Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am just flattered to continue to be yielded time. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Madam Chairman, I am standing on the Republican side to express some of the same concerns that have been expressed on the Democratic side about the inadequacy about the privacy protections in the bill that is pending before us. I want to commend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and others on the Republican side for beginning to address the issue. Sadly, we have not gone as far as we should go. We are about to enter a brave new world where financial institutions offer large ranges of services, not just checking account balances and savings account balances. That is good. That is going to provide additional choice and additional products for the American consuming public. In the bill before us, if the Oxley amendment is adopted, we are going to protect privacy in most cases for third-party transfers outside the affiliate structure with some exceptions. We are going to allow, within the affiliate structure, transfers with disclosure. My opinion is, if it is a necessity to provide privacy for third- party transactions outside of the affiliate structure, it is just as much a necessity to provide that same opt-out provision within the affiliate structure, given the fact that the very reason the bill is before us is because we want to have these financial service conglomerates. I had offered, with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a modified version of his amendment that was adopted on a voice vote by the full Subcommittee on Energy and Power and Committee on Commerce. That was not made in order by the Committee on Rules. I think that is unfortunate. I voted for the rule even knowing that my amendment had not been made in order. I have spoken with the Speaker and the majority leader, and I have their assurances that these privacy issues will continue to be addressed. I am sure that the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) share these same assurances. But I want to let the body know that this concern about privacy is not specifically a Democrat concern or Republican concern, it is concern for all Americans. It is not going to go away, and we will have to address it as this bill moves forward in the conference if it passes the House. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) if he wants to make a comment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I appreciate that pledge, and I will work with the gentleman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And you are doing an outstanding job in that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I just want to say that I have the Russell Thomas children with me, Becca, Anna, Rachel and their niece, and they are learning about democracy firsthand, and thank you for your courtesy to let me introduce them.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I would not object if the leadership on both sides would agree that we could roll the vote until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 459.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), one of the original cosponsors whose district the project is located in. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 459) to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for FERC Project No. 9401, the Mt. Hope Waterpower Project.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 459 extends the construction period for a hydroelectric project in the State of New Jersey. Under section 13 of the Federal Power Act, project construction must begin within 4 years of issuance of the license. If construction is not begun by that time, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission cannot extend the deadline and must terminate the license. H.R. 459 grants the project developer until August 3, 2002, to commence construction if it pursues the commencement of construction in good faith and with due diligence. These types of bills have not been controversial in the past. The bill does not change the license requirement in any way. It does not change environmental standards but merely extends the construction deadline. There is a need to act, Mr. Speaker, since the construction deadline for the Mt. Hope Pumped Storage Project expires in August of this year. If Congress does not act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will terminate the license, the project sponsor will lose $28 million that they have already invested in the project, and the local community will lose the prospect of significant job creation and added revenues. Construction of the Mt. Hope project will create 1,300 jobs during construction and generate $254 million for the local economy. If the Congress does not act, the local community will lose these jobs and these revenues. These extension bills have not proved controversial in the past. H.R. 459 was approved by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Commerce by unanimous voice vote. The bill was introduced jointly by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). I support H.R. 459, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time; and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes). (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I want to put into the Record at this point in time a letter from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Executive Department, signed by the Governor of the Commonwealth, Governor Cellucci. It says, ``On behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I am pleased to express my support for the Tax Limitation Amendment.'' Mr. Speaker, I include the letter as follows: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, February 4, 1999. Grover G. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Norquist: On behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I am pleased to express my support for the Tax Limitation Amendment (TLA). During the current time of economic prosperity, we must wisely prepare for the often unpredictable tides of our national economy. The passage of the TLA will safeguard the needs of our taxpayers and provide protection against unnecessary future tax increases. Sincerely, Argeo Paul Cellucci, Governor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the great gentleman from the State of Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for supporting the leadership and putting this on the Floor. Secondly, I have in my hand a copy of the Constitution of the United States. I know the gentleman from Texas has one.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will look under Section 9.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will look under Article I, Section 9, he will see that it says, ``No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.'' That prohibited income tax on people until February, 1913. If we look over in Amendment XVI, it says, ``The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'' That is why we need this constitutional amendment, to put the Constitution back like it was.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by putting into the Record the letters from the governors of the States that have endorsed the Tax Limitation Amendment. Time does not permit me to read each letter. But we have a letter from the Governor of Texas. We have a letter from the Governor of New York. We have a letter from the Governor of Florida. We have a letter from the Governor of New Jersey. We have a letter from the Governor of Connecticut. We have a letter from the Governor of Arizona. We have a letter from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We have a letter from the Governor of the great State of Mississippi. We have a letter from the Governor of Oklahoma. We have a letter from the Governor of Colorado. We have a letter from the Governor of Arkansas. We have a letter from the Governor of North Dakota. And we have previously put into the Record a letter from the Governor of Pennsylvania. These governors support tax limitation, for one simple reason, it works. There are 14 States that have tax limitation, either constitutional requirements or legislative requirements; and in those 14 States, the Heritage Foundation did a study several years ago and came to the conclusion that in every State that had it, taxes were lower. They went up slower. Consequently, economic growth was faster and more people got jobs more quickly. The original Constitution as passed in 1787 had a direct prohibition in Article I, section 9, against direct taxes. We referred to that earlier in the debate. We will put that into the Record at the appropriate time. But in February of 1913, there was a 16th Amendment to the Constitution. That amendment said that it was constitutional to levy a direct tax, like an income tax, on the American people. Since that time, the marginal tax rate on the American people has gone from 1 percent to 39.8 percent. That is an increase of 4,000 percent. When we finish collecting the income taxes this evening at midnight, the American people will have paid in in the past tax year in income taxes over $800 billion. $800 billion. And if we include Social Security tax and Medicare taxes, that tax burden rises to over $1 trillion on the American taxpayers. Enough is enough. To my left, we have the items in the Constitution at its passage where a supermajority vote was required. Time does not permit me to go through all of them. But we can see that there are 10 examples for a new State to come into the Union it took a two-thirds vote. To ratify a treaty, it took a two-thirds vote. To convict a President that had been impeached by the House, it took a two-thirds vote. And to amend the Constitution, it took a two-thirds vote. It is ironic to me that we are on the floor today, having won this debate every year we have had it, we had the majority vote; the three previous times that we brought it up on the House floor, we won every vote. We got a majority of the Congress, Republicans and some Democrats, to vote for tax limitation. But we have not met the constitutional burden of a two-thirds supermajority. And I am fine with that. We are going to win this two-thirds vote some day. Perhaps today is the day. But if we do not, we will come back until we do. It only makes sense to me, since the original Constitution said we cannot levy an income tax. We had 100 percent prohibition against it in 1787. It is only since 1913 that we have allowed an income tax. It makes sense to me, if we are going to have these direct taxes, we ought to raise the bar. We ought to require a supermajority, all the Republicans and some Democrats, or all the Democrats and some Republicans, or some of both parties and maybe the Independents, to vote that there is a consensus in the country that taxes need to be raised. This is a very simple concept in terms of the amendment. Is one-half larger than two-thirds? If my colleagues took fractions back in elementary school, they can go through the math better than I. One-half equals three-sixths. Two-thirds equals four-sixths. Four-sixths is greater than three-sixths by one-sixth. One-sixth is an additional 70 votes. We want to raise the bar in the House by 70 votes to require 291 votes to raise taxes, and we want to raise the bar in the Senate by 17 votes to go from 50 to 67. It is basic math. It works. We need to raise the bar. This shows that in the States that have it, this again is the Heritage Foundation study, it is several years old so it is not current through 1997, but it shows the percentages of how each State's tax rate went up compared to those States that did not have tax limitation and the spending. I encourage every Member of the House to listen to their constituents, vote for the Tax Limitation Amendment later today. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following governors' letters that I referred to: State of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND, January 19, 1999. Mr. Grover G. Norquist, President Americans for Tax Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Norquist: I join with other governors in strongly endorsing your efforts to win passage of the Tax Limitation Amendment. In North Dakota, I used my State to the State address to call for a legislative supermajority to pass any increase in sales or income tax. The need for such institutionalized fiscal discipline is even greater at the federal level. Congratulations on your campaign to protect America's taxpayers through the Tax Limitation Amendment! I wish you great success on this important project. Sincerely, Edward T. Schafer, Governor.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. No, but there is no prohibition against the word being in the Constitution.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. ``De minimis'' is a Latin word.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure and high honor to yield 3 minutes to the honorable gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives. (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)