[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 10465]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROPOSING A TAX LIMITATION AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
                                 STATES

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 12, 2002

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, already this year is nearly half 
gone. But more than half our year's work remains undone--including 
consideration of the President's proposal to establish a new Department 
of Homeland Security. If we are to complete the year's work on time, we 
need to put every day to good use. But that's not what we are doing 
today.
  Instead, today the House is again considering a proposed 
constitutional amendment that was debated, and that failed of approval, 
just last year. I think that is a waste of time, especially since the 
proposal does not deserve to pass.
  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.
  Looking at the results of the most recent census, the total 
population of the 17 least-populous states is about 21 million people.
  That's a respectable number, but remember that the population of the 
country is more than 280 million.
  So, what this resolution would do would be to give Senators 
representing about 7 percent of the American people the power to block 
some kinds of legislation--even if that legislation has sweeping 
support in the rest of the country, even if it had passed the House by 
an overwhelming margin, and even if it was responding to an urgent 
national need.
  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 such a 
very 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? 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.

                          ____________________