
manor. Egyptian peasants gave 20 percent of their toils in their fields 
to the Pharaoh. God only required 10 percent from the people of Israel. 
Yet in America, Federal, State and local taxes eat up many times in 
excess of 40 percent of the average American's income.
  The burden of tax rates is not only too high, but that is only half 
the story. As tax rates have increased, the heavy hand of the tax 
collecting branch of our government has been strengthened. It has been 
determined by our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey), that our Federal income tax collection agency, the Internal 
Revenue Service, sends out more than 8 billion pages of forms and 
instructions each year. Our Federal income tax collection agency is 
twice as big as the CIA and five times bigger than the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation.
  No other institution poses such a threat to liberty than the Internal 
Revenue Service and our Tax Code, and this is all as a consequence that 
tax rates are too high and the Tax Code is too complex.
  A constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes 
would help alleviate some of this misfortune. Thomas Jefferson once 
wrote, ``The God who gave us life gave us liberty.''
  I imagine that Thomas Jefferson never envisioned such an intrusive 
agency as the IRS. Today, unfortunately, the reality is the IRS is a 
prevalent part of our daily lives, particularly this week with the 
April 15 tax deadline fast approaching.
  Every year, Americans are taxed for billions and billions of dollars. 
Sometimes these taxes that are passed are retroactively done so. 
Sometimes they are passed from generation to generation and sometimes 
they are forced upon us even after death by the Federal Government.
  So today, Mr. Speaker, I stand before my colleagues with a bipartisan 
coalition to put forth to the States a question of liberty. Will we 
make it harder for Congress to raise taxes on its citizens? Will we 
require a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress to pass a tax 
increase on to working Americans and children? Will we pass this 
amendment to the Constitution and require a supermajority, not just a 
simple majority to raise taxes?
  This amendment will apply to all tax increases from the Federal 
Government, not just tax hikes. A two-thirds vote requirement would 
allow Congress to raise taxes in time of war or national emergency, but 
would simultaneously prevent the intrusive and penalizing tax increases 
that have been enacted with recklessness to fund government expansion 
over the last decades.
  As we speak, several States of this great Union, including Arizona, 
California, Florida and Missouri, have adopted measures requiring that 
any tax increase by their legislature pass by a two-thirds majority. It 
is time that the Federal Government joins these States in listening to 
the voice of the American people. It should be harder to raise taxes. 
Had this amendment been adopted sooner, the four largest tax increases 
since 1980, in 1982, 1983, 1990 and 1993 all would have failed. That 
tax increase in 1993 was the largest tax increase in American history 
and it passed just by one vote. These tax increases totaled $666 
billion to the American taxpayer.
  The bottom line of this debate, Mr. Speaker, is that we should make 
it more difficult to raise taxes on the American people. Those that 
oppose it will do so because they want to make it easier to raise taxes 
on the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the defining issue. Those Members who support 
this amendment are here to support the taxpayers of America. Those 
Members who oppose it today are here to defend the tax collectors of 
America. It is really that simple.
  We hear rhetoric from opponents of this legislation citing 
jurisdiction, procedure, and a slew of other glossary terms but nothing 
can hide the reality that America and all taxpayers support a two-
thirds tax limitation because they want to make it more difficult to 
raise taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, like many Members of this body I not only oppose raising 
taxes, I support making our Tax Code fairer, simpler, and flatter. The 
tax limitation amendment allows for tax reform and it provides that any 
tax reform is revenue neutral or provides a net tax cut. Also, any 
fundamental tax reform which would have the overall effect of lowering 
taxes could also still pass with a simple majority.
  The tax limitation amendment also allows for a simple majority vote 
to eliminate tax loopholes. The de minimis exemption would allow nearly 
all loopholes to be closed without the supermajority requirement.
  We may hear from opponents today, those who will be saying to make it 
more difficult to raise taxes that the Government would be unable to 
function if a supermajority is required. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would 
encourage Members to look back at their States. Fourteen States require 
a supermajority to raise taxes. Millions of Americans living in these 
States have enjoyed slower growth in taxes, slower growth in government 
spending, faster growing economies, and lower unemployment rates. Tax 
limitation can bring to all Americans those things that are benefits 
that are enjoyed by those living in tax limitation States.
  This amendment protects the American people. It makes it harder for 
the Federal Government to raise taxes on its citizens and that is why I 
am here today.
  Today we can take one step closer to regaining liberty and ensuring 
future generations the freedom of our Founding Fathers intended for all 
Americans to enjoy. This debate is about liberty. This debate is about 
requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes on America.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would remind my colleagues that this is a 
fair rule adopted by a voice vote yesterday in the Committee on Rules. 
It is the standard rule under which this proposal has been considered 
for years in the past. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, my friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for yielding me the customary half 
hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today marks the fifth year in a row that my Republican 
colleagues have dusted off this old same constitutional amendment just 
in time for tax day. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we will 
probably mark the fifth year in a row that this amendment fails to 
garner the required two-thirds vote.
  So why do my Republican colleagues continue to bring up this 
resolution year after year after year? They do not even bother to bring 
it to their own Committee on the Judiciary. I am glad that my friend, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), spoke so long and explained it 
because this is the only debate we are going to have on the bill. It 
did not go before the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Imagine amending the Constitution of the United States of America 
without one hearing before the basic committee in the Congress that 
would deal with that, the Committee on the Judiciary?
  Well, here we go again. Mr. Speaker, if my Republican colleagues were 
serious they would fine-tune this amendment in a congressional 
committee. They would have hearings. They would mark it up, but this 
resolution has not been to the Committee on the Judiciary. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, I will let my colleagues in on a little secret. This bill was 
just introduced last Thursday. The ink is still wet.
  Given that the amendment is destined to fail again this year, as it 
does every year, it would seem that it is being offered not to effect 
change but really to affect the evening news, because even when my 
Republican colleagues had a chance to practice the preachings of this 
amendment, they did not.
  We may recall at the beginning of the 104th Congress, my Republican 
colleagues changed the House rules to require a two-thirds majority for 
every tax increase. Mr. Speaker, guess what? Every time it came up, 
every time they have this tax increase, they waive the rule. I would 
say, Mr. Speaker, that if a rule is not to be obeyed in the House of 
Representatives that surely it is not worthy of being an amendment to 
the United States Constitution.
  Back in the 1780s under the Articles of Confederation, the United 
States tried a supermajority. It did not work then. It will not work 
now.
  The foundation of a supermajority is a mistrust, a mistrust of the 
ability of the majority of American people to govern; and I for one 
think that that mistrust is misplaced. Because of that mistrust, Mr. 
Speaker, a supermajority changes the very foundations of our government 
from a majority-run institution to a minority-run institution, and that 
is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
  In the Federalist Papers No. 58, James Madison argued against 
supermajorities. Under a supermajority, he said, the fundamental 
principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer 
the majority that would rule. The power would be transferred to the 
minority.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if this tax amendment were to pass, it 
would help the rich and hurt the middle- and lower-income people. Rich 
Americans get most of their government benefits in the form of tax 
breaks. The rest of the country gets their government benefits in the 
form of Social Security, Medicare, student loans, and unemployment 
insurance. This amendment would make it much harder to close those tax 
loopholes for the very rich, and make it necessary to cut the benefits 
for everyone else.
  Mr. Speaker, it would also make it much harder to strengthen Social 
Security, make it much harder to strengthen Medicare. In fact, it could 
even have the effect of reducing Social Security benefits.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, it would shackle our government to the tax 
laws in effect today, with very little hope of changing them in the 
future. Whether for better or for worse and like so many of my 
Republican colleagues' proposals, the rich come out way ahead and 
everybody else pays the price.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment was a bad idea 5 years ago. This was a 
bad idea 4 years ago. This was a bad idea 3 years ago. This was a bad 
idea 2 years ago; and, Mr. Speaker, it is a bad idea today.

                              {time}  1045

  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this annual tax day Valentine, this 
sloppy assault on our Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really not surprised for us to be debating in this 
manner that what we are doing does not make sense, it is unnecessary, 
it is unwise, no one would be in favor of making it harder to raise 
taxes. It is bad for America, it is all for the rich. Well, in fact, 
the reason why we are standing up today is for the exact people that we 
have talked about that the minority says is bad for them.
  There is a power model in this same vein that was followed and begun 
some 30 years ago. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) from the 
Seventh District of Texas, now the chairman of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, when he came to Congress 30 years ago, the first bill that 
he dropped as a Member of Congress said that he would like to raise the 
earnings limit that was placed on senior citizens. For 25 years, he was 
not only called names and made fun of, but Members of the other side 
made sure that they said that is not necessary, it is for rich people. 
In fact, it was for the senior citizens of this country.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) became the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman from Texas then held the 
first hearings that were necessary to begin the dialogue and the 
debate. Then this senior earnings limit began appearing on the floor of 
the House of Representatives because Republicans knew that it was 
important to senior citizens; and beyond that, it was simply fair and 
the right thing to do.
  Several times, it was voted on on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. Our friends on the other side had an opportunity every 
time to vote against senior citizens in lifting this earnings limit.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, what happened then is, because of efforts by the 
Republican Party where we quit spending every single penny of Social 
Security, the surplus, and we started putting it back into Social 
Security, my friends on the other side of the aisle began feeling a 
little bit queasy about who was making progress with the American 
taxpayer; in this case, it was the senior citizen of America.
  Just 3 weeks ago, this House of Representatives passed 422 to 
nothing, unanimously in the Senate, that we would lift the earnings 
limit. The President of the United States signed this into law after 
vetoing this several times. The President said, boy, he wished we could 
have done more, could have done more for senior citizens, but not 
everybody is for making the same kind of progress. He recognized that 
there are honest differences on both sides of the aisle. Yes, we 
understand that honesty. We understand those honest differences today.
  Today we are now in our 10th year of what may be a 30-year effort to 
make it harder to raise taxes. As usual, one side is going to be 
supportive of this, by and large, and the other side is going to drag 
their heels. But we are not going to be frustrated. We are not going to 
worry about what the rhetoric is. We are going to continue to stand up 
on the side of the taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Stratford, 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my colleague and assistant Majority Whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for the time to speak in favor of this rule and for bringing 
this, and I also want to thank him for bringing this important issue to 
the floor of the House.
  We have a chance today to cast a vote for the future. Two-thirds 
simple majority is, in fact, reserved for the most important of issues, 
including amending the Constitution, ratifying treaties in the Senate. 
The founders understood that the two-thirds majority was appropriate 
majority on those kinds of issues.
  I am confident that this standard of importance would have been used 
to decide other things if there had been any perception of what those 
other things might have been.
  There were issues that James Madison and others thought were 
important enough for a supermajority. If they had any idea of what the 
tax burden on American families would be today, this would have been 
one of those issues in that Philadelphia summer of 1787.
  A two-thirds simple majority standard would guarantee that there was 
a consensus among Members of both parties that increasing taxes was a 
necessity. This bill has gone through the committee process over and 
over again. It was just pointed out by the other side that this same 
legislation has been rejected by the House a number of times. Well, to 
be rejected by the House a number of times, it had to get to the House 
floor a number of times. It is the same bill that went through that 
committee process in the last Congress.
  Today is the time to cast this vote. Today is the time to vote on 
this issue. I am grateful that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) 
in the Committee on Rules and the other committees have brought it to 
the floor today as they have.
  By making it more difficult for Congress to endlessly reach into the 
pockets of working Americans, a two-thirds simple majority would 
require Members to be more careful in the dollars they spend. We should 
spend every dollar taken from American families with the utmost care, 
making it harder for this Congress and more likely for future 
Congresses to take that money, makes it more likely it will be spent 
with greater care, be more treasured as it comes here because it is 
coming right from working families.
  In the 14 States which have implemented tax limitation standards, 
taxes and spending grew at a slower rate, while the economy and jobs 
grew at a faster rate than in the other States. That, Mr. Speaker, is 
not by accident.
  Although the economy is presently strong, Federal taxes are still the 
highest they have been since World War II. The entire tax burden is the 
highest it has been in the history of the country. It is important to 
compliment this strong economic standard today by dealing with the 
future of taxes in America as this bill does.
  The most recent States to pass tax limitation measures have done so 
with overwhelming voter approval. They would have met the two-thirds 
requirement because they met requirements of over 70 percent of their 
voters saying we want to see tax limits in our State.
  Again, States with tax limitation supermajorities are adding economic 
opportunity at a rate faster than the other States. Job creators 
understand the stability that tax limitation brings to the economy. Mr. 
Speaker, the Members of the House today have an opportunity to show 
that we understand the importance of tax limitation for America's 
economy and the importance of tax limitation for America's families.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support the 
bill, to make a stand for American families today and to make a stand 
for the future of America by putting this new supermajority requirement 
on the books and in the Constitution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for his engagement in this issue on the 
rule. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 471, I 
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 94) proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitation, 
and for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 471, the joint resolution is considered read for amendment.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 471 is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 94

