Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that I understand my good friend from California who has been such a stalwart supporter of mine on this issue. When we are down to the critical moment on the floor of the House of Representatives with the entire country watching, we are not watching you change your mind as we debate the issue? Is that the gentleman's current position?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from California. I am disappointed, but I certainly respect his change of mind.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, what was that name changed to?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, and my name change is from the National Science Foundation and we are adding ``engineering.'' Does the gentleman really think that is going to confuse people?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Greenwood, for organizing this special order. I am pleased to be on the House floor this evening with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], as we talk about a very important issue. Mr. Speaker, if you went out to the American people and asked them, what does FDA stand for, I doubt very seriously that very many people could say that it stand for Food and Drug Administration. I joked earlier in the year in a television interview that it stands for ``foot dragging and alibis,'' because it takes about 12 years and $350 million to get a drug and medical device through the entire gauntlet of approval steps at the FDA that are currently in place. The people that are participating in this special order this evening, colleagues that have cosponsored the bills in a bipartisan effort, we want FDA to stand for fair decisions for all. We have the best medical devices in the world; we have the best pharmacological drugs in the world; we have the safest food supply in the world. But more and more, our medical device companies, our pharmaceutical, innovative, companies are going overseas because the approvals do not take as long and the regulatory jungle is not as complex as it is here in this country. To put a personal face on it, Mr. Speaker, my father is in his early 70's. He is a veteran and served his country in World War II. He was a navigator for the B-24 Liberator. Is now a diabetic and has been diagnosed within the last several months to have a slow-growing form of prostate cancer. There are drugs in the marketplace today and procedures in the marketplace today in other countries that, were he a citizen of Great Britain or France or Germany, he would have access to those drugs and devices. Because he is a citizen of the United States, he does not. It is very difficult for me to go to Waco, Texas, where my father lives, and say, Dad, I would like to help you, but under the current law we cannot let you use that noninvasive glucose sensor, so you do not have to prick your finger two or three times a day. Or, Dad, there is a new drug that has been approved for prostate cancer overseas, but it has not yet been approved by the FDA. If you live another 10 years, maybe it will be approved. I cannot say that. But I can say, Dad, in the next 3 months, I hope to be a part of a coalition of Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate that passes an FDA reform package that makes those drugs and makes those devices accessible to you, not 10 years from now but next year, and maybe even in the next 5 or 6 months. In the medical device bill that I am the chief sponsor of we have four basic principles. We do want a responsible method for third-party review where a medical device applicant can either go outside the system to an accredited third-party reviewer or can go within the system within the FDA currently to have their application reviewed. We want a dispute resolution which is obvious in any complex situation. There are going to be disagreements. We think there needs to be some mechanism where if the applicant and the FDA have a disagreement about the application, you can get a fair resolution of that disagreement. We do not want it to be a trivial disagreement; we want it to be a substantive policy disagreement or a time disagreement. But let there be a internal dispute resolution that is actually workable. Most Americans do not realize, but there is a cutoff date for medical device qualifications in this country. If your device was in existence before 1976, it is reviewed under a certain set of circumstances and if it came into existence after 1976, it has to go through a much more complex set of regulatory findings. We want to do away with this artificial 1976 bright line and we want all devices to be reapproved and, as they are, given an original classification and not automatically put into the most complex classification of Class III. I think you would be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to realize that a simple piece of plastic called a breast sensor paid, which is two pieces of plastic with a silicone gel between it, about 6 inches in diameter, it took the FDA 10 years to approve the breast sensor device and then only with the use of prescription under the care of a physician, because under current law the breast sensor pad has to be classified as Class III, which would be like a heart implant. Under our legislation, if approved and put into law, the breast sensor pad would be given a reclassification and almost certainly be put into Class I or Class II, where it would be available over the counter so that millions of American women could obtain it at a nominal fee and would be able to self-examine their breast in the privacy of their home. The last thing that we want to insist on in the medical device bill is that all new devices be given a fair evaluation within a time certain of when they are presented. And that may again be third-party or may be within the FDA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this special order. I commend Mr. Greenwood and, again, all the other chief sponsors that are here this evening: Mr. Klug, Mr. Burr, the chairman of our subcommittee, Mr. Bilirakis of Florida, and of course Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania. This is a bipartisan effort. It has got overwhelming support among the American people, 70 to 80 percent approval in the various polls, and we hope that before we adjourn to go home that we can have a bill on the President's desk and we think President Clinton will sign it. I yield back to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I believe that device is available in Italy, but not in the United States.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It wasn't on the approved list in the United States it was approved in Europe. And so the gentleman went to Italy and his surgeons, I believe, flew to Italy with him, and they had the operation, and it was a success and he went mountain climbing within 6 months after the operation. Had he stayed in the United States and waited for the FDA for approval, it is arguable that the gentleman would be dead today. He would not only not be mountain climbing, but he would not be breathing today. But because he did go overseas and was fortunate enough to have the money to go overseas, he is alive to tell the story today.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I asked the Members of the House what this simple device is, I doubt that very many of my colleagues could tell me what it is. It is actually a breast sensor pad which is designed to be used by women to self-examine their breasts to see if they have breast cancer lumps. Mr. Speaker, it took the FDA 10 years to approve this simple device for limited use under a doctor's prescription for women to self-examine their breasts. The gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] and myself are introducing today a bill that would make this device, which literally could save thousands of lives each year, available over the counter so that millions of American women can go into their drugstore and purchase this and in the privacy of their home self-examine their breasts to see if they have cancer lumps. We desperately need to get this device available. Nancy Brinker, whose sister, Susan B. Komen, died of breast cancer, and who has established a breast cancer research center in her sister's name, has told me that this simple device is very, very useful and should be available to every American woman who wishes to purchase it. Please join Congressman Vucanovich and myself in sponsoring this bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, a member of the Committee on Commerce, asked the question, Where is the money going to go? With all due respect, that is the wrong question. The question is, Where is the money going to come from? The money has been coming out of the pockets of the American taxpayers, who have about given all they can give. This bill repeals the 4.3-cent gasoline tax and allows the taxpayers to keep some of what they have been giving. My pockets are dirty and they are empty, I want the Record to clearly show that. This 4.3-cent gasoline tax repeal leaves money in the taxpayers' pockets. It also repeals a tax that most American citizens thought was going to build highways. However, this tax increase actually went into the general revenue fund to increase social spending. There is a section, section 6 of this bill, that does direct the Committee on Appropriations to reduce the appