Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am totally unaware of that. I think it is a serious issue. I would ask my good friend from Colorado to ask me to his congressional district at a time and place of his convenience, and we will engage in as serious a debate as the gentleman wishes to participate in before his constituents.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to the gentleman from Colorado. First, I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs). He led the debate in opposition to this at least one of the times it has been on the floor. I thought we had a very good, informed, and intellectual debate. I would say to my good friend that the reason it is on the floor is because it is something that needs to be done. We have 14 States that require some sort of supermajority for tax increase, including, I believe, the gentleman's State of Colorado. We have 27 groups that have endorsed this amendment. We have 10 national groups that have key voted it. We have approximately 10 Governors who have now come out in support of it. We can debate spending priorities; that is a fair thing. We can debate whether we should have any tax increase or more tax increases, but if you look at the marginal tax rate that has gone up from 1 percent back in 1914 to around 40 percent today, you cannot debate that taxes have gone up tremendously, and to most Americans that tax burden is as high as it should be.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right. FICA taxes are a tax. Under this amendment it would take a two-thirds vote to raise FICA taxes, which would make it unlikely. The gentleman may be right about some of the tax loopholes. I would point out that under this amendment we could close every loophole in the Tax Code if we wanted to, as long as we used that revenue that was generated to then lower the overall tax rate or tax burden, and the overall net effect was a de minimis increase in taxes. We could do that until the cows come home. We could go to a flat tax, a sales tax. What we cannot do is raise the overall tax burden unless two-thirds of the Members of this House and the other body vote to do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) to respond. I do not mind doing it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are going to put the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) down as undecided on this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from my California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the second session of the 105th Congress. In the first session of the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on March 18, 1997, where the resolution was ordered reported to the full House on April 8, 1997, by the subcommittee. It is the exact language that was voted on last year, so the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) did not feel they needed to hold another hearing on the exact language, since this is in the same Congress.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would announce that when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) comes to the floor, I will ask unanimous consent to yield some of my time to him as the chief Democrat sponsor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as I begin to speak, the Pages are putting an example of the first 1040 form up for those Members in the Chamber to look at. This was a 1040 form in 1914. It was one page long. It is a little difficult to read, but if we will look here, citizens were taxed 1 percent on net income over $3,000, 1 percent. Less than 1 percent of the American people had to pay any income tax the first time it was collected in 1914. If we go on down and look at these numbers again, it is very difficult to see from the Chamber, but if we had over $20,000 of net income, we paid an additional 1 percent. If we had over $50,000, we paid 2 percent. And it goes down. Then if we had over $500,000 of net income back in 1914, we paid the horrendous rate of 6 percent. That was the first income tax collected on the American taxpayers by the Federal Government back in 1914. Since that time, the marginal rate has not stayed at 1 percent. It is now over 40 percent. That is an increase of 4,000 percent. The time has come to do something about that. The time has come to support the rule that the gentlewoman from Ohio is on the floor, representing a majority of the Members of the Committee on Rules, to make in order the rule for the debate of the tax limitation constitutional amendment. This rule makes in order the bill that we voted on last year, the constitutional amendment that we voted on last year. It also makes in order a Democratic substitute, if they wish to offer a substitute, and a motion to recommit. So it is a very fair rule. The amendment that was reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary last year, and we did not have a hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary this year but we reported the same bill to the Committee on Rules, would require a two-thirds vote of the House and the Senate to raise taxes. It explicitly states that if we want to lower the capital gains tax rate, we can do that with the simple majority vote. If we want to change to a national sales tax, if we want to change to a flat tax, as long as the overall revenue effect is de minimis, and that is a very fancy Latin word that means ``very little'', we can do that with a majority vote. We may be asking, as my good friend from Massachusetts said in his opposition just a second ago or a few minutes ago, is this a gimmick? The answer is no, it is not a gimmick. If we could have, not that chart but the one right underneath here, you see this has been tried in 14 States. It is either in the State constitutions in 14 States or it is in the State law in 14 States, some of them as far back as 1890. In the year 1890, 100 years ago, the State of Mississippi said, if we are going to have a tax increase, it takes a three-fifths vote. The other 13 States that have it, some of them are as high as three- fourths. Since 1934, the State of Arkansas, where our President was the former governor. Most of them are two-thirds, which is in the amendment. These 14 States, a number of studies have been done over the years, and there are four things that are true in those 14 States. Their taxes are lower than in States that do not have a supermajority requirement. Their taxes go up slower than in those States that do not have a supermajority tax increase requirement. Therefore, their economy grows faster. Believe it or not, it means that more jobs are created, about 43 percent in States that have the supermajority requirement, more jobs are created than in those States that do not. When we get to the debate later this afternoon on the amendment, keep a few things in mind. The opponents that are against this are not against it because they do not think it will work. They are against it because they know it will work. They know that it will take a consensus of the country and a consensus of the Congress, not just the Republicans, not just the Democrats, but a bipartisan majority, supermajority to require a tax increase. If I could see the last chart, there are going to be some other poll numbers reported later in the debate. This is a poll that was taken last year. And the poll that was taken last year, 64 percent of people identified with the Democratic Party said they were for a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. Sixty-eight percent of Federal employees that were polled said they were for a two-thirds requirement to raise their Federal taxes. Seventy-one percent of union members said that they were for a two-thirds requirement to raise their taxes, and 73 percent overall of all Americans. So this is not a conservative issue. This is not a Republican issue. This is an American issue. The latest number poll, that is this year, 75 percent of all Americans are for the supermajority requirement. So vote for the rule.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman would yield further, I do not know when we are going to vote. But the Speaker is in town.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), who represents the entire State.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ long minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the distinguished chairman, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley), in hope that he would talk fast.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I saw the Speaker in HT-5 less than an hour ago. So at least an hour ago he was in town.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We will see if they think it should be more difficult to raise their taxes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon we are going to have a debate and a vote on the two-thirds tax limitation amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This amendment is very straightforward. If it passes and it is passed in the Senate and goes to the States and is ratified by three-fourths of the States, it would make it a voting requirement. To pass a tax increase in either body or to expand the tax base would take a two- thirds vote instead of the one-half plus one vote that it now currently takes. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), my good friend from Houston, was up here earlier talking about all the bad things that might happen and all the programs that might not be funded, I would point out that we are moving into a budget surplus. We would still have those programs. But if we wanted to spend more money, we would have a debate on spending priorities, not on tax increases, unless we could get a consensus. We would need a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to pass a tax increase. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the two-thirds tax limitation amendment.