       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 2 hours of debate on the joint 
resolution, it shall be in order to consider an amendment printed in 
the Congressional Record, 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 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 1 hour of debate on the 
joint resolution.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and ask unanimous consent that he 
be permitted to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough) from the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me the 
time, and I would like to move into general debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today I stand before my colleagues to 
support this bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for allowing me to speak on this measure and for introducing 
this piece of critical legislation and bringing it before this body 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, America needs this tax limitation amendment. Why? Well, 
this year, millions of Americans, hardworking, tax-paying Americans 
will be plagued by ``intaxication.'' What is intaxication? Well, if it 
were in the dictionary, intaxication would be defined by a euphoria 
experienced by getting a tax refund, well, a euphoria which lasts only 
until one realizes that it was one's money to start with.
  This Congress has a duty to make it harder to raise taxes while 
ensuring a more responsible Federal budget. Why? Because we owe that 
type of accountability, we owe that responsibility to the hardworking 
American taxpayer when we take their money.
  Let me give my colleagues a little history in my own State of Nevada. 
In 1994, I helped bring Nevada into the 21st Century with its own tax 
limitation amendment requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote. Why was 
that necessary? Because the left-wing liberal Democrats in the House in 
Nevada would not allow for an amendment to be passed, like they are 
doing here in this body. As a result, true democracy had to take its 
course.
  I was required to go out and get 85,000 signatures from the people 
and citizens of the State of Nevada to bring that measure to a ballot 
where the citizens of Nevada could vote on it. The real democracy, Mr. 
Speaker, that bill, that legislation passed in Nevada by an 
overwhelming majority of the voters. In 1994, it received 78 percent of 
the vote. In 1996, it received 71 percent of the vote as an amendment 
to the Nevada Constitution, requiring a two-thirds supermajority to 
increase any State tax or fees.
  The Federal Government needs to be put on the same fat-free diet that 
my home State of Nevada has been on since 1996. We need to make it more 
difficult to raise taxes on hardworking American men and women, and we 
need to shift congressional focus to the bloated spending programs of 
the Federal bureaucracy rather than paying attention to the pockets of 
the American taxpayers.
  Passage of this legislation would ensure that Congress focuses its 
efforts to balance the budget, cut wasteful spending, and not raise 
taxes to create unneeded Federal revenue.
  Anyone who takes a close look at those States that have this same 
type of supermajority restriction on raising taxes will find that those 
States have experienced faster growing economies, a more rapid increase 
in employment, lower taxes, and reduced growth in government spending.
  No additional financial burdens should be placed on America's working 
family without an overwhelming demonstration of need and support of 
their elected officials before they raise taxes.
  Let us stop the intoxication of intaxication plaguing America today. 
I urge my colleagues to support this tax limitation amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of anything 
constructive for the House to do, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  To begin, Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the overwhelming majority 
of our colleagues, approximately 432 of them, for ignoring this 
exercise in partisan silliness.
  No one believes that this is anything more than a very feeble effort 
from a party that is having difficulty in presenting a program to try 
and look like it is doing something. No one thinks this is going 
anywhere.
  We are about to debate an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States. Look who is here? At this point, it is now myself and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). We are here because we have to be 
here. If one of us was not here, we would have to stop. So the barest 
minimum number of people possible to keep this farce going are 
impressed into it.
  Frankly, I am a little resentful because we are having a serious 
hearing in judiciary on the antitrust measure that I cannot be at.

                              {time}  1100

  I notice my Republican colleagues in the Judiciary, understanding 
this was coming, scripted it better; and they managed to get a 
Committee on Rules member to sit in so they could all be present at the 
hearing. The Committee on Rules presumably has nothing else to do at 
this time.
  But now let us get to the proposal. I did hear one Member as I was 
coming in announced that what we are doing now is what James Madison 
would have done if he only were as smart as we are. It is true, and it 
is an inconvenient fact, because we do, as a body, like to pay tribute 
to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers; and what we are saying here is, 
boy, the Founding Fathers really blew one. Because this is not some 
obscure issue. They knew about taxation. They knew about two-thirds.
  People make one of the least logical arguments I have ever heard, 
even in this sort of partisan silliness, when they say, well, the fact 
that the Constitution calls for two-thirds in some cases shows that it 
really should have called for two-thirds in this case. What that does 
is establish that the people who wrote the Constitution knew how to 
call for two-thirds when they thought the subject required it. They 
said, in certain cases, it takes two-thirds. They then, obviously, made 
a deliberate and conscious decision not to require two-thirds for 
taxation.
  Now, to get around that, I did hear one of my colleagues say, well, 
if James Madison knew what we knew, he would have done what we have 
done. I doubt it. The evidence that James Madison would have thought 
exactly as he would have thought seems to me quite thin. What we have, 
of course, is the inconvenient fact that James Madison, quite clearly, 
thought the opposite. The people who wrote the Constitution decided 
that it would be a majority.
  And that is, of course, a perfectly sensible thing. We happen to 
believe fundamentally that a majority of the people, as constituted, 
and remember the Senate is not that majoritarian, but a majority of 
those elected from the House on a popular basis and in the Senate on a 
State basis, make the important decisions. And all of the important 
ongoing governmental decisions are made by majorities.
  Now, what has happened is this. The Republican Party used to be a 
very majoritarian party in its rhetoric. But they have now discovered, 
to their dismay, that the majority no longer loves them as much as they 
thought. This really goes back to 1995 when they shut down the 
Government and were jeered instead of cheered. So what we now have is 
an announcement by the Republican party that we cannot trust the 
majority of the American people, as the Constitution says they should 
be represented; and for measures they do not like, they need two-
thirds.
  Now, it is also the case that the Republican Party is offering a 
procedural objection to taxes instead of a substantive one. For 
example, the last time we raised taxes, as I recall, was 1993. We did 
do some tax increases before that under Ronald Reagan and George Bush, 
but the last time we raised them was in 1993, in the first year of the 
Clinton administration. And I remember my Republican colleagues 
objecting because we were raising taxes on middle-income people.
  Now, most of the tax increases went there on people making well 
upwards of $100,000 in 1993, not middle income even by Republican 
standards; but there was an increase in the gasoline tax and they 
pointed that out. Well, we recently had a spike in gasoline prices 
because of OPEC, and I think a failure on the part of the 
administration to act initially as promptly as they should have, 
although I think they since have taken some effective action, so one 
suggestion was let us now deal with that 4.3 cent increase in the gas 
tax.
  The Republican Party had a chance to do that. Where is the bill? The 
Republican Party, having fulminated against the gasoline tax increase 
of 1993 had the ideal opportunity to come forward with a reduction in 
the gasoline tax, and a few of them talked about it. Where is the bill? 
We did get a resolution threatening OPEC that we might call them names 
if they did not do some things. I have not seen a bill to reduce that 
gasoline tax.
  The last time we raised taxes was in 1993. They will talk about how 
terrible it was, but they will not do anything about it. And the reason 
is that reality has had a very severe impact on the Republican Party 
and on their ideology. On the one hand, they denounce government; on 
the other hand, they seek opportunities to increase it.
  Now, of course, we have the military budget, the single largest part 
of the discretionary budget; and it is faith among the Republicans that 
that is too small. We need vast increases, billions and billions of 
dollars to increase the military budget. But that is not all. The 
Republican Party has gone from denouncing the notion of helping older 
people buy prescription drugs to embracing it. They say there are 
differences in how much, but they want a new program. The Republican 
Party is for a new program, which will cost government money.
  A couple of weeks ago we took a step that I approved of and that many 
Republicans approved of, and we put the Federal Government for the 
first time into the business of helping local fire departments in a 
systematic way. I am glad to do that, but it costs government money.
  My Republican governor was just down here yesterday acknowledging the 
fact that a major highway project that he and his Republican 
predecessor thought were very important to Massachusetts would cost a 
couple of billion dollars more than they thought. That will cost 
government money.
  For much of the time, my Republican colleagues join many Democratic 
colleagues in talking about increasing the budget of the National 
Institute of Health, increasing money for transportation, increasing 
money for the military, buying prescription drugs. We passed a housing 
bill last week overwhelmingly which talked about how important various 
Federal housing programs are to help people get homeownership. These 
cost money.
  So in the abstract the Republican Party wants to look like the 
antitax party. But in particular they want to spend government money, 
just as many of the rest of us do, for good purposes. So what we get, 
to resolve that contradiction, is an entirely silly effort. I should 
not say it is an effort, because no one takes it seriously. We get this 
gesture to amend the Constitution of the United States and to wrench it 
away from democracy.
  Now, this is not the first time the Republican Party has shown its 
lack of faith in the voters. We had that previously with term limits. 
What they said was, those voters, they do not understand. They cannot 
deal with elections. We have to put term limits on because they cannot 
understand it. Of course, for many Republicans the idea of term limits 
in the abstract was far more attractive than the idea of term limits in 
the particular, because among the people who will be voting for this 
constitutional amendment today to limit the electorate's ability to 
call for a tax increase will be people who will be defying their own 
pledge to limit the electorate's ability to reelect them. They have 
decided that does not work.
  So we have what is, finally, fundamentally, a notion that democracy 
is flawed; that in this country the compromises they made about 
majority rule for the Senate, for instance two Senators per State, that 
was not enough; that we have to go further and make a very drastic 
change in the basic structure of government and say that when it comes 
to deciding how much money should be spent for public purposes and how 
much for private purposes, majority rule does not work.
  Now, one last point. We hear this remarkably foolish notion that 
there is a dispute between the money that goes to the Government and 
the money that goes to the people. But all the money belongs to the 
people. The people understand, and the Republican Party has been forced 
to acknowledge it, that there are some purposes very important to the 
people that they cannot accomplish unless they do them jointly.
  A tax cut putting money in individuals' pockets does not expand 
airports. A tax cut putting money in individuals' pockets will not 
solve the problem of putting more police on the streets or aiding local 
fire departments or increasing medical research through NIH. That is, 
there are, in a civilized society, some very important purposes that 
can best be accomplished by individuals spending their own money 
personally, and that is what the market generates, and that is a good 
thing; but there are also important purposes, particularly in a complex 
urban society, that can only be done jointly. And that is why we come 
together through government to deal with the environment, to deal with 
public safety, to deal with elderly people and other people's children 
who will not themselves be able to make it.
  What this is is an announcement that democracy does not work; that 
the fundamental scheme of government adopted in 1787 in the 
Constitution is flawed; and, therefore, it has to be changed.
  Fortunately, as the dearth of Members in this Chamber shows, no one 
takes it seriously. It is a political gesture put forward by a party 
that has no substantive legislative agenda. And I guess, given that, 
this is as good a way to kill time as any.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
pointing out, in his view, how this is just wasting time and it is the 
majority party that has nothing better to do. I want the gentleman to 
know that that is an argument that we hear over and over and over and 
have heard this over and over and over. This is what we would be led to 
believe about a balanced budget; whether we would have a balanced 
budget or not. The other side simply said there is no need for a 
balanced budget. America is great. Things are headed in the right 
direction.
  Well, it was the Republican Party that brought forth not only the 
ideas but had the conviction to make sure that we would continue to 
talk about a balanced budget, even when there were people who believed 
it would never, ever happen.
  I recall Senator Fritz Hollings, who is a marvelous Senator in the 
other body, stated that if we ever had a balanced budget by the year 
2002, he would take a high dive off the top of the capitol. A high 
dive. It will never happen. There will never, ever be a balanced 
budget. That is what we were told on the other side.
  We were told about welfare reform that welfare reform should never 
happen because welfare reform would put millions of people out in the 
streets and babies and families sleeping on sidewalks. Well, lo and 
behold, we had welfare reform, and we had welfare reform Republican-
style that is so successful that even President Clinton calls it his 
own package today. Welfare reform that has led to not only changing 
behavior of people who had been on welfare for generation after 
generation, but welfare reform that has led to a 47 percent reduction 
in the amount of people who have had their hands out.
  Instead, we have found jobs available because the Republican Party 
had the presence of mind to fight those who said we would never have a 
balanced budget; we would never have an economy where we could employ 
all the people who were on welfare.
  And about IRS reform, they said, oh, there is nothing wrong with the 
IRS. The Tax Code is great. We love that. That is the Democrat Party 
mantra: no problem with America. We need to keep it the exact same way 
that we have got it today.
  Well, it was a few voices in the Republican Party, who are still 
alive and well today, and with more than enough votes to pass these 
bills, with more than enough votes to talk about our vision for 
America, that want to make it more difficult to raise taxes in America.
  Oh, my colleagues may say, the Constitution should address this. 
Well, we did not even have any tax bills; we could not even tax until 
the 16th amendment, until 1913. What happened in 1913, when we began 
taxing in America? The IRS looks entirely different than it does today.
  Why today do we need this? We need this two-thirds tax limitation 
because we need to make it more difficult to raise taxes. We, today in 
America, are at a precious time in our history. The precious time is 
that the Republican Party has made it possible as a result of the 
balanced budget, when the other side said no and it was a silly idea, 
the other side said welfare reform is a silly idea and we should never 
have it, the IRS Tax Code reform the other side said was a silly idea 
and that we should not do it. That is what has unleashed the power of 
the American energy.
  And it is called the free market system; men and women who go to work 
every day, who are making America work; and yet even today, when we 
have a surplus, our President has proposed a $96 billion tax increase 
in the year 2000. That is why we need to make sure that it requires 
two-thirds of this body and two-thirds of the Senate to say, yes, 
President Clinton and Vice President Gore, we want your ideas, we want 
to raise taxes by $96 billion.
  Well, I am sure we will hear it said over and over about what a great 
plan the President's budget is; that President Clinton has the best 
budget, great for everybody; yet not one Member of this body would even 
sponsor the President's plan. Not one person would sponsor the 
President's budget. There is a reason why. There is a reason why today 
we are on the floor of the House of Representatives to say that we need 
to make it harder to raise taxes in America.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) be allowed to control the 
time on this side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The balance of the time on the minority side 
will be controlled by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time. I associate myself with his 
remarks because he is right on target.
  I want to put a few things down on the Record. In 1899, the Director 
of the Patent Office said ``Everything that can be invented has been 
invented.''

