Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), one of the chief sponsors of this amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I will actually read the resolution we are voting on and explain it: ``Any bill, resolution, or other legislative measure,'' and that means any vehicle that we bring to the floor, ``changing the Internal Revenue laws,'' that is, the Internal Revenue Code we currently operate under, ``shall require,'' it means we must, ``for final adoption in each House,'' that is, the House and Senate, ``the concurrence of two- thirds of the Members of that House voting and present,'' it means it would take a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, ``unless that bill is determined at the time of adoption,'' i.e., through the normal committee process, ``in a reasonable manner,'' we would be open and transparent, ``prescribed by law, not to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount.'' De minimis is a Latin word that means a very little bit, if you want to talk Texan. ``For purposes of determining any increase in the internal revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of an effective rate of any tax.'' That is, you can cut the capital gains tax rate with a majority vote, and if that raises revenues, so be it. ``On any vote for which the concurrence of two- thirds is required under this article, the yeas and nays of the Members of either House shall be entered,'' so it has to be a record vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay), the distinguished Majority Whip.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I did.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, is there a question?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I want in the interests of full disclosure and open and honest debate, subsequent to his conversation with me publicly and privately, I have called the Speaker's office to try to confirm his whereabouts. The Speaker is not on Capitol Hill at this point in time. He does expect to arrive between 5:00 and 5:30. I will at the appropriate time, at the end of all debate, if we use the full time, ask for the yeas and nays, and I have asked that the vote be held until the Speaker can be here which should be between 5:00 and 5:30.

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

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. So? I would like to walk through some of the constitutional mechanisms which I believe are very important, and which show that the majority that supports this amendment wants the majority to speak on this amendment. The 16th Amendment allowed a Federal income tax. That passed with a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate, was sent to the States, and three-fourths of the States ratified it. It is my belief that because of the 16th Amendment, which allowed income taxes to be placed on the heads of the American taxpayer, that we need a constitutional amendment raising the bar to a two-thirds vote. If we were to pass this amendment today, it would take two-thirds of the House. We would send it to the Senate, it would take two-thirds of the Senate. It would go to the States, it would take three-fourths of the States to ratify. Those States would ratify by a majority vote in the States, so there will be ample opportunity for a majority of the citizenry and their elected legislatures in this country to determine whether they want to raise the bar on raising taxes.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure and high honor to yield 4 minutes to the honorable gentleman from Rockwell, Texas (Mr. Hall), the chief Democratic sponsor of the tax limitation amendment. He has done an outstanding job on his side of the aisle in pushing this very necessary constitutional amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the Chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for the tone of the debate. I thought we had a good debate this year, and I appreciate your participation. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), my chief Democratic sponsor, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his efforts. Mr. Speaker, the first Federal income tax that was levied on the American people was 1 percent of any net income over $3,000. Today, the average American taxpayer pays 39.8 percent in Federal and State taxes. That is an all-time high with the exception of World War II when we were fighting to maintain democracy against Naziism and imperialism of the empire of Japan. Simply put, something needs to be done about that. We need a tax limitation amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. When the original Constitution was written by our Founding Fathers, they made it unconstitutional to have an income tax. Unconstitutional. You could have had a 100 percent vote, and there would be no income tax because it was unconstitutional. But the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution, which was passed in 1913, made income taxes constitutional. So we need a \2/3\ vote to raise taxes, Federal taxes on the American people. The question is, would it work? That is a fair question. We have not had anybody who opposes it say that it would not work. They are opposed to it for the reason that it would work. There are 14 States that have requirements for supermajorities to raise taxes. And in those 14 States, their taxes are lower, their taxes go up slower, their economies grow faster, and more jobs are created than States that do not. So if it works in the States, I think it would work here in the Federal Government. Is it supported by the American people? I will enter into the Record an endorsement letter from the American Legislative Exchange Counsel which is 3,000 legislators on a bipartisan basis around this country, endorsing the tax limitation amendment. The signer of this is the Speaker of the Arkansas House, a Democrat, Bobby Hogue. So the State legislators support it and think that it would work. Mr. Speaker, I include that letter for the Record as follows: American Legislative Exchange Counsel, Washington, DC, April 17, 1998. Congressman Joe Barton, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Barton: The 3,000 state legislators who are members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the nation's largest bipartisan membership organization of state legislators, would like to voice their support of a federal amendment requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote in each chamber of Congress to pass any bill that would increase taxes. The federal tax burden is at a record high. This year the average American family will spend more than 38 percent of their total income on federal, state and local taxes. More than they will spend on food, clothing, shelter and medical expenses combined. Tax