Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Have there been any attempts to raise taxes in the State legislature since this amendment was adopted into the Arizona Constitution?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this evening to speak to the Members of this body about a vote that we are going to have tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon to amend the Constitution requiring a two-thirds vote of the House and the Senate to raise taxes or broaden the tax base. The exhibit to my left shows the first 1040 income tax form, which was first used in 1914, over 83 years ago. If you look, look down the form, you can see that you paid a tax of 1 percent on income over $20,000, 1 percent. And if you had income over $50,000, you paid an additional, you paid 2 percent. If you had income over $75,000, you paid 3 percent. If you had income over $100,000, you paid 4 percent. If you had income over $250,000, you paid 5 percent. If you had income, net income, not gross income, over $600,000, you paid 6 percent. Less than 1 out of 100 American citizens had to pay any income tax the first year this 1040 form was used. Today, that is not the case. The marginal tax rate has gone up to over 40 percent. That is an increase of 4,000 percent. If we could see the next chart, this is a chart that is through 1995, so it is actually about 3 years old now, but you can see back in 1955, the tax as a percent of income for two-income families was 27.7 percent. By 1965, it had gone up about 2 percent to a little over 29 percent. Ten years later, 1975, it had skyrocketed to 37 percent. And since that time, it has been between 37, and in 1995, it was 38.2 percent. This year, the latest year that we have numbers on, which we do not have a chart for, it is right at 39 percent. So almost 40 percent of two-earner family income is going to pay their taxes. What does this mean? It means that the average worker is spending almost 3 hours out of every working day simply to pay Uncle Sam's taxes. For food, clothing, necessities, they spend 2 hours and 32 minutes. For the tax man, they spend 2 hours and 47 minutes, and for all other expenses, they spend 2 hours and 41 minutes. So we actually spend more time working to pay the tax man than we do to provide food, clothing and shelter for our families. What would a two-thirds vote mean in the real world of voting here in Washington, D.C.? It means in the House of Representatives it would take 29 votes if all Members were present and voting for a tax increase. It means in the Senate, it would take 67 votes instead of the current 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House. In the real world what that means is not too many tax increases would pass. In fact, of the last five major tax increases that we have had here on the House floor and over in the Senate, only one of them would have passed; 1982, 16 years ago, there was a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, passed the House with 52 percent. It passed the Senate with 52 percent. That was $214 billion in taxes would not have been collected. That one would have failed. In 1987, we had the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which was a $40 billion tax increase. It passed in the House with 57 percent. It passed in the Senate with 62 percent. A little bit closer to the two- thirds vote, but it did not get to the two-thirds vote so it would have failed. In 1989, we did have a tax increase that would have passed muster under the two-thirds vote for a tax increase. Only $25 billion, but it did pass the House with 68 percent of the vote, just barely passing the two-thirds vote necessary; the Senate, 93 percent. That one for $25 billion additional tax dollars on the American people would have become law. In 1990, we had a $137 billion tax increase. It passed the House with 53 percent and the Senate with 55 percent, $137 billion; it would have failed. Most recently, in 1993, the big Clinton tax increase passed the House by two votes, 218 to 216, so that is 50.2 percent, and in the Senate it passed 51 to 49. That one would have failed. So the last five major tax increase votes we have had going back over 16 years, only one, in 1989, would have passed the two-thirds muster. So the tax burden on the American people would have been lower by a little over $800 billion. Supermajority would protect taxpayers from unnecessary tax increases. As I said earlier, the last big tax increase vote that we had, the 1993 Clinton tax increase, would have failed. You may be asking yourself, this is a good idea in theory, but does it really work? Well, the answer is, it does really work. The States are using supermajority votes to require tax increases. There are 14 States, and I have got them listed here on this chart, and they have various measures requiring tax increase. In 1992, the State of Arizona passed a State constitutional amendment for all tax increases that says if you want it to pass, it has to get a two-thirds vote in the Arizona legislature. Back in 1934, over 60 years ago, the State of Arkansas where our current President was Governor before he became President, passed a three-fourths vote requirement for any tax increase. California, in 1978, first on property taxes and now for all tax increases, a two-thirds vote. In 1992, State of Colorado, two-thirds vote required. In Delaware, back in 1980, a three-fifths requirement for tax increases. The State of Florida, since 1971, for corporate income tax rate increases, requires a three-fifths vote; not quite as significant as the two-thirds vote that we are talking about. But still a supermajority of 60 percent. The State of Louisiana, for the last 32 years, any tax increase would take a two-thirds vote. The State of Mississippi, way back in 1890, 108 years ago, requires a three-fifths vote for a tax increase. In Missouri, since 1996, only 2 years ago, a two-thirds vote for an emergency tax increase. The