                              {time}  1115

  In 1905, President Cleveland said, ``Sensible and responsible women 
do not want to vote in America.''
  Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society of England, said, 
``Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.''
  In 1927, Harry M. Warner, Chief of Warner Brothers Studios, said, 
``Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?''
  In 1968, an engineer at IBM said, ``As far as computer systems are 
concerned, what practical use will they really have?''
  In 1977, the chairman of Digital Equipment Corporation said, 
``There's no reason for anyone to ever want to have a computer in their 
home.''
  In 1987, the Western Union internal memo said, ``The telephone has 
just too many shortcomings. Don't give up on our system.''
  Edwin Drake said, ``People are literally going to drill in the earth 
to try and find oil?''
  The big one was Dr. Lee DeForest. He said, ``Man will never reach the 
moon. Never.''
  My colleagues, about the only thing I can say in my short speech is 
this: I tried to change the burden of proof in a civil tax case and 
required judicial consent before seizure; and I could not get it done 
for 10 years, the Democrats would not hold a hearing.
  I want to thank the Republicans for not only holding the hearings, I 
want to give my colleagues the facts. In 1998 was the IRS reform law. 
In 1997, the last year, the old law. In 1999, the first year, the new 
law.
  Now we compare them. In 1997, there were 3.1 million attachment of 
wages and bank accounts. In 1999, 540,000. Property liens in 1997, 
680,000. The new law, 1999, 168,000.
  But listen to this. The American people should be listening 
carefully. Requiring judicial consent before the IRS could take their 
home or their farm or their business, that the Republicans put my 
language in, in 1997, 10,037 Americans lost their homes, farms, and 
businesses. In 1999, 161. From 10,000 from the back room to 161 when 
the burden of proof was on the Government and had to have judicial 
consent.
  Do I support this bill? Does a bear sleep in the woods?
  I think we should mandate a two-thirds requirement before we continue 
to gouge and raise the American people's taxes, to boot, let an agency 
become so powerful an IRS employee would not testify unless she was 
behind a screen so we could not see her, with a voice scrambler so we 
could not identify her voice, and a guarantee her family would not be 
hurt.
  God almighty.
  Finally, let me say this: I think our Tax Code should be thrown out 
with a flat 15 percent, true 15 percent national retail sales tax. I 
will be testifying on the Tauzin/Traficant bill at 1 o'clock myself. It 
will ultimately be the tax scheme in America.
  I think the Democrats, although they do not want to hear this, should 
get on board because they are getting moved further and further out of 
the picture, they are not being very progressive.
  So I want to thank the chairman for the time. I believe his comments 
are right on target. I want to thank the Republican party for putting 
the Traficant burden of proof language in the reform bill and the 
judicial consent language in the reform bill, and I want to thank him 
on behalf of all Americans whose homes, farms, and businesses were not 
stolen.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Joint Resolution 94. I will 
attempt to make my points with logic rather than volume.
  This is the fifth time the House has taken up this particular 
constitutional amendment. It seems that since the Republicans have 
taken over control of the House, we have had over 100 constitutional 
amendments introduced.
  When we are sworn in every 2 years in January, we swear to uphold the 
Constitution and nowhere do we say we come here to rewrite the 
Constitution.
  Let us look back and see why the Framing Fathers put into the 
Constitution only three instances where a two-thirds vote would be 
necessary to take any action in the Government.
  One was to change the Constitution. They thought it was a very, very 
important, sacred document and much thought should go into changing the 
various articles of the Constitution and, if we intend to do that, let 
us do it by a two-thirds vote.
  They also provided that, if we were going to expel a Member from the 
House, one who was elected by a majority, I should add, of the people 
from his or her district, that should be done by a two-thirds vote.
  The last and only other instance where they provided for a two-thirds 
vote was overriding a presidential veto. And here again, the bill that 
got to the President got there by a majority vote of both houses; and 
if, in fact, we are going to disagree with the President's objections, 
that we should do it by more than a majority. And so the Framers 
indicated at that point, let us call for a two-thirds vote. Only those 
three instances.
  James Madison wisely observed in the Federalist Papers, 
supermajorities would reverse the fundamental principle of a free 
government. And he said, ``It would no longer be the majority that 
would rule. The power would be transferred to the minority.'' Let me 
repeat that. ``It would no longer be the majority that would rule. The 
power would be transferred to the minority.'' And how correct he is.
  For almost all actions in this House a majority vote is required. A 
majority vote is required to give tax breaks at times to those large 
and very vocal corporate citizens who do not deserve them. Those tax 
breaks, my colleagues, if this were to pass and become part of the 
Constitution, would only require that a minority could stop closing 
that loophole. And the reason why is because, under that situation, to 
close a tax loophole of, let us say, a foreign corporation operating 
here but transferring the profits to a foreign land to avoid taxation, 
if we were to close that loophole, it would take two-thirds. More 
importantly, it would take a minority to stop it.
  That is what this is all about, my colleagues. This is not to prevent 
willy-nilly tax increases to be placed upon the American people. Know 
full well that all of us in this Chamber and the Senate take that very 
seriously and it is done at times when it needs to be done. And if it 
is done without need and necessity, every 2 years we face the 
electorate and they will let their views be known.
  But for the Republicans to once again try to tamper with the 
Constitution to provide a two-thirds vote for changing the tax laws in 
this country and not to provide that same two-thirds vote to close 
loopholes, which has the effect of bringing in more revenue, loopholes 
which are unwarranted, which happen all too often in this House, for 
that they could stop it with a small minority.
  This constitutional amendment is not wise. It should not be supported 
by the House. If the taxpayers object to any tax action by the 
Committee on Ways and Means that I serve on or action by the full 
House, they will let their views be known. Let no one be kidded about 
that.
  The gentleman who is controlling time on the other side indicated the 
great things we did with the welfare reform. But I should point out to 
him and to the other Members in the Chamber, if there are any, which 
there are not, that that was done with a majority vote. And if, in 
fact, that was so important, why do they not provide for a two-thirds 
vote for actions of the House dealing with issues like welfare reform? 
I would say that would be ridiculous. Because the stated principle of 
this country is majority rules.
  In the House Rules, when the Republicans took over in 1994, they 
provided a supermajority, 60 percent, to pass any tax increases. That 
is in the House Rules today, the rules that govern our activity in this 
Chamber. And every time that has come before the House, every time 
legislation has come before the House to raise taxes, and we have had 
it in H.R. 2491 in 1996, in H.R. 2425 that same year, we have had it 
again in 1996 in H.R. 3103, every time those increases came before us, 
the Republicans waived the House Rules.
  By waiving the House Rules, they cast them aside. We do not look at 
them for that action. So consistency is not one of the Republican 
virtues evidently. But, nevertheless, this constitutional amendment is 
ill advised and it should not be supported by the Members of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the minority pointing out all the 
wonderful things that my party has done: a balanced budget, welfare 
reform, IRS Tax Code reform. These were not tax increases that required 
a supermajority. They were tax decreases and things that would increase 
not only the efficiency of America but bring more freedom for people.
  I also would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), a 
Democrat, for his bipartisan effort to ensure that not only the people 
of Ohio but the people of this country understand that this is not a 
Republican or Democrat issue, this is a simple matter: Do we want to 
make it more difficult to raise taxes on American citizens? Do we want 
to make it more difficult for America to have to pay more taxes? Do we 
want to raise the bar to a level that would say this is not about 
willy-nilly tax increases, this is about something serious because it 
comes right out of their pocket?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the honorable gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to urge my 
colleagues to support this tax limitation amendment, an important joint 
resolution that will help rein in creeping big government.
  To listen to the minority, we would think this is some radical idea 
that is just from outer space. The fact of the matter is, this is a 
good idea that has come to us from States around the country, as so 
many of our good ideas and reforms that we have been trying to 
implement at the Federal level do. It is not a radical idea. It is an 
idea in practice in many States across the country, including my State 
of Louisiana.
  States, particularly in recent years, have approved all sorts of 
restrictions on the ability of their legislatures to raise taxes. 
Voters in these States have agreed with this overwhelmingly. They have 
responded with overwhelming margins in terms of passing constitutional 
amendments to heighten the bar, to raise the bar, to limit State 
legislatures in terms of their ability to raise taxes, make it harder 
for State legislatures and local governments to increase taxes.
  The tax limitation amendment on the floor today embodies these 
principles and this common practice in many States. I said it is in 
practice in Louisiana. It has been for some time. We require a two-
thirds vote of the legislature to raise taxes. That is not a new idea. 
It has been in practice for many years.
  When I was in the State legislature over the past 7 years, we went a 
step further and we adopted the same rule to even raise what can fairly 
be categorized as fees. So we put the same two-thirds vote burden even 
in terms of raising what could be fairly called a fee versus a tax. And 
again, this is not a radical idea. It has been in practice, and it has 
worked.
  Now, some on the minority side would say, well, this is unfair 
because it tilts the playing field, it favors tax decreases, which 
would require a simple majority, and disfavors tax increases, which 
would now require two-thirds majority.
  Let me be very direct about that point. You bet it does. That is why 
I am for the proposal. This is a good, solid reason behind the 
proposal, in fact, to tilt the playing field because we have an 
unacceptably high level of taxation in this country. What this vote 
will largely be about is our level of taxation, the highest in 
peacetime ever. Is that reasonable? Should we rush to increase it? Or 
is it reasonable to say that should be the limit, and we should try to 
go down from here?

