[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 5855]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. CASS BALLENGER

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 13, 2000

  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Tax 
Limitation Amendment 2000 (H.J. Res. 94), introduced by our Republican 
colleague Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX). I firmly believe that we 
need this amendment to insure that, in virtually every circumstance, a 
tax increase would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress 
for final adoption. While this is not a new idea, I believe it is a 
proposal which deserves our attention and that of the American 
taxpayers again this year.
  Despite the best efforts of the Republican-led 106th Congress to 
reduce taxes and make the federal tax code fairer for America's hard-
working citizens, we cannot count on future Congresses to share our 
enthusiasm for these reforms--reforms which are strengthening 
individual citizens' economic opportunities and fueling our nation's 
record economic growth. We proposed a tax limitation amendment in the 
fall of 1994 as one component of the Republican's Contract with 
America, a list of legislative objectives which has guided our policy 
agenda since the Republican takeover of the House and Senate in 1995. 
The enactment of H.J. Res. 94 would represent an insurance policy which 
this Congress should leave as a part of our legacy to our citizens.
  H.J. Res. 94 not only seeks to make Congress more fiscally 
responsible, but it would instill greater public confidence in the tax 
system. This result has been endorsed by the National Commission on 
Economic Growth, chaired by former House Member and Republican Vice 
Presidential nominee Jack Kemp. The amendment would block future major 
tax increases which resemble President Clinton's 1993 tax increases for 
example, a bill which cleared the House by only one extra vote and 
clearly lacked strong bipartisan support. President Clinton's tax hikes 
are haunting many Americans today, in particular elderly Americans in 
my congressional district.
  The bottom line is that the same super-majority requirement which is 
applied to major decisions like amending the Constitution and 
impeaching the President ought to be required for legislation which 
would take more money out of our constituents' monthly budgets.

                          ____________________