State of Nevada, since 1996, a two-thirds vote for any tax increase. And in Nevada, to amend their Constitution, they had to submit it to the people for a referendum; and the people in Nevada voted by referendum, I believe, over 70 percent to require a two-thirds vote for a tax increase. In Oklahoma, in 1992, a three-fourths vote, 75-percent vote, for a tax increase. In Oregon, in 1996, a three-fifths or 60-percent vote for any tax increase. South Dakota, in 1996, a two-thirds vote for any tax increase. And in Washington State, in 1993, a two-thirds vote. There are 15 other States that currently have some sort of a legislative initiative to require a supermajority vote. The State of New Jersey, where Governor Whitman has come out in favor of this, and the State of Illinois are two States right off the top of my head. So what about these States that have these requirements, does it work? Well, let us look at the next chart. There are some things that are true in every State. This is a study that was done on tax rates and tax revenues for the years 1980 to 1992. It compared the States that had some version of tax limitation, which I just showed my colleagues, with those that did not. And this shows the average change of per capita tax revenue. In the supermajority States, tax revenue went up 102 percent during the 12-year period. So tax revenues went up in States that had supermajority requirement. But in States that did not have it, their taxes went up faster by an average of, the total is 121 percent of the aggregate States. So that is a difference of 19 percent. Put another way, in States that had a supermajority requirement to raise taxes, their taxes were, on average, 19 percent lower than in those States that did not have the same requirement. Since the taxes were not going up quite as rapidly in the supermajority States, that means the gross State products, the amount of goods and services produced in that State, went up faster than in high-tax states, 43 percent versus 35 percent, or a difference of 8 percent. So the economies of supermajority tax increase States were growing more rapidly than the economies of States that did not require supermajority for a State tax increase. Well, consequently, if we are not raising taxes as rapidly, the legislature and the governors tend to be less willing to borrow money also. So if we look at the debt, the State government debt in the supermajority States, it did go up, unfortunately, quite a bit, 271 percent, but it did not go up as rapidly as in the States that did not have the supermajority requirement for tax increases. In those States, it went up 312 percent. That is a difference of 31 percent. Thirty-one percent is a huge difference in that time period of 12 years. And, finally, since taxes are lower and they are going up slower and the gross State product is expanding more rapidly and State government debt is increasing less rapidly, what does that mean? It means that the number of jobs created expands more rapidly in supermajority tax increase States. Twenty-six percent rate of growth in job creation in the supermajority States; only 21 percent in the non-supermajority States. That is a difference of 5 percent. So if we look at the statistics, and this is a comprehensive study, it was done over a 12-year time period. From 1980 to 1992, it compared in the aggregate those States that had some version of supermajority tax increase vote in their legislatures than States that did not. Taxes went up more slowly in supermajority States. Taxes were lower in supermajority States. Consequently, their economies grew more rapidly and more jobs were created. So we have proven in the 14 States that have served as a national laboratory for supermajority requirement for tax increases that it works. That is why on April 17, 1998, a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which is a bipartisan group of State legislatures of all 50 States, Republicans and Democrats, that meet to debate State issues and to compare their State initiatives to other State initiatives, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which represents all 50 State legislatures and has over 3,000 legislators as members, again Republican and Democrat, they endorsed the Tax Limitation Amendment that we are going to be voting on tomorrow. I would like to read their letter. It is dated April 17, 1998. It is to Congressman Joe Barton, that is me, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515. Dear Congressman Barton. The 3,000 State legislators who are members of the American Legislative Exchange Council, 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 on their income on Federal, State, and local taxes, more than they will spend on food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses combined. And we pointed that out earlier. 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 experience slower tax and spending increases than the States without a supermajority requirement. A supermajority amendment would constrain tax- and-spend policies that squash economic opportunity 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 is the time to apply this experience to the Federal Government. Sincerely, Bobby Hogue, Speaker from Arkansas, National Chairman for the American Legislative Exchange Council. This is an extremely positive endorsement and shows again that it works at the State level, it will work at the Federal level. We have got a bipartisan consensus for this legislation, this constitutional amendment. Another group that has endorsed the Tax Limitation Amendment is the Associated Builders and Contractors, a national organization of builders and contractors from around the United States, again a bipartisan group. It is not a Republican group. It is not a Democratic group. It says, Dear Representative Barton: On April 15, the House of Representatives will consider H.J. Res. 111. Actually, we are going to consider it on April 