                              {time}  1130

  So when Democrats take to the floor and say we are creating a bias 
against new taxes, we are creating a bias for tax cuts, I say amen, 
yes, we are. That is a large reason I am for this proposal, and I think 
it is very interesting and instructive that that is the reason many 
Democrats will oppose it, and that is the reason many Republicans, 
certainly including me, will speak for and vote for the proposal.
  We also have to recognize that this is not being done in a vacuum. 
This is not being done in some era of historically low taxes. It is 
being done in a very specific context, an era of the highest peacetime 
tax burden on American working families in history. That is something 
we need to face and work toward reversing, the highest tax burden 
peacetime on American working families. In that context, is it not fair 
to say we are going to put this two-thirds vote into effect to not 
raise taxes?
  Finally, one of the most important things this tax limitation 
amendment will do is to help bring this body together, to help bring 
the American people together and achieve solid consensus on a very 
important question of raising taxes. All too often very important 
measures like tax increases are passed by the slimmest of majorities. 
That really fractionalizes our House and the American people in the 
national debate over these questions. Should something as significant 
as increasing a historically high tax burden even further not require a 
solid consensus? Should that not require a supermajority? Will that not 
be good for our national debate and our body politic? I think a two-
thirds majority should be required, I think that would be good for this 
institution and for the body politic and for the debate around the 
country so that we only do that when we have a solid consensus in favor 
of it.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The real reason we are here today debating this issue is that this is 
an election year and we need a rollcall. We need a rollcall on who 
supports increasing taxes with a two-thirds vote. To prove my point, I 
ask the Speaker to look around the Chamber. Here the House is involved 
in doing one of the more important, if not the most important, 
functions that we were elected to do; and the interest level is so 
high, no one bothered to come. Of the hundred or so authors of this 
amendment, they are not lined up to come and defend it. They know as 
well as you know, as well as I know, this is for show.
  Like the swallows coming back to Capistrano, this constitutional 
amendment is here because it is an election year. I ask my friends, 
where is the constitutional amendment to provide a two-thirds vote to 
decrease Social Security benefits that millions of Americans depend on? 
Where is the constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to 
cut Medicare? Where is your constitutional amendment to provide a two-
thirds vote to cut education funding for our kids? That is not here, 
and it ain't coming here because that we can do by a majority vote. But 
we need two-thirds to lock in tax loopholes for some people's corporate 
friends. That is what this is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my good friend from 
Wisconsin, and he is wrong. They have not just done it in election 
years. They have brought this thing out here every year at this time. 
This is an annual event. It really is like the sparrows, or swallows. 
Is it swallows or sparrows?
  Mr. KLECZKA. Swallows.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. We have got to take this seriously, do we not? These 
guys really worry about somehow the money getting away from us, that it 
is somehow flowing out. They have been in control for 5 years. When 
they came in, they passed a House rule that said that if you are going 
to do anything with taxes, it took a two-thirds vote, a three-fifths 
vote or whatever it was.
  It did not make any difference, because every time it came up, they 
waived the rule. They waived their own rule. They said it is going to 
take this much to pass any tax increase. But whenever they wanted to do 
it, they waived the rule and said we will do it with a majority. They 
did it so many times in the first session, the first 2 years they were 
in power, that the next time they came in, they said, well, let us 
revise the rule and make it really meaningless so that it only affects 
two or three little parts of the code. That way we can put any tax 
increase we want over here by a majority rule and in all the rest of 
the Tax Code. We protected these couple over here.
  They could not even comply with that in a bill that the President 
vetoed last year. This is not a serious event. As I said yesterday, 
what you really need to do is figure out looking at the calendar what 
holy day is it or what saint's day is it or what holiday is it or what 
important day is it for Americans and you will figure out what the 
Republicans are going to bring out on the floor.
  When it was St. Valentine's Day, we brought out the valentine for 
everybody, the marriage tax penalty bill passed here; and everybody got 
a valentine from the House of Representatives. It has not passed the 
Senate. It is probably going to pass maybe sometime in the future, but 
nothing has happened to it since. We have not heard a word about it.
  Now we are down to tax day. We get a rash of bills yesterday, the 
taxpayers' bill of rights, and now we have got this thing out here for 
a supermajority on raising taxes, because they know people are thinking 
about filling out their income tax, all of us are doing it; and they 
know that people are worried or think they are paying too much or 
whatever, so let us go out there with something that will stir the 
people up, and we will show them we really care about taxes. But when 
it gets dark around here and they have to do something, they 
immediately waive all the rules and slide through stuff all the time.
  Now, the thing that I keep wondering about, I was looking at my 
calendar last night trying to figure out what day are they going to 
bring the Patients' Bill of Rights out here. You have got all the 
people in this country, all the polls show they want something that 
passed the House, passed the Senate, been sitting in a conference 
committee, they want something that puts the control of their health 
care back in their doctors' and their own hands, not the insurance 
companies.
  Any poll you run out there will be 80 percent for doing something 
about the Patients' Bill of Rights bill. But I cannot figure out what 
day it is going to be. I thought maybe Fourth of July; that would be 
freedom from insurance companies. I do not know how they are going to 
construct this, but they will find a day that that fits. The next 
question I have is what day are they going to bring out the 
prescription drug bill for seniors? There must be some day. It would 
not be Labor Day, I guess. Memorial Day maybe. That is it, Memorial 
Day. They will come out with it because they will think people want to 
memorialize old people. I do not know how they are going to do it.
  If you would not waste so much time on this kind of nonsense and 
would come out here and deal with the issues that really affect 
American people, you would be able to get somewhere. But this kind of 
thing, we will take the vote. As I look around the floor, there are 
four of us on the floor right now, out of 435. It is a big issue, 
folks. You can tell how much people really care about this. One hundred 
of them sign it and they will not even come over and talk about it. I 
guess they are kind of ashamed of the foolishness of it.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, we have a sad situation in this country 
where American citizens are renouncing their citizenship, taking their 
wealth to foreign countries in a very, very obvious attempt to avoid 
any taxation. If, in fact, this constitutional amendment would prevail 
and be ratified by the States, what would the effect be on American 
citizens renouncing their citizenship and us trying to stop that 
outflow for tax avoidance?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. We would have to have a two-thirds vote in here to get 
anything done. We could not do it by the majority vote. A minority of 
people, 33 percent of the people in this House could stop that from 
happening. We could never correct that. The gentleman just points out 
one of a million problems with this. But it is obviously not a serious 
effort. It is going to go down here very shortly because most people 
realize that it is just for show. And when the day comes, I believe it 
will be about the 7th of November, you will wish you spent your time on 
the floor working on the Patients' Bill of Rights and prescription 
drugs and financing for schools and a whole raft of other real issues.
  This is not a real issue. If it were, you would not waive your own 
rule every time you bring an appropriations act out here. You have 
broken every single point of order on putting caps on expenditures. 
Every single one has waived the caps. The ability to constrain spending 
is in your own hearts; and now you want to come out here and say, well, 
this is what we do. The Bible says, by your deeds you shall know them. 
And, in fact, your deeds say this is nonsense. Everyone ought to vote 
against this.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Never has there been a more logical explanation to understand the 
differences between the two parties. The Democrats today in the 
minority stand up and say things that take time, ideas that take time 
to mature are bad ideas, like raising the earning limits for seniors 
that took 30 years before we could get that done. A balanced budget, 30 
years of Democrat control to where we had $5.5 trillion worth of debt 
in this country. Welfare reform. Bad ideas. These are the same words we 
hear over and over and over again. IRS Tax Code reform. Silly. Who 
would want that? I am pleased to say that the Republican Party wants 
it. I am pleased to say that people back home want it. I am pleased to 
say that today what we are doing is very important for people who 
understand that it is too easy for Congress to raise taxes. I am proud 
of what we are doing. It may take us 20 more years; it may take us 5 
more years. But I will tell you that it is the right thing to do.
  The speaker before talked about people leaving this country, leaving 
this country because they do not want to pay taxes. That could be true. 
I think it is that they realize they have got to pay too much in taxes. 
The things that they had worked hard for all their life, that they then 
could sit back and enjoy life is being taken from them by a tax code, 
an unfair tax code, the threat of a Congress raising taxes to take more 
and more from people who had earned the money.
  That is why people are leaving. They are not leaving because it would 
be more difficult to raise taxes. They are not leaving because they are 
concerned about somebody taking less of their money. They are concerned 
about someone coming and taking from them what they have worked hard 
for.

                              {time}  1145

  This is an important issue. This is a defining issue in Washington, 
D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very, very proud and pleased to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Farmsville, North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a member of 
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas, and also I rise in strong support of this tax limitation 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am like most of my colleagues, both Republican and 
Democrat; when I go back to my district, I do a lot of speaking at 
civic clubs, I hold town meetings, and probably the most important 
thing that I can say is that, like all of my colleagues on both sides 
of the fence, I listen to the people I have the privilege to serve.
  I can tell you that in the Third District of North Carolina, and I 
believe throughout this country, the majority of the people that pay 
taxes believe that they are overburdened with a tax system and with 
taxes coming from Washington, D.C.; and many of these people throughout 
this country and throughout my district feel that too many times those 
in Washington, D.C. on both sides of the aisle really are not listening 
to them.
  I think that when we are today debating this issue, I am like the 
gentleman from the other side, I wish there were more people on the 
floor, and maybe during the day there will be others on both sides of 
this issue coming to the floor, but I think today what we are saying to 
the American people is that we are listening to you.
  As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said, yes, maybe it will 
take 2 or 3 more years, but the point is, yes, you are right to talk 
about Social Security and these other issues, we do need to be debating 
these issues and need to try to find solutions to problems. But I will 
tell you that one of the problems is that the American people are 
overburdened with taxation.
  I have to say, being a former Democrat who became a Republican, that 
I believe sincerely that it has been my party that has started these 
debates on the floor. It has been my party that has introduced 
legislation, and sometimes in a bipartisan way that we have passed 
legislation, to bring tax relief to the American people.
  I think today this is a unique opportunity to talk about this tax 
limitation act because, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about amending the 
Constitution and creating a two-thirds majority to pass tax increases 
on the American people, we are basically giving it back to the American 
people through their legislative process to say yes, we want an 
amendment that will protect us and protect our families.
  Mr. Speaker, the four largest Federal tax increases in the last 20 
years would have failed had this amendment been in place. I think that 
is worthy to be repeated.
  The four largest Federal tax increases in the last 20 years would 
have failed had this amendment been in place.
  Mr. Speaker, most recently, in 1993, President Clinton and a 
Democratic Congress passed the largest tax increase in America's 
history. Now, I do not know if that would have passed or not, I doubt 
if it would have, if this had been in place.
  Mr. Speaker, we always are saying, both sides of the aisle, that this 
is the people's House, that we are the people's representatives. Well, 
I think we need to listen to the people, and the people in this country 
are crying out for relief. They do feel and I feel also that they are 
overburdened.
  I think the citizens of this country have a right to know when the 
House is debating a tax increase and that we need to debate it on the 
floor of the House, and I think a two-thirds majority of both sides 
voting to bring relief for passing a tax increase on the American 
people is extremely important.
  In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, Congress should never seek to raise taxes 
on the American people without a two-thirds majority. That, again, is 
my philosophy. Some will agree, some will disagree.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to read a quote from former President 
Ronald Reagan from his 1985, I believe, State of the Union address. I 
am going to repeat it after I read it one time.
  Mr. Reagan said, ``Every dollar the Federal Government does not take 
from us,'' meaning the American people, ``every decision it does not 
make for us,'' meaning the American people, ``will make our economy 
stronger, our lives more abundant, our future more free.''
  Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that those words by Mr. Reagan fully 
explain why and how so many people throughout this country feel that 
too many times the United States Congress is not listening to them, no 
matter what the issue might be, whether it is taxes or another issue. 
But when it comes to taxes, Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say it is the 
Republican Party that has brought these debates on the floor to bring 
relief to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to quote Mr. Reagan again. I am going to quote 
Mr. Reagan when he said, ``Every dollar the Federal Government does not 
take from us,'' us, the American people, ``every decision it does not 
make for us,'' the American people, ``will make our economy stronger, 
our lives more abundant, our future more free.''
  Mr. Speaker, if we are truly the people's House and the people's 
representatives, then we need to pass this amendment.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of 
historical accuracy, I was going to ask if President Reagan said that 
when he signed a big tax increase in 1982, which he deemed necessary 
for economic purposes, or when a couple of years later he signed 
another significant tax increase which raised Social Security taxes? 
Those were two tax increases President Reagan signed. I do not think 
either one of them got two-thirds, so they might not have been passed 
under this. I wonder whether Mr. Reagan said that when he was signing 
those two very significant tax increases. I voted against both of them, 
by the way.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the framers of the Constitution 
provided that Congress shall have the sole power to declare war, and 
under that constitutional provision a majority, a majority, of both 
Houses is required. If, in fact, there was a need to amend the 
Constitution to provide for a two-thirds vote, surely do not you think 
a declaration of war, and not taxes, should be the item that we would 
be debating today? Do you think a declaration of war is less important 
than the tax issue of this country? I think not.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people have come to realize that 
every spring about this time, as sure as daylight savings time going 
into effect and Easter and Passover coming along and kids anticipating 
their graduation from school, that it is tax time on April 15, and what 
they can expect is the same old complicated Tax Code. But they can be 
reassured that Republicans will be out here talking about it.
  All those American citizens that are out there now working on their 
tax returns may not find a great deal of reassurance that after 6 years 
in office, all that our Republican colleagues, after 6 years of holding 
control in this House, all that our Republican colleagues have to offer 
this morning is the same old recycled speeches they have been giving 
and the same approach for the last 6 years.
  I remember in one of the earlier sessions, I think it was back around 
1995 or 1996, some fellow came out here and brought the whole Tax Code. 
I think if he had piled that thing end to end it would have reached up 
there to the clock.
  Well, what have the Republicans done for the ordinary taxpayer that 
is out there struggling through their returns to simplify that code? 
Well, today, after 6 years of Republican leadership in this House, it 
probably now stretches above the clock, because they have added an 
additional 100 sections more or less to the Tax Code. Instead of 
dealing with issues like simplifying our Tax Code and making it fairer 
and more equitable to the ordinary middle-class taxpayer, they have 
recycled whatever speech and proposal they considered at their last 
political convention. So this is the second, third, maybe more years in 
Congress that we have had this same sorry proposal out here to 
consider.
  Now, if you are out there working on your return and you are happy, 
and you think that a Tax Code that stretches up to the clock and beyond 
under Republican leadership is great, that it is fair, that it is 
equitable, that everyone in our country, from the very largest 
corporations to the person who is down at the lower end of the wage 
scale that is figuring out a fairly simple tax return, if you think 
they are all being treated fairly; if you think there are no special 
interests that come to Washington and get special loopholes written 
into the Tax Code so that they can dodge taxes, so that they can come 
close to cheating on their taxes under the system; if you like every 
aspect of the system that we have now, plus the additional 100 sections 
that the Republicans have added to the Tax Code, today's proposal is a 
perfect proposal for you. Because what they are seeking to do with this 
old recycled, retread proposal that they drag out on the eve of tax-
paying day every season, what they are seeking to do is to freeze into 
place the code that we have today. So if some lobbyist has come to 
Washington and they have written themselves in a special loophole for 
their special interests because they had the longest limousine and the 
biggest political action committee and the most effective lobbyist, 
well, their provision will be frozen in unless we can get not only a 
majority of this Congress, but two-thirds of this Congress to come 
forward and stand up to the special interest group, which we could not 
get a majority to do in the past, but we have now got to have two-
thirds.
  So if you like the system we have now, if you like all the loopholes 
and the special interest provisions, you ought to be supporting this 
proposal. It will freeze them in forever if this retread proposal were 
actually designed and put into place in our Constitution.
  If you think we need significant change in the way our system works, 
well, then I would think you would be strongly opposed to this kind of 
approach.
  Now, over the course of the last 6 years we have often heard the same 
people who came out and piled up the Tax Code tell us that they 
disliked it so much that they were going to just grab down there and 
pull it out by the roots. That is a good applause line at the kind of 
convention that considers these old retread proposals like we have up 
here this morning.
  Well, they have been in office 6 years, and they had a hearing on 
pulling the code out by the roots back in 1995. As I speak, there is 
another hearing going on. There has been no proposal advanced for a 
vote over that 6 years in the Committee on Ways and Means to pull it 
out by the roots. There has been no proposal presented even this week 
after 6 years of the Republicans being in charge here in the House. I 
think they cannot figure out which root to pull out, where and what new 
roots to put down to replace it.
  So, instead, they keep coming up with the same old retread proposals, 
that if we ever made the mistake of actually adopting them, would only 
make the system worse than it is today and would assure that we could 
not get change in the system.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some specific proposals that some of us have 
been advancing to try to address inequities in this Tax Code. What has 
been most I think indicative of the kind of problem we have today is 
that Republican leadership would rather focus on these meaningless 
retreads, instead of focusing on real issues, such as the way that 
corporate tax shelters manage to avoid what many have estimated is $10 
billion a year in taxes and closing that up and seeing that they get 
treated the way that middle-class taxpayers get treated. The Republican 
leadership has said there is no need to address corporate tax shelters.
  The situation is so bad that it has made the front page of Forbes 
magazine. This is not some strange off-beat journal. This is the 
magazine that calls itself ``the capitalist's tool.'' They wrote about 
the problem of tax shelter hustlers, describing on the magazine cover 
this fellow in the fedora, ``respectable accountants are peddling dicey 
corporate tax loopholes.'' Ten billion dollars a year is the estimate 
of lost tax revenues from tax shelters.
  And the response of the Republican leadership, when they could be out 
here today doing something about that, is to squelch any real reform. 
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Republican 
majority leader are saying that tax avoidance is about as American as 
apple pie, and encourage the continuation of this kind of misconduct.
  The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Lawrence Summers, has suggested 
that this is the most serious compliance problem that we have in 
America today, this problem of tax hustlers. It is usually some former 
employee here on Capitol Hill that goes out to work for some big 
accounting firm, and they make a fortune selling and teaching people 
how to dodge, cheat, join in on tax scams.
  And I think it is an outrage. I think it is the kind of outrage that 
has grown to such a substantial extent that we now even have the 
lawyers that represent some of the corporations that are dodging their 
taxes coming before the Congress in the form of the American Bar 
Association tax section, the tax section of the New York State bar, and 
urging us to do something. They recognize what a do-nothing Congress 
this is and how it will not respond, and they come forward and say 
``please address this problem.'' But this Republican leadership has 
retreads like this instead.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I am on the Committee 
on Ways and Means with the gentleman, and I do not remember us ever 
having a hearing on this.