increases fuel excessive government spending and smother economic growth and job creation. Thus, any increase in the tax burden should require a broad consensus. Taking money from hard working Americans should not be an easy task for the tax and spend politicians. A supermajority requirement would make tax hikes more difficult and shift the debate from tax increases to spending cuts. Fourteen states already require a supermajority to raise taxes. These states have demonstrated faster economic growth, higher employment growth and experienced slower tax and spending increases, than the states without a supermajority requirement. A supermajority amendment would constrain tax and spend policies that squash economic opportunities for American families. Congress has a momentous opportunity to provide a brighter, more prosperous future for this great nation. The states have shown the benefits of a supermajority requirement, now it is time to apply this experience to the federal government. Sincerely, Speaker Bobby Hogue, Arkansas, National Chairman. We have over 27 national groups that have endorsed the tax limitation constitutional amendment. I will enter that into the Record at this point in time. The document referred to is as follows: Supporters of H.J. Res. 111, the Tax Limitation Amendment Association of Concerned Taxpayers; American Conservative Union; American Legislative Exchange Council; Americans for Hope, Growth & Opportunity; Americans for Tax Reform; Associated Builders & Contractors; Christian Coalition; Citizens for a Sound Economy; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Concerned Woman for America; Council for Affordable Health Insurance; Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Empower America; Family Research Council; Food Distributors International; National Association of Manufacturers; National Association of Wholesaler- Distributors; National Beer Wholesalers Association; National Federation of American-Hungarians; National Federation of Independent Business; National Tax Limitation Committee; National Taxpayers Union; Seniors Coalition; Small Business Survival Committee; United Seniors Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and 60 Plus We have 10 groups that have keyvoted it, saying it is something that they have really taken a look at: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Americans for Tax Reform, the Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Association of Manufacturers, 60 Plus, Seniors Coalition, Associated Builders and Contractors, National Beer Wholesalers. We have got 10 governors who think it will work. I will enter their names in the Record, and they support it. The document referred to follows: Key points on H.J. Res. 111, The Tax Limitation Amendment Highest cosponsor total ever--186. 27 diverse groups from pro-business to pro-family have endorsed TLA (See attached endorsement list). Keyvote by: U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Americans for Tax Reform; Citizens for a Sound Economy; National Taxpayers Union; National Association of Manufacturers; 60 Plus; Seniors Coalition; Associated Builders and Contractors; and National Beer Wholesalers. Have received encouragement/endorsement letters from the following Governors: Governor Christine Todd Whitman (NJ); Governor Mike Huckabee (AR); Governor Paul Cellucci (MA); Governor Frank Keating (OK); Governor Pete Wilson (CA); Governor Jane Dee Hull (AZ); Governor Kirk Fordice (MS); and Lt. Governor Bob Peeler (SC). But the reason that I am here on the floor of the House of Representatives supporting this as strongly as I am is not because of all the groups that are for it, it is not because all of my colleagues are for it, it is because it is in the best interest of my family. Nell Barton, retiree, widow on Social Security and teacher retirement, had to write a check for over $1,000 to pay her Federal income taxes 2 weeks ago. My son, Brad Barton, has graduated from graduate school, going into the job market; my daughter, Allison, just graduated from college, wants to be a teacher; my wife, Janet, who has been a homemaker while we have raised our children, wants to go back into the job market. I do not want their taxes to go up, I am sorry. Our problem in Washington, D.C., is not lack of revenue. Do my colleagues know how much revenue increased from last year to this year at the Federal level? $126 billion. $126 billion. Do my colleagues know what the average is for the last 4 years? $106 billion. Do my colleagues know what the average is for the last 10 years? Over $60 billion. My colleagues, our problem is not lack of revenue. Our problem is lack of spending discipline. As the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), pointed out about 15 minutes ago, we need to make it tougher to raise taxes. Let us vote for a two-thirds constitutional requirement to raise taxes, send it to the other body, send it to the States, and hopefully three-fourths of the legislatures will ratify it and it will become a part of the Constitution of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop debating. It is time to vote to make it tougher to raise taxes. Vote for the constitutional amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. So we can cut taxes by a simple majority vote, but we would have to have a two-thirds vote to raise taxes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Under our amendment which we have right here before us, would it take a two-thirds vote to cut taxes in Congress?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Does it take a two-thirds vote of the Arizona legislature to cut taxes?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we are going to have the tax limitation amendment to the Constitution on the floor of the House for a vote. It is a pretty straightforward amendment. It says, to raise your taxes, it will take a two-thirds vote of the House and a two- thirds vote of the Senate. For those of you that had fractions in elementary school, you know that two-thirds is a larger fraction than one-half. If you translate that into math, it means, in the House, it will take 292 votes to raise your taxes and, in the Senate, it will take 67 votes to raise your taxes. The tax burden on the American people has gone up from 1 percent on the first $3,000 of net income in 1914 to over, if you are a senior citizen, over 85 percent of any income if you are filing jointly with a spouse of over $34,000 in income. That is an increase of the marginal tax rate of over 4,000 percent in the last 75 years. It is time to stop that. Let us pass the two-thirds tax limitation amendment to the Constitution of the United States tomorrow afternoon on this floor and send it to the Senate; and, hopefully, they will pass it and send it to the States.