22, because we were not in session on April 15. This is legislation requiring a two-thirds supermajority of both Houses of Congress to pass any new tax or tax increases. On behalf of the Associated Builders and Contractors and its more than 21,000 member firms, I urge you to vote yes on H.J. Res. 111, the Tax Limitation Amendment to the Constitution. It goes on to talk about their strong advocacy for the family and fiscal responsibility. This is signed by Charlotte W. Herbert, who is the Vice President of Government Affairs. It is dated March 20, 1998. We have an endorsement from the National Association of Manufacturers. This is dated February 24, 1998. On behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, nearly 14,000 members, over 10,000 of which are small manufacturers employing fewer than 500 employees, I commend your leadership in bringing the Tax Limitation Amendment to a vote on the House floor this April. It is hard to imagine a more appropriate time to bring this important legislation to the attention of the American taxpayers. I am enclosing a resolution adopted by the board of directors which concludes that the existing Federal tax system is beyond repair and should be replaced by a simple, low-rate system that eliminates multiple taxation. Just as importantly, underlined, this resolution concludes that procedures such as a supermajority voting requirement should be adopted to make revision both difficult and infrequent. The National Association of Manufacturers is therefore pleased to support the Tax Limitation Amendment, which would require a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate to levy any new tax or increase the rate or base of any existing tax. This amendment would force the Congress to focus on spending reductions rather than tax increases in order to balance the Federal budget. Such a result is completely consistent with the National Association of Manufacturers' long-standing position that, while it is critically important to eliminate the Federal budget deficit, this should be done by restraining the growth of Federal spending, not increasing taxes. We applaud your effort to make the Tax Limitation Amendment a reality and are impressed by the bipartisan support you have garnered for it. The National Association of Manufacturers looks forward to working with you and your colleagues and staff to pass this important legislation. This is from Paul Huard, who is the Senior Vice President for Policy and Communications for the National Association of Manufacturers, and it was dated February 24, 1998, in a letter to me. We have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, dated February 20, 1998. This letter of endorsement is from Bruce Josten, who is the Executive Vice President of Government Affairs. Dear Congressman Barton: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 billion businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, wishes to voice its support for the Tax Limitation Amendment. The two-thirds supermajority requirement to raise taxes in your amendment would keep the pressure on limiting government spending in order to maintain a balanced budget. Turning to tax increases first when the budget deficit returns, as they will sooner or later, is poor economic policy. The Tax Limitation Amendment would shift the burden of keeping a balanced Federal budget from the taxpayer to the big government spender. We are looking forward to working with you on passing this legislation. Bruce Josten. I could go on and on. We have got over 30 national organizations that have endorsed the Tax Limitation Amendment, groups that I have already mentioned, the U.S. Chamber, National Association of Manufacturers, American Builders and Contractors, the American Legislative Exchange Council. We also have groups like Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Americans for Tax Reform, Senior Coalition 60 Plus. So we have family groups, business groups, tax limitation groups, all kinds of groups across a broad political and public policy spectrum. I see that one of my chief cosponsors is here, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), who led the fight in Arizona several years ago to pass tax limitation at the State level. He, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and myself are the four chief sponsors of this amendment, two Republicans and two Democrats. I will yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. As the gentleman from Arizona has pointed out, when the Constitution was ratified by three-fourths of States in 1787 through 1789, it was unconstitutional to have any kind of a head tax or income tax. That situation changed in the early 1900s. The constitutional amendment making income tax constitutional, the 16th amendment, passed, as the gentleman has pointed out. Since that time, the average marginal tax rate at the Federal level has gone from 1 to over 40 percent. So we do need to pass a constitutional amendment making it more difficult to raise taxes. Again, it does not take college level algebra to understand this amendment. Two-thirds is a bigger fraction than one-half. Therefore, it would be more difficult to get two-thirds vote to raise taxes in the House and the Senate than the current one-half plus one.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am not certain, but I believe that is correct.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I did a town meeting in Arlington, Texas, last week, and one of my constituents said we ought to make it by unanimous consent, 100 percent, which would be very difficult, indeed. So we need to wrap this special order up. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for his strong leadership. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), our Democrat chief sponsors, could not be here this evening, but they are quite supportive. We should require a national consensus to raise taxes, and we should require a two-thirds vote. Hopefully, the people that were polled in the poll that the gentleman alluded to will call their Congressmen and Congresswomen, and tomorrow we will get a bipartisan vote that ends up the requisite two-thirds to pass this and send it to the other body. I look forward to a big vote tomorrow.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I can actually put a face to that anonymous person. Two weeks ago I went to Waco, Texas where my mother lives. She is a retired widow on Social Security, and she has some teacher retirement, and because her only income comes from three sources, Social Security, teacher retirement and some IRA dividend income from an IRA that she and my father had saved on when he was alive, she does not have any withholding taken out, and it is a relatively modest fixed income. So last year I had done her taxes after my father passed away, and she did not have to pay any taxes. So this year I was not too worried when she said, ``Are you going to come do my taxes?'' I thought, ``Well, it is not a big deal. She will not owe any tax, so I can just go ahead and do it.'' So I finally went over there a week before the filing deadline and we sat down, and she had had to take a slightly larger dividend from her IRA because she is over 70 years of age and the law requires that you begin to disburse this particular type of a Keogh account. So first time I went through and made the calculation. I said, ``Well, mom, it looks like this year you're going to have to pay a little bit in tax,'' and it was like $200 or $300, and she said, ``That's no problem.'' Then I went back through again and I said, ``I just want to double check the numbers,'' and I checked the Social Security number, and I checked the teacher retirement number, and then I checked the IRA number, and lo and behold, I had added incorrectly or missed something. So I said ``Well, mom, I'm going to have to recalculate this tax,'' and when I did it was well over $1,000. And she said, ``Well, I don't have enough money to pay that.'' So she got real excited and called the bank and she wanted to know how much money was in her account and whether she had enough money to pay the tax or she was going to have to take some money out of a savings account, this IRA account, or what. And it turned out after looking at her checkbook and looking at what her expenses the rest of the month were, we decided that she would be able to write a check, because you cannot tell the IRS, you know, ``We will send it next week.'' You know, just you have got to send the money when you calculate your tax return. So my mother, who is a widow on a fixed income, had to pay well over $1,000 in income taxes this year, and that does not come out of nowhere. I mean, that shows very clearly the need to make it much more difficult than it is today to raise taxes, because there are a lot of Nell Bartons in this country. In my mother's case, she was fortunate that she had enough money this year to pay her Federal income tax without having to borrow from me or to go into her savings account. There are a lot of people come April 15 that are in real tough shape, and we need to protect those people by passing this constitutional amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It was unconstitutional.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I think he was a member of the Constitutional Convention also.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, I have engaged in a number of debates, and most of the opponents are opposed to this for the very reason that it would work. They say quite emphatically that it would make it very difficult to raise taxes, therefore they are opposed to it. And I say exactly, that is the point. Let us make it more difficult than it is today. I think that in an economy that is generating $7 trillion worth of goods and services with almost 300 million Americans, with over 80 million Americans working, paying a tax burden, if you combine State and local taxes it is approaching 40 percent of their gross income, that there should be a national consensus. There should be Republicans and Democrats who say we have to have a supermajority vote to raise taxes. I would like to point out again that the group that most represents the State legislatures on a bipartisan basis, the American Legislative Council, has endorsed a tax limitation amendment. I am not going to read that letter again because I did earlier, but I think that is proof positive that this is not a gimmick, it is not a Republican election year ploy, it is common sense, good public policy. We have got a number of Governors that have endorsed this. Governor Whitman in New Jersey has endorsed it. Governor Wilson in California, our largest State in the Union in terms of population, has endorsed it. We also pointed out earlier there are 15 States that are considering adding a supermajority requirement to their State constitutions to go along with the 14 States that already have it. So tomorrow, beginning approximately 12:30, we will have a vote on the rule. That should take about an hour. It is an open rule. The minority party, if they wish, will have the right to offer a substitute. They will also have a right to offer a motion to recommit. The rule debate should take about an hour, and then we will have three hours of debate equally divided, an hour and a half for the proponents, an hour and a half for the opponents, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and I are going to be on the floor helping to manage the time for those that are in favor of this. And then the debate should conclude around 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, and we may vote immediately or we may hold the vote until a little after 5 o'clock. Since this is a constitutional amendment, I think everybody knows that it takes a two-thirds vote of those present and voting to pass. So last year when we had the vote on April 15, we had 233 votes, which was a majority, a substantial majority. But that day we needed I believe 279 votes, so we failed by 40 or 50 votes since we did not quite have the two-thirds. So tomorrow hopefully we will get well over 75 percent of the Republicans. I will predict that we get that. The key question is if we can get the 63 percent of the Democrats who have said in a national poll that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) here alluded to, if they will support this amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Or to convict a President of impeachment proceedings.