                              {time}  1200

  I do not remember us ever having a hearing, have us ever come and 
testify about this. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a 
hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DOGGETT. On this particular amendment?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes, on this particular amendment.
  Mr. DOGGETT. They had a hearing at their political convention on it, 
so they really do not need to have substantive hearings on it, because 
this is a political gimmick. It is a gimmick, not really a serious 
proposal about how to resolve the concerns American taxpayers have.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. So when they put the sham together, they do not even 
bother putting the dressing around it and having a hearing?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I think that is right. In other words, most proposals 
dealing with the Tax Code would bring in the experts; would do the kind 
of thing that I sought to do with these tax shelter hustlers, bring in 
the academic experts, the people out in the field, as well as just some 
ordinary citizens from across the country, to point out what an outrage 
this is.
  But on this proposal, this has been more of a political gamesmanship 
kind of thing. They have not had a hearing because I guess other than 
recycling this old political rhetoric, there really would not be much 
to hear.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. That is why we call it a retread. It has been through 
here, and they are trying to do it again. I think we will see it next 
year.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Next year we will have substantial change. I believe 
that next year, since this particular Congress once again will not even 
honor the recommendations of its Joint Tax Committee to address 
corporate tax shelters, ignores the recommendations of the Secretary of 
the Treasury that this is the biggest tax compliance problem we have in 
America today, ignores the estimates that $10 billion a year is being 
lost in these cheating tax dodge schemes, I believe the next Congress 
is going to have enough new Members that people will say, enough is 
enough. We have had 6 years of do nothing, do little, avoidance of 
these problems.
  Just as these kinds of folks encourage tax avoidance, we have had a 
leadership that has problem avoidance. They want to avoid the problems. 
I know it appeals to the same special interests that get these tax 
shelter hustler proposals.
  But I believe the American people that are out there working on their 
taxes, certainly everybody would like to pay less, but they would like 
to at least be sure that other people are being dealt with fairly. 
Clearly these people are not dealing fairly.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we continue with the wonderful debate, which is 
what this amendment is all about, an opportunity for us to debate in 
the open, on the floor of the House of Representatives, the question of 
whether we are going to make it more difficult for Congress to raise 
taxes, raise taxes on the American taxpayer or not. It is a question of 
whether Washington, D.C. is going to make it more difficult to raise 
taxes or whether we are going to keep the status quo.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle once again talk about 
all the things that this Republican Congress has not done, all the 
things that we have had an opportunity to do. I would remind my 
colleagues that, in fact, these same words were said about a balanced 
budget.
  I remember running for Congress back in 1994, and people were saying 
to me over and over and over again, We will never have a balanced 
budget. It will never happen in my lifetime.
  Well, there were people who did believe it. The naysayers who were 
there today are people who understand that this economy that we have in 
America, the opportunity, the growing economic development that we 
have, jobs in communities, schools that are producing not only brighter 
and better students but students who have technology at their 
fingertips, this is a part of what happens when we have a grand and 
bold idea, an idea that has always on the other side been talked about 
in negative ways: It would never happen. A balanced budget is silly. No 
need to do that.
  Welfare reform, the same way. We talked about welfare reform on the 
floor of this House of Representatives, and day after day after day it 
was the other side, it was the minority party, who said, we do not need 
welfare reform. It will not amount to anything. As a matter of fact, it 
will harm the children of America.
  IRS Tax Code reform. We hear the gentleman from Texas say that the 
Republicans have done nothing with what they had. In fact, what we have 
done is done things that are for the taxpayer: A $500 per child tax 
credit, a $500 per child tax credit that matters. Every single time an 
American who has a child goes to fill out their tax form, they get a 
$500 per child tax credit. It is going to happen again this Saturday as 
Americans are filling out their forms, they will get that.
  Cutting capital gains. We heard, Cutting capital gains? A dangerous, 
risky proposition. We should not do that. Mr. Speaker, I would submit 
that the 1997 capital gains tax cut that Republicans voted on and 
supported that was signed by the President has meant that America has a 
booming economy.
  Oh, the minority said, do Members realize that the tax collector, the 
United States government, will have $9 billion less in their coffers? 
Well, once again the minority party is concerned about the tax 
collector. It was the Republican party who was concerned about the 
taxpayer.
  What happened? What happened was that the tax collector got $90 
billion additional dollars in the Treasury, just like Republicans, 
through the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, said that we will make a 
substantial investment in America because we are going to lower the 
risk. We are going to encourage people to participate in that which we 
are doing. We are going to take people and move them from welfare to 
work. We are going to enrich communities because we are going to allow 
dollars to be invested in America.
  Oh, but there is more. This Republican do-nothing Congress raised the 
exemption for death taxes. That is not do-nothing, that is a realistic 
opportunity for people upon their death to know that their estate, 
instead of being broken up and splintered to the wind, thrown to the 
wind, and family businesses, small businesses and land, agricultural 
producers of food for not only this country but the world being broken 
up just because of a Tax Code, we heard, Oh, no, cannot do that. Bad 
idea. That is for rich people.
  The education savings accounts, it was the Republican party who stood 
up against the naysayers of the Democrat party saying, This is bad for 
America, it is bad for public education to have education savings 
accounts.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Members that as the father of two little 
boys, one who is a 10-year-old who is a straight A student, who has 
taken advantage of books and education and computers and technology, 
the opportunity for him to be no different than other children who want 
to learn and read, for parents who get up and go to work every day and 
work hard to save money for that education for that child is important; 
also the parent of a 6-year-old Downs syndrome little boy, which my 
wife and I are, I know that our son needs more investment in not only 
his education but his development, just to make sure that he can stand 
on his own two feet and have an opportunity to make a go of it by 
himself.
  That is why we offer the education savings account. That is why we 
cut capital gains. That is why we had a $500 per child tax credit. That 
is why we raised the exemption for death taxes. That is why just 2 
weeks ago this House voted 422 to nothing on what had been 
controversial years before, to say we should raise the earning limits 
for seniors. We should not deny senior citizens who choose to work, 
which allows them not only to be in business but also to be healthier 
and happier, not to lose their social security because the Tax Code 
said that was the right way.
  I am proud of my party. I am proud of my party and people back home 
and groups that will work to say, We need to make it more difficult to 
raise taxes. We need to make it more difficult, and it is a simple 
matter. That is what this amendment is all about.
  I will confess, we may not get the amount of votes that we need 
today. We will get a majority of the votes, but we will not get enough. 
But the dream lives on forever. We intend to continue with this. Yes, 
it is done at tax time. It is done at a time when people understand 
that there is a voice, not a voice in the wilderness but a voice on the 
floor of the House of Representatives, the people's body.
  We are going to get 240 votes on this today. We are going to stand up 
and talk about how it should be more difficult to raise taxes. I am 
proud of what my party stands for. I know what the other side stands 
for.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it kind of intriguing that the Republicans are 
trying to rewrite history, for if we go back to when this 
administration took over, they inherited a debt approaching $280 
billion a year from the Bush administration. It was in 1993 that this 
Congress bit the bullet and passed a deficit reduction bill which 
massively cut spending, and it did adjust some taxes, but the effect of 
that legislation was to bring this country where we are today, enjoying 
the greatest economic growth in its history.
  If it makes Republicans feel good and they want to take credit for 
it, let them do it. But let us not rewrite history, because this 
administration, when it took over, inherited an annual debt approaching 
if not exceeding some $280 billion a year in red ink.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps the kindest characterization of this proposal 
would be to say that it is disingenuous. It is obviously disingenuous, 
because the party that is offering it here, the majority party in this 
House, several years ago adopted an internal resolution that required a 
two-thirds majority to raise revenues by any vote taken by the House of 
Representatives.
  What have we seen in the carrying out of the adoption of that change 
in the rules here? What we have seen is that virtually every time the 
issue has come up, the leadership of the House has waived the 
requirement. So one can only conclude that this proposal for a super 
majority, anti-democratic super majority to raise revenues, is one that 
is not really believed in by those people who are offering it, because 
every time they have had an opportunity to put it into place they have 
abandoned it. They have walked away from it. It seems quite clear that 
they do not even believe in it themselves.
  Why would we want to do this? Why would we put fiscal policy in a 
Constitution when every sound economic principle everywhere says that 
that would be a foolish thing to do? Why would we want to do it? How 
would we react to emergencies? How would we respond to a crisis in 
agriculture? How would we respond to national emergencies of various 
kinds? How would we respond to natural calamities when we needed to 
respond aggressively and forthrightly and attentively to those problems 
when people were in serious trouble?
  Look what is happening in the farm belt all across America. Look what 
is happening to agriculture as a result of the 1996 farm bill and the 
destructive impact that that has had upon ranchers and farmers all 
across the country. We are not even responding to that adequately now 
under the leadership of the Republican party in this House. Imagine how 
much more difficult it would be if we required a two-thirds majority.
  They have turned their backs on ranchers and farmers. Now they want 
to get even further away from them and other people who would face 
difficult circumstances in our country by implanting this super 
majority, this anti-democratic super majority provision in the 
Constitution as an amendment to the United States Constitution. It is 
an absurd proposal.
  Why are they advancing the proposal? Ostensibly they are advancing 
the proposal because they would like everyone to think that taxes are 
too high, that Federal taxes are too high. Of course, everyone who is 
struggling with their income tax form these days is prepared to believe 
that, or many people are prepared to believe it, I assume.
  But the fact of the matter is that the situation is quite different 
from that. Let us just take a look at certain people in our economy and 
how the income tax code relates to them.
  The median income in America today is about $46,700. That is the 
median income; half below, half above. The average Federal income tax 
rate for a family of four at the median income in 1999, last year, is 
7.5 percent. In 1981, it was 11.8 percent. The fact of the matter is 
that the tax rate for people at the median income is lower now than it 
was in 1981, and in fact, is the lowest it has been since 1966.
  If one is making half of the median income, he is in effect at a 
negative income tax as a result of the changes in the earned income tax 
credit that were put into place by the Clinton administration as a 
result of the 1993 budget proposal. As a matter of fact, that budget 
proposal also made some adjustments downward for people at the lower-
income ranges, as well. So the situation for people at the median 
income is better today than it was in 1981. People making half of the 
median income are not paying any income taxes whatsoever.
  What about people making a little bit more money? Suppose someone is 
making twice the median income. Suppose they are making somewhere in 
excess of $90,000 a year for a family of four. The fact of the matter 
is that the median income for them is now 14.1 percent. What was it in 
1981? It was 19.1 percent.

