[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 6466-6467]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 25, 2001

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 41, the 
Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment, which would require a two-
thirds majority vote in Congress to pass legislation increasing 
internal Federal revenues, except in time of war or military conflict. 
While I support a simpler, fairer and more efficient tax code, I cannot 
back this fiscally irresponsible proposal, which would unnecessarily 
tamper with the Constitution and undermine its principle of majority 
rule.
  This resolution would deny Congress its legislative ability to 
address weaknesses in our current tax code and possibly close outdated 
and costly tax loopholes. Further, this constitutional amendment would 
prevent us from passing reconciliation bills, which reduce future 
deficits by making balanced spending cuts and raising revenues, unless 
there are tax cuts of equal size.
  The philosophical battle over supermajorities was waged after the 
Articles of Confederation was enacted. During, this debate, our 
Founders became convinced that supermajorities were unfeasible and that 
a simple majority--our present system for the passage of tax bills--was 
the most practical. For centuries, our government has abided by this 
fundamental principle and concluded that our republic would be 
compromised if a two-thirds majority vote were required for revenue 
bills and other day-to-day legislative matters routinely before us.
  We all want to protect hard-working families from tax increases, but 
requiring a two-thirds vote to raise revenues to pay for spending 
initiatives that we have already authorized would make funding our 
national priorities even more problematic. Furthermore, this 
constitutional amendment would make it extraordinarily difficult to 
extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and reduce our 
national debt. Finally, this legislation is largely unworkable, given 
the vagueness and ambiguity of its language. If Congress is truly 
concerned about

[[Page 6467]]

guarding the American public from unwarranted tax increases, it should 
pass meaningful tax reform legislation, maintain a balanced budget, and 
trust American citizens to elect representatives who will legislate in 
their best interests.
  For these reasons, I cannot support this proposed change to the 
Constitution. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this 
imprudent measure.

                          ____________________