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman has been on a number of national radio and television shows about this and has debated some opponents of it from time to time, as I have. Have you ever had one of the opponents say that we should not do this because it would not work?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And that is all in the last month. I mean that is not like 10 years ago or 20 years ago. That is a poll, a national poll taken within the last month.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I actually have a young son and young daughter who are about to enter the job market. My daughter Allison wants to be a teacher. She graduated in December from Texas A&M. My son Brad is graduating from Stanford School of Business in June. They are both looking for jobs. So I have a son and a daughter who want a job, and they will find a job more likely in a supermajority State to raise taxes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We may have three votes. The Speaker in the chair, I think he is a vote for it also.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We need 290 more votes if all Members are present and voting.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is one vote. I am going to vote for it. That is two votes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I assume you are going to vote for it tomorrow.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If 75 percent of the Republicans out there listening today or tonight and 63 percent of the Democrats out there listening tonight would pick up the phone, crank up the fax machine, get on the Internet and send an e-mail, we could wake this Congress up and pass this tomorrow with a resounding vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is allowed under this Constitution.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would be a great idea, and it is legal if people were to fax, e-mail, write, call, send by Pony Express, by any means of communication to their elected Congressman or Congresswoman, be they Republican or Democrat, that they are for this amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. What would happen tomorrow on the House floor if three-fourths of the Republicans present and voting voted for tax limitation and 63 percent of the Democrats present and voting voted for tax limitation? Would that be enough to pass this constitutional amendment and send it to the Senate for a vote?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Almost a two-thirds majority vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the name of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. John Porter) as a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 111.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a small businessman and a veteran from my home State of Texas. G.W. ``Bud'' Merwin is retiring as the President of the Automotive Services Association which is located in my district. The Automotive Services Association is the nation's oldest and largest not-for-profit trade association representing all segments of the automotive repair industry including mechanical, collision, and transmission repair facilities. Bud Merwin started as the owner of a full-service mechanical, towing, and collision repair business. He graduated from the Institute for Organization Management at the University of Delaware and served in the United States Army. He was stationed in Germany and is an honor graduate of the U.S. Army truck, wheel, and light aircraft repair training school. In 1971, he launched the very first voluntary automotive technicians' certification program, the National Automotive Technicians Certification Board. This later merged with Automotive Service Excellence that has become the industry standard for quality. Bud was a founding board member of the National Automotive Technicians Education Foundation, a co-founder of the International Autobody Congress and Exposition, and a founding officer of the Automotive Service Councils and the Automotive Management Institute. G.W. ``Bud'' Merwin has worked throughout his life to protect American small business and to ensure excellence in the automotive repair community. Although he was not born in Texas, I am glad that he and the Automotive Service Association call it home.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from the Republican Members' retreat at Williamsburg, Virginia, and at that retreat the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), unveiled goals for our generation, of which the No. 1 issue is a drug- free America. To honor that goal, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and I have been attempting for the last year to institute random drug testing for Members of Congress and their staffs, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and myself intend in the next month and a half to actually implement the rule that was established at the start of this Congress that there shall be such a random drug testing plan for Members of Congress and their staffs. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to have a drug-free America, the House of Representatives must set the positive example and must take such measures as necessary to ensure that the Congress itself is drug free, and in my opinion, random drug testing must be a part of that plan.