                              {time}  1215

  The median income for a family of four and the tax rate for the 
median income, people making twice the median income is lower than it 
was in 1981. Even after tax income, the after-tax rate for people at 
the top 1 percent is even lower than it was in 1987. The fact of the 
matter is that taxes are taking less of a bite of the income, Federal 
taxes, Federal income taxes, taking less of a bite out of the income of 
Americans than they were back in 1981.
  This proposal is not just disingenuous. It is not just a proposal in 
which the proponents of it do not really believe themselves. They have 
abandoned it every time it is come up. They know very well it is not 
going to pass. It is not going to get two-thirds of the majority of 
this House voting for it.
  It is simply put up here for partisan political reasons in the hope 
that they can deceive a few people here and there around the country, 
that the Republican Party really wants to see taxes cut, that they 
really believe in lower taxes.
  When it was pointed out here just a few moments ago with the tax 
shelter hustlers, the front page of Forbes magazine what they really 
want to do, what they really want to do is protect the privileges of 
the very, very wealthy.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, certainly it is important to point out they 
will freeze into place all of these special interests provisions, all 
of these loopholes. The gentleman focused, I think, very eloquently on 
the effects of their proposal and has also noted that what we mainly 
have been dealing with here, as is the case around every tax filing 
day, is hot air from the Republicans.
  I would like to redirect the gentleman's attention from hot air to 
dirty air and another section that would be frozen into place, and that 
is section 527, which the gentleman joined with me last week in 
sponsoring legislation to address. Being from New York State, did the 
gentleman have occasion to see the ads that some Texans ran against 
Senator McCain there in New York State?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, I believe I did.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Even though Texas has some problems, having outdistanced 
Los Angeles, which is one of the cities that has the dirtiest air in 
the country in many areas, the claim was that one candidate was not 
enough of an environmentalist, but instead of doing that as a direct 
campaign, they used a 527 organization where the gentleman could not 
even find out who put the ad on television.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Yes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Instead of doing the kind of hot air measure that we 
have here today, I believe the gentleman joined with me in saying that 
that was wrong and that taxpayers ought to have a right to be able to 
find out whether it is some Texas friend of one of the other 
presidential candidates or whether it is Chinese money or Iraqi money 
or Cuban money or just some homegrown special interests that wants to 
pour money into these kind of Swiss bank accounts of the political 
season this year to make unlimited expenditures, but never tell the 
taxpayers who is funding these kinds of hate campaigns that the 
gentleman must have seen in New York State.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, we did see them in New York State, and 
there were advertisements that were put forth principally on Long 
Island; and they, of course, were deceitful. They were deceitful in a 
variety of ways. First of all, they pretended that the proponent of 
those ads, the beneficiary of those ads, was one who had a sound record 
in environmental protection when we know that the environmental record 
of Governor George W. Bush in Texas is an abysmal record.
  In the air quality arena alone, for example, the city of Houston now 
has surpassed Los Angeles with the worst air quality in the country, as 
a result of the fact that Governor Bush has vetoed every attempt to 
pass sound environmental control legislation in the State and turned 
his back on environmental quality in the State generally.
  Furthermore, the ads that the gentleman is talking about now, which 
were allowed as part of the Tax Code, those ads that the gentleman very 
appropriately brought to our attention today and which are allowed in a 
section of the Tax Code are totally deceitful and point out the reason 
why we need campaign finance reform and point out the illegitimacy of 
this proposal.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we said, look, whether those ads are put on 
by a Democrat, a pro-environmental group or an anti-environmental 
group, let us at least tell the taxpayers who is financing them. And 
this Republican leadership, the same Republican leadership that could 
have just sent all of us and the American people a cassette with the 
speeches that they gave last session or the session before that or the 
session before that or the session before that on this same sorry 
proposal.
  They said they did not have time to consider that. They basically 
said that the only way they can get through this election was to 
continue taking unlimited amounts of secret money, including foreign 
money, that can be dumped into these political Swiss bank accounts 
called 527's and continue to stuff misinformation into our mailboxes 
and run hate on to the airwaves. They refused to consider the proposal 
that the gentleman personally has sponsored, did they not?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey), who is my good friend, during the time on the floor the 
gentleman wanted us to question why we are advancing this idea, what 
possibly could Republicans be for. Why are we advancing this idea? It 
is quite simple. We would like to make it more difficult to raise taxes 
on the American taxpayer.
  Secondly, the gentleman asked, oh, my gosh if we had this, how would 
we respond to emergencies? The obvious implication is, could not raise 
taxes, could not raise taxes in the event of an emergency.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting that if we follow this, 
then we would have to respond to a crisis or any crisis in the 
following manner: number one, we would have to raise taxes; that is the 
first thing the Democrat Party wants to do. Number two, raise spending. 
Go spend it, go spend all of the taxpayers money, spend more and more 
and more. Number three, increase inefficiency, bigger government. Give 
it to the government, bring it to Washington, D.C.
  My proposition is quite the opposite. My proposition is that it 
should be more about efficiency. Under a post-tax limitation amendment, 
the first thing that would happen is, government would have to increase 
efficiency. Government would have to look inward to itself.
  It would have to do the same thing that I do at home with my wife and 
my family. We would have to live within a budget; could not raise taxes 
as easily; have to work within what we have; have to make some hard 
decisions; have to prioritize. It would increase efficiency because it 
would require the Government and the Congress to make tough decisions. 
Today, the path of least resistance, let us raise taxes, let us raise 
spending, let us just go do the same old Washington dance.
  Secondly, under a post-tax limitation amendment, it would mean that 
we would have to then look at raising spending. How are we going to do 
that? Well, we would do that if there is an emergency because we had 
already squeezed the lemon dry. We could already prove to people back 
home we have looked inward, we have been efficient. Now what we have to 
do is to raise spending.
  Remember, we are in a surplus condition. We do need to use more 
efficiently the money that has been given to us. Lastly, the thing that 
would be required, which is what the taxpayers, I believe, sent all of 
us to Congress to do, and that is lastly then to consider the last 
option or the least easy option, raise taxes.
  This, to me, is what it is all about, that the Congress of the United 
States should have to come on the floor of the House of Representatives 
to debate the issues, to talk about efficiency, to do the right thing 
for the taxpayer back home; but the easiest thing should not be to 
raise taxes. That is where the minority party, that is where they fall 
virtually every time. That is where they are falling today. That is the 
difference between these two parties in Washington, D.C. Somebody that 
says let us just raise taxes, let us go raise taxes on the people who 
have the money, let us go raise taxes on people who have been 
successful, people who create our economy, people who provide jobs, we 
are going to make it more difficult. That is what this argument is 
about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to come down here and speak on behalf of 
this amendment. I say with tongue in cheek that the Republicans 
celebrate July 4 and the Democrat Party celebrates April 15.
  For most Americans, April 15 is a dreaded day. It is a feared day, a 
day in which taxpayers across the country are concentrating and 
reflecting on America's most frustrating and complex tax system. I do 
not know how many millions of pages there are, but it is enough.
  So it is altogether appropriate, just before the April 15, we should 
reflect on our Nation's Tax Code and the problems it imposes upon 
taxpayers in America. So today we will be considering a most meaningful 
piece of legislation addressing the shortcoming of the system, the tax 
limitation amendment which will force Congress to garner a 
supermajority before approving any tax increase.
  Later we will have this opportunity to vote for the bill, to scrap 
the Tax Code so we can replace this burdensome tax system with 
something far more fair and equitable.
  Tax limitation would require in this House and in the Senate, if 
adopted, that there be a real consensus to raise taxes. It would take a 
two-thirds vote, which means we will not have a recurrence of one of 
the largest tax increases in American history in 1993 with President 
Clinton and Vice President Gore's proposal.
  When I look at this, I go back and think about our Founding Fathers. 
These honorable leaders had the foresight to mandate a two-thirds 
majority vote on certain priority issues in this country. James 
Madison, a vocal supporter of majority rule, argued that the greatest 
threat to liberty in a republic came from unrestrained majority rule, 
and that is why they proposed two-thirds majority for conviction in 
impeachment trials, expulsion of a Member of Congress, override of a 
presidential veto, a quorum of two-thirds of the Senate to elect a 
President, to consent to a treaty and proposing constitutional 
amendments.
  So if it is good enough for those, I think certainly it would be good 
enough for deciding whether we are having taxes here.
  There were seven of these that were already in the Constitution when 
they wrote the document and since then they have added three more.
  My colleague, Daniel Webster, obviously a great renowned legend of 
this great body, said, quote, ``the power to tax is the power to 
destroy.''
  We voted yesterday against $116 billion in higher taxes and user fees 
as proposed in the administration's budget. Americans are simply taxed 
too much. It is both the Federal, State, and local level where it adds 
up to almost 40 percent; and, of course, there are many areas that we 
are taxed and we do not even know it.
  Gasoline tax is one of them, corporate income tax, excise tax, State 
and local, as I mentioned. Though the average American family is paying 
somewhat less in Federal income tax, as I pointed out, the overall tax 
burden is approaching 40 percent. So this amendment is needed, 
something that many States are already doing.
  I am glad the Federal Government is stepping up to the plate, and I 
urge strong support on both sides of the aisle to align yourself with 
what the States are doing, align yourself with the people and move 
forward to pass this amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), the member of the powerful Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the constitutional amendment 
requiring a two-thirds majority to raise taxes on hardworking American 
families. The tax limitation amendment is powerful, yet responsible. By 
requiring two-thirds majority approval for any tax increase, this 
Congress is showing its deep concern for the constant imbalance of 
raising taxes in order to increase spending. We are attempting to 
ensure that the American people will not be subject to the whimsical 
and shortsighted notions of Congress to raise taxes at the drop of a 
hat.
  Presently 14 States across this country require a supermajority in 
their legislatures to raise taxes. What has been the result? Their 
State taxes grow much slower and State spending is reduced. 
Additionally, these States have seen their economies grow at a rate of 
almost one-third faster than the 36 States that have not adopted 
supermajority requirements for tax increases. One-third faster than the 
States that have not adopted supermajority requirements.
  A strong majority of American tax-paying families support this 
effort, which will assure that future Congresses have support of the 
American public before they attempt to raise taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that today's taxes are too high. 
Americans pay more in taxes than they do for food, clothing, and 
shelter. Efforts to reduce these burdens on Americans is much too 
little. It is an economic fact that the Big-Government crowd would like 
to ignore.
  It frustrates me to witness some of the largest tax increases this 
Nation has ever seen to pass with only one or two votes, and it 
frustrates me further to know that this body can vote to increase taxes 
on all Americans when all of America does not support such action.
  So today I am asking my colleagues to take a long, hard look at the 
remarkable possibilities this legislation offers and offer their 
support for this amendment. Members who oppose this legislation are 
telling the American public that it does not bother this Congress to 
saddle our Nation, our Nation's taxpayers with economic policies that 
penalize rather than reward. Our action today will show a great deal 
about the direction of this Congress and this country and, most 
importantly, about the future of our children.
  I want to leave behind a legacy of a strong economy, a strong future 
for our children, and not one burdened heavily with taxes, stifling 
growth, limiting opportunity. By requiring a supermajority to raise 
taxes, we will prevent further knee-jerk reactions by big government 
supporters who care more about the outcome of arcane Federal programs 
than the hard work of everyday people that I and this amendment 
support.
  So ask my fellow Members to support the legislation today.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) just stated that 
all of America does not support tax increases, and that is clearly 
true.
  Last year, the Republicans in the House produced a massive tax cut 
bill. They passed it. They went home for the August break, came back, 
and that was the last we heard about of it because all of the American 
public did not support the direction of that tax cut bill because they 
felt that reducing the Federal debt was more important. Saving Social 
Security, and modernizing Medicare was more important.
  I should also point out to the gentleman from Kansas that all of his 
district did not support his coming here. Who did? A majority did. So 
if a majority is good enough to get him here to Congress, if a majority 
is good enough to have this Congress declare war, I would think tax 
policy in this country should be made by that same majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I really had about made up my mind not to come over and 
even debate this amendment today. It is quite obvious that this is not 
a serious effort to amend the Constitution. What it is, instead, is a 
serious effort to make a political statement about taxation.
  We have, every year now for the last 3 or 4 years, had this same 
proposal on the floor. There are not even any pretenses this year, 
because I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
of the Committee on the Judiciary. This amendment did not even come 
through the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the 
Judiciary this year to be considered.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, what was the committee vote on the 
Committee on the Judiciary to recommend this resolution to passage?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Well, beyond the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, the bill did not even go through the full Committee on 
the Judiciary this year. It has in prior years. But if my colleagues 
are seriously saying that they are serious legislators and Members of 
Congress, and they take their job seriously, and they are going to 
amend the most sacred and profound document of our country, the United 
States Constitution, do they bring a proposed constitutional amendment 
to the floor of the United States House of Representatives without even 
going through the Subcommittee on the Constitution whose job it is to 
deliberate and decide on the merits of constitutional amendments? Do 
they circumvent the entire Committee on the Judiciary and go around 
that committee and bring it to the floor? Or do they go through the 
regular process?
  So that in and of itself is an indication that this is a political 
exercise designed to score political points and having nothing to do 
with the merits of whether there should be a constitutional amendment.
  Now, we have gone through this time after time after time. In the 
past, I have tried to bring constructive amendments to the legislation. 
It was not a constitutional amendment when it was done before. It was 
legislation that one could try to amend and try to bring some rationale 
to.
  But this year, it is a whole new proposal. It is a constitutional 
proposal. But it went around all of the processes. It is hard for any 
of us to take this seriously other than we must be getting close to 
April 15, tax day in this country, and the Republicans must be very 
interested in making political points about the level of taxation in 
this country, which is fine. I mean, they can make those political 
points. Nobody likes taxes. But we have to have some priorities in this 
country.
  If my colleagues are going to be serious about a constitutional 
amendment that raises taxes, what about a constitutional amendment that 
deals with cutting taxes? Why should there be a different standard when 
we are talking about doing away with loopholes in a Tax Code then we 
would if we were raising taxes.
  But this constitutional amendment would not give us any authority to 
have a supermajority. So this is not serious. It undermines the basic 
principle that our country is founded on, which is one person, one 
vote. It undermines my representational authority for the \1/435\th of 
the people of this country that I represent, because, all of a sudden, 
to get something done, we would require a two-thirds majority vote 
rather than a simple majority.
  If this were being taken seriously, it would have gone through the 
regular process. So I do not even know why I came to debate this. We 
are not engaging in any serious congressional activity. It is obvious 
from that, from the number of people on the floor. So I will yield back 
the balance of my time so that my colleagues on the Republican side can 
go ahead and make their political point.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a friend of the taxpayer, a gentleman who is a 
staunch supporter, a good conservative, chairman of the CATs, 
Conservative Action Team here.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax 
limitation amendment. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for bringing this amendment forward. I want to commend the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), his cosponsor. I want to commend the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who has led this fight year in and 
year out.
  1993 was not that long ago. Indeed, it seems to me like 1993 was just 
the snap of a fingers or a blink of an eye ago. It was just a few short 
years ago that we were standing here in 1993. Yet, why is that year 
significant to this debate? Because if we were to return the tax burden 
on the average American family to the level of that tax burden just 7 
years ago, in 1993, as a percentage of our economy, every American 
family would get a tax break, would get tax relief of $2,500 a year. 
That is how much taxes have gone up as a proportion of our economy in 
just 7 short years, $2,500 for the average family across America of 
four people.
  Now, what does $2,500 mean? It means an extra $200 a month in their 
budget. The reality is, in this city, in this Congress, government has 
grown year in and year out, in good times and in bad times, the last 40 
years straight. I believe the American people deserve a break.
  Let me talk to that point. What would $2,500 a year for the average 
family of four or $200 a month for the average family of four mean? 
Well, in 1996, we were engaged in a debate about tax relief on the 
floor of this House.
  Many of my colleagues said, well, the American people do not really 
want tax relief. So I went home, and I said to my scheduler, I want to 
spend an hour in front of a grocery store or drug store on one side of 
my district talking to people, and I want to spend an hour in front of 
a grocery store or drug store on the other side of my district talking 
to people.
  I went first to the east side of my district. The east side of my 
district is middle- to upper middle-income Americans. I stood there on 
the corner, and I talked to them about this issue. The first problem I 
had was to convince them that I really was the Congressman in that 
area.
  But once I got beyond that, their second concern was, look, 
politicians will never cut taxes. You do not believe in cutting taxes. 
You will never give this. This is just political talk.
  When I explained to them, no, we were really serious about this. On 
the east side of my district, they said, Congressman, sure we could use 
some tax relief. It is important to us. Almost 70 percent of them said 
to me, Absolutely. Give me some tax relief.
  But the important part of this discussion was what occurred on the 
west side of my district. On the west side of my district, we are 
talking middle- to lower middle-income and below. I stood in front of a 
drug store on the west side of my District, and voter after voter after 
voter after voter, citizen after citizen that I got to engage in this 
discussion, once I get beyond the, no, you will never really give us 
any tax relief, and got into the substance, they said, Congressman, if 
you could give us any break at all, it would make a huge difference in 
our lives.
  The people who are struggling to get by, those Americans who can 
barely pay their bills, who wake up each morning and struggle to get 
their kids fed and get them off to school, and the husband goes off to 
work and the wife also has to go back off to work, and they go through 
their day, and they come home, and they get their kids, and they 
struggle to get them to Little League or piano practice and get the 
homework done and get them back in bed, those Americans just barely 
getting by said to me, Congressman, if you could just give me a little 
bit of a break.
  What have we done to those Americans in the last 7 years? We have 
added $2,500 to their tax burden. We have increased their tax burden on 
those poor, working, struggling-to-get-by families by $200 a month.
  Now, what does this amendment say? Does this amendment say, let us 
give them a break and give them that $200 back, let us work, give them 
a chance? It simply says let us make it a little harder to raise taxes 
again. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) would have 
gone to that same town and asked the people on the west side of town 
what the major priorities in Congress are, they would have probably 
told him, Mr. Congressman, we need more money for defense. We have to 
increase the readiness of our armed services. And, by the way, Mr. 
Congressman, the bridge on Main Street is in need of repair. And we 
sure could use that 90 percent Federal funding for that new bridge.
  Then as my colleague went to the east side of town and talked to the 
poor individuals, they would have probably said, Yes, we could use some 
relief. But, Mr. Congressman, my son or my daughter wants to go to 
college, and, boy, if you could increase the Pell Grants for that child 
of mine, that would sure be neat. The earned-income tax credit, that 
could use a look-see again by the Congress. Yes, that will cost some 
money.

                              {time}  1245

  And the point I am trying to make, my colleagues, is that all these 
needs and desires of the American public cost money.
  My Republican colleagues seem to think that defense money comes from 
heaven and not from taxpayers and any other social program, like 
Medicare and drug benefits and other things that we fight for on this 
floor, that comes from the taxpayer. And the truth of the matter is 
that all those expenditures are funded by the taxpayers.
  So, sure, we would all like to decrease taxes; but when we ask our 
constituents what program will they forego, we will find out that 
budget cutting is not the easiest in the world. We are going to put in 
big money for the National Institutes of Health, which we should do, to 
study children's diabetes and cancer and all sorts of other diseases. 
But those programs are funded off these nasty things we are talking 
about called taxes.
  There is an old saying, ``Don't cut you, don't cut me, cut the man 
behind the tree.'' We cannot find the man behind the tree nor the tree. 
So my colleagues should not come before the body and say, boy, we need 
two-thirds to have any tax increase. If that is so, then we should have 
two-thirds to have any spending increases too for their favorite 
programs and my favorite programs. That would be fair. But that is not 
what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, Mr. Speaker.
  We went through this exercise on the balanced budget amendment for 
many years. The other side failed to understand the difference between 
promising to balance the budget and actually doing it. As it turned 
out, all they had to do to balance the budget was to support President 
Bush in 1990 and President Clinton in 1993. For the most part, they did 
not; but we balanced the budget over their objections.
  The other side continues to misplace the distinction between promise 
and reality. They argue they need a constitutional amendment not to 
raise taxes, when all they simply need to do is not to raise taxes. In 
fact, the House voted yesterday 420 to 1 not to raise taxes. But I 
guess for the authors of this amendment that vote was too close.
  This is tax frolic week, or tax press release week. To give another 
example of the deep thought that has gone into this week, tomorrow we 
take up a bill to repeal the Federal income tax with a promise to 
replace it in the future. We have to promise at that point, not knowing 
where we are going, that we are going to come up with a substitute, 
perhaps a flat tax to benefit the wealthy, or a 60 percent retail sales 
tax. But if both this bill and tomorrow's bill were to pass, it would 
require a two-thirds vote of Congress to replace the repealed Federal 
income tax.
  Twenty years ago, I was standing in a classroom telling students of 
my reverence for the Constitution. What would I say to them about the 
shenanigans occurring here today? I would not even want to face them.
  The Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote in the House in 
only three instances: overriding a President's veto, submission of a 
constitutional amendment to the States, and expelling a Member from 
this House. Those are matters that are much more weighty than the one 
that faces us today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Founding Fathers examined majority rule and what it 
meant. They rejected the notion that one-third of the Members of this 
institution should be in a position to determine the fate of 
legislation. They, led by Mr. Madison, reviewed the question of what 
constituted a majority in a legislative body. They concluded, based 
upon the bad experience of the Nation under the Articles of the 
Confederation, where nine of 13 States were positioned to raise 
eventual revenue, that it was simply a bad idea.
  Upholding the current Constitution is truly, truly the conservative 
position in this debate. Holding the country hostage to the tyranny of 
the minority of one-third is, indeed, the radical position. But, 
apparently, Mr. Speaker, it makes better sense for a good press release 
than to stand with the Constitution.
  So let us proceed. Crank out the press releases, go home for a 2-week 
break, and then, when we come back, let us do something real and 
substantive for a change.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair advise each side how much 
time is remaining on this issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) has 3 minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hall), and it would not be right if I did not thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), who has really been the crusader on this issue for 
a long, long time, and one I think that we ought to get straight and 
pass.
  Since the beginning of the year, this Republican majority has 
succeeded in passing several tax cuts for the American people. We 
believe that couples should no longer be punished by the Tax Code 
because they are simply married.
  We enacted legislation that prevents senior citizens from being taxed 
excessively, and particularly when they continue to be positive 
contributors to society. And we had bipartisan support for that.
  We passed tax reduction legislation to help ensure that small 
businesses and family farms remain in the family.
  But while we shall continue to offer tax cuts every year, today we 
have a historic opportunity to take a great leap forward by limiting 
tax increases forever. Passage of this act would require two-thirds of 
Congress to raise taxes. It is too easy, too easy, for this government 
to pass unnecessary tax increases on the hardworking people of this 
country. I repeat that: it is too easy.
  If President Clinton, for example, had got his way this year in his 
budget, he would have increased taxes by $237 billion over the next 10 
years. Why, Mr. Speaker, is the President trying to raise taxes in an 
era of budget surpluses? Why? Instead of raising taxes, should we not 
find ways to give the surplus, part of it at least, back to the people 
who have overpaid?
  With a surplus on hand, and CBO projecting future surpluses, there is 
no need for any new tax increases. Congress should be focusing on 
forcing Federal bureaucrats to cut waste, fraud and abuse and spend 
their budgets wisely. For too long the Federal Government has raised 
taxes on a whim. This bill is the best way to ensure that taxes are 
increased only when it is absolutely necessary.
  Currently, 14 States, as has been previously mentioned, have tax 
limitation provisions, and it has been demonstrated that States with 
limitation provisions have seen a reduction in the growth of spending. 
For a needed tax increase, a two-thirds majority would not be that 
difficult to obtain. We simply want to give the public the security 
that the Federal Government will not raise unnecessary and hasty tax 
increases.
  I think it is about time that we restore the public's faith in 
government. Instead of only saying we are against new taxes, let us 
actually show them. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and 
protect Americans from the Washington big spenders.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), representing the Sixth District of Texas, who 
brought this effort to the floor of the House of Representatives, and 
who is one of the most articulate spokesmen for the Tax Limitation 
Amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
tax limitation constitutional amendment. I want to commend the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), representing the Fifth District of 
Texas, for his excellent leadership this year.
  I have been able to listen to some of the debate this year. Certainly 
I have led the debate in prior years for the proponents of it. I have a 
few simple things to say in the 2\1/2\ minutes that I have remaining.
  First of all, my constituents want tax limitation. I have never 
attended a town meeting, a public forum of any sort where this issue 
came up that less than 90 percent of the people there did not say they 
wanted this in the strongest possible terms.
  I just did my taxes. I sent a check in to the Internal Revenue 
Service early this week. I know for a fact that our taxes are too high. 
In spite of the robust economy that we have, taxation of the American 
people is at an all-time high. If we include State and local taxes, 
there are people in our country today that are in a tax bracket 
approaching 60 percent of their income. At the Federal level, taxation 
is well over 20 percent. And that is just on income taxes and does not 
include Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes.
  The Tax Limitation Amendment is fairly straightforward. It would take 
a two-thirds vote to pass a tax increase. Two-thirds is a larger 
fraction than one-half. It does not say we cannot have tax increases, 
it does not say tax increases will never be necessary; but it says 
there should be a national consensus of a supermajority that a tax 
increase is definitely needed. We should look at spending decreases; we 
should look at efficiency before we look at increasing taxes.
  I would remind Members in this body that the original Constitution 
had 100 percent, a 100 percent prohibition against income tax 
increases, because income taxes were unconstitutional until early in 
this century when the 19th amendment made it constitutional to pass an 
income tax. Since that time, the marginal tax rate on the American 
public has gone from 1 percent to 38 percent. That is a 3,800 percent 
increase.
  So to put it simply, a tax limitation works. There is no better time 
to pass a constitutional amendment making it harder to raise taxes than 
right now when we are in a budget surplus. The opponents of the 
amendment do not say that it would not work. They are opposed to it 
precisely for the reason that it would work.
  I hope we can get a two-thirds vote necessary to pass this to the 
Senate today. If for some reason we are not successful, this amendment 
will come back. The more the American people know about it, the more it 
becomes a part of the lexicon of the political process, and the greater 
the likelihood that we will pass this.
  Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Shadegg), and others for their strong leadership on this. I will vote 
for it and encourage every Member of this body to vote for it.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) 
has 3 minutes.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I think we have had what I would call a 
spirited debate today, but one has to wonder why this proposal comes up 
every April. Congress comes in session in January. We stay around until 
October. Why do we not have a vote on this particular issue in July or 
February? For the last 5 years it has always come up in April.
  But when in April? Well, they try to schedule it April 15. Well, my 
gosh, why April 15? Well, that is the day that we have to file our 
taxes, the last day we have to file our taxes. Why did they do it this 
date this year? They got snookered. April 15 is on a Saturday, and they 
cannot keep Members of Congress here on a Saturday.
  So this is more for show, my friends, than for goal, as evidenced by 
the vote we are going to have very shortly, which will provide that 
this constitutional amendment will not pass, nor should it. Nor should 
it. If, in fact, a majority in Congress can send our young men and 
women to war; if a majority in Congress can cut benefits for education, 
Social Security, Medicare; if a majority can do all these things, then 
why not also deal with tax policy in the same manner?

                              {time}  1300

  My colleagues on the other side know that is correct. And if this 
were a secret ballot, this thing would go down to the person, it would 
fail 435-0. But that is not the case. It is April 15. We have to make a 
statement about taxes.
  And tomorrow we have a better one for my colleagues. Tomorrow we are 
going to repeal the entire Tax Code. We are going to repeal the Tax 
Code tomorrow. And what are we going to replace it with? I do not know. 
We do not have a plan for that yet. That is how phoney this business 
is.
  We had a hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means on a bill 
sponsored by one of their Members and one on our side. It provided for 
a national sales tax. The thing got worse as we questioned the 
witnesses. It started out with a 30-percent sales tax on every good and 
service, including clothes, prescription drugs. And by the time we got 
done talking to the Joint Committee on Taxation, to be revenue neutral, 
that national sales tax would be 60 percent.
  So we are going to trust them with tax policy around here to tax my 
constituents 60 percent on their drug costs, when now they are going to 
Canada to get a break?
  This constitutional amendment, Mr. Speaker, is not necessary, and I 
urge my colleagues to not support it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I pass to the remaining and closing speaker that 
we have, I would like to thank three people: Marty McGuinness from my 
staff; Steve Waguespack, who is from the staff of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton); and Elizabeth Kowal from the staff of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from the 
Fourth District of Texas (Mr. Hall), a gentleman who is a close friend 
of mine and the cosponsor and co-lead of this joint resolution.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do think it has been a spirited 
debate. I have not heard all of it. If I repeat some of the things of 
those who propose this, forgive me for it. But I would like to answer 
some of the questions that have been asked.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) made a very good speech 
and asked why are we having it at this particular time. Well, that 
answer is pretty simple. We asked for it at this time because this is 
the time when most of the people of the United States are thinking 
about how high their taxes are. I think it is good to try to get their 
attention.
  I believe, though, that we may be starting at the wrong level, we may 
be starting up here, when we really ought to be starting in our 
precincts and in our counties in our States at home. If we only close 
the gap today, or if we come close to closing the gap, or whatever 
votes we get today, we are going to count them for next year; and we 
are going to be in there trying to get it to emanate from the 
grassroots.
  Because I think if we get the grass-roots people and ask them the 
question, do they think it ought to be a little bit tougher to vote 
taxes on hardworking Americans, I think about all of them would say, 
absolutely yes.
  It has also been suggested that this was politics. Everything we do 
up here has some politics to it. I would always say to my colleagues 
that it is not bad politics to be telling hardworking Americans that we 
are going to make it a little tougher to tax them. I think that is good 
politics. If it is politics, it is doggone good politics where I come 
from.
  I cannot go anywhere in my district and talk to anybody there that 
does not complain about the taxes. Now, ask them, go home, 
conservative, Democrat, liberal, whatever, ask them, would they like 
for it to be a little more difficult for the United States Congress to 
tax them and take money out of their left hip pocket? I guarantee my 
colleagues that nine out of nine and probably a hundred out of a 
hundred are going to tell us, absolutely yes.
  So I am here to express my support for the tax limitation agreement. 
We would not have had the sad 1986 Tax Reform Act if it had taken two-
thirds, a reform act that set this country back to where we are just 
now getting over it. A lot of things would not have happened if it 
would have taken two-thirds.
  There is a lot of difference in asking two-thirds vote to tax people 
and asking two-thirds vote to support various programs. I agree with 
the gentleman on the fact that it should only take a majority on 
supporting some of these programs. But when we go to taxing the 
American people, a direct tax from us to them, from our mouth to their 
left hip pocket, I think it ought to take two-thirds of us. I believe 
most of the people in this country, all of the good-thinking people in 
this country, would say, yes, make it a little tougher up there in 
Washington, D.C., for them to take our money away from us.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the H.J. Res. 
94 and commend my colleagues from Texas for advancing this important 
legislation. Requiring a two-thirds supermajority for tax increases is 
one of the most critical hurdles we can erect to check future growth in 
government.
  This supermajority requirement for tax increases is a tested model 
that has proven effective. Fourteen states now have tax limitation 
amendments in place and have shown great progress in restraining taxes 
and spending. It is no accident that those states are among the most 
impressive economic growth states in the nation.
  Alternatively, as a resident of upstate New York where we suffer one 
of the highest tax burdens in the nation, I have seen firsthand how big 
government and escalating tax rates stifle economic growth. For many 
decades, Democratic leadership in New York enacted tax increase after 
tax increase and government expanded practically unchecked.
  Upstate New York is not sharing in the nation's economic prosperity 
and is in fact seeing its population leave for opportunities in other 
regions of the country. This is painful for me as a father of three who 
would like to see opportunities for my children to spend their lives in 
upstate New York. If upstate New York were a state by itself, it would 
rank near the bottom in terms of economic growth. I believe it is the 
tax climate that has driven job growth away from our region.
  Therefore, this amendment before us today is extremely important 
effort to show that government can check itself. Mr. Speaker, this is 
important legislation. I thank my friend, Mr. Sessions, for his hard 
work on this issue and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
4163, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. This legislation brings much-needed 
simplification to our tax code and ensures that a taxpayer's privacy 
will be protected.
  Taxpayers should be assured that the information they provide to the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will be kept secure and confidential. 
Information on earnings, property and other income should be kept 
private, and this bill ensures that it will be. The Taxpayer Bill of 
Rights requires IRS supervisors, not rank-and-file workers, to 
determine if there are sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation 
into an individual's tax return.
  The bill also requires states to conduct annual on-site 
investigations of contractors who receive federal tax information and 
process it for state agencies to ensure that this information is being 
safeguarded. Further, this legislation requires the IRS to notify 
taxpayers in all instances in which the IRS has unlawfully obtained a 
taxpayer's return or other information.
  The legislation contains other important consumer protections, 
including a provision that tightens the requirements for banks to get 
access to a taxpayer's records. And, it requires that all third parties 
keep this information confidential.
  H.R. 4163 helps taxpayers who are self-employed by simplifying the 
formula for estimated taxes. By allowing taxpayers to use one interest 
rate in calculating estimated tax, much time and effort will be saved. 
In addition, the bill's increase, from $1,000 to $2,000, in the 
threshold over which penalties must be paid for failure to pay 
estimated tax will help thousands of self-employed persons each year 
who miscalculate their taxes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative. As tax day 
approaches, this is the least we can do to reduce the regulatory burden 
the IRS imposes on the American taxpayer.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I fully support H.J. Res. 94, which calls 
for an amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting passage 
of tax increases without a two-thirds majority in each house of 
Congress, except in emergency cases such as a military conflict. I am a 
cosponsor of this legislation, I have voted for similar legislation in 
the past, and I remain committed to passing the strongest tax 
limitation amendment possible.
  Opponents claim, and will continue to claim, that constitutional 
amendments on taxing and spending make it harder to operate government 
as we know it. That is exactly the point--fiscal reality proves to us 
that we need an instrument, a tool, to control government spending and 
limit raising taxes.
  The Federal Government has run deficits for 56 of the last 66 years 
leading to a $5.4 trillion national debt. This is not a short-termed 
trend. It points to a fundamental flaw in the political system that 
makes a constitutional solution both necessary and appropriate. We need 
to pass H.J. Res. 94 to renew our commitment to fiscal discipline. 
Otherwise, irresponsible spending and higher federal taxes will 
continue to own us, cripple our economy and mortgage our children's 
future. Congress needs the legal and moral authority of a 
Constitutional amendment making it more difficult to raise taxes.
  This is not a radical idea as some have suggested. In fact, 14 states 
have enacted tax limitation measures. Since 1980, the state I 
represent, Delaware, has required a three-fifths vote to raise any tax. 
As a result, balanced budgets are the rule, not the exception, in 
Delaware.
  Yesterday, the House rejected the $116 billion in new taxes and fees 
proposed in President Clinton's FY2001 budget by a vote of 420 to 1. I 
believe that vote represents an endorsement of the idea that higher 
taxes are not needed when the Federal Government is operating a budget 
surplus. Today, we need to go the next step and make it more difficult 
to raise taxes anytime other than during a military emergency. I urge 
those same 420 members to support this resolution today.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in principled opposition 
to House Joint Resolution 94, 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 the judgment of this 
Member, tax increases should not be employed to achieve a balanced 
budget; balanced budgets should be achieved by economic growth and, as 
appropriate, tax cuts. This is why this Member in the past has 
supported the inclusion of a super majority 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 94.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the House has 
considered proposals like this several times in recent years. So I can 
see why the debate about it sounds so rehearsed. I get the impression 
that many Members have heard all the arguments before, and I suspect 
that the debate will not change many minds about the proposal.
  But as a new Member I must say this resolution strikes me as one of 
the oddest pieces of legislation that I've encountered yet--and I think 
it's one of the worst.
  I'm not a lawyer, but it's clear that the language of the proposal is 
an invitation to litigation--in other words, to getting the courts 
involved even further in the law-making process. To say that Congress 
can define when a constitutional requirement would apply, provided that 
the Congressional decision is ``reasonable,'' is to ask for lawsuits 
challenging whatever definition might be adopted. Aren't there enough 
lawsuits already over the tax laws? Do we need to invite more?
  But more important than the technical aspects of this proposal, I 
think it is bad because it moves away from the basic principle of 
democracy--majority rule.
  Under this proposal, there would be another category of bills that 
would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. 
That's bad enough as it applies here in the House, but consider what 
that means in the Senate. There, if any 34 Senators are opposed to 
something that take a two-thirds vote, it cannot be passed. And, of 
course, each state has the same representation regardless of 
population.
  Consider what that means if the Senators in opposition are those from 
the 17 States with the fewest residents.
  We don't yet have this year's census numbers, of course, but the most 
recent estimates that I have seen show that the total population of the 
17 least-populous states is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million 
people. That's a respectable number, but remember that the population 
of the country is 270 million or more.
  So, what this resolution would do would be to give Senators 
representing about 7 percent of the American people more power to block 
something even if it has sweeping support in the rest of the country.
  Right now, that kind of supermajority is needed under the 
constitution to ratify treaties, propose Constitutional amendments, and 
to do a few other things.
  But this resolution does not deal with things of that kind. It deals 
only with certain tax bills--bills that under the constitution have to 
originate here, in the House. Those are the bills that would be covered 
by this increase in the power of Senators who could represent a small 
minority of the American people.
  Why would we want to do that? Are the proponents of this 
constitutional amendment so afraid of majority rule on the subject of 
``internal revenue''? Why else would they be so eager to reduce the 
stature of this body, the House of Representatives, as compared with 
our colleagues in the Senate.
  Remember, that's what this is all about--``internal revenue,'' 
however that term might be defined by Congress or by the courts. When 
Congress debates taxes, it is deciding what funds are to be raised 
under Congress's Constitutional authority to ``pay the debts and 
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United 
States.'' Those are serious and important decisions, to be sure, but 
what is wrong with continuing to have them made under the principle of 
majority rule--meaning by the members of Congress who represent the 
majority of the American people?
  So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this proposed change in the 
Constitution. Our country has gotten along well without it for two 
centuries. It is not needed. It would not solve any problem--in fact, 
it probably would create new ones--and it would weaken the basic 
principle of democratic government, majority rule. It should not be 
approved.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 471, 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.
  Mr. KLECZKA. 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 234, 
nays 192, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 119]

                               YEAS--234

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berkley
     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-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     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
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     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 (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     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
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     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
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cook
     Cummings
     DeGette
     Dixon
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Watkins

                              {time}  1326

  Mr. OLVER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MANZULLO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the joint 
resolution was not passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 119, I was on the floor and 
pressed the ``yea'' button, but I was not recorded.
  I would like to be recorded as a ``yea.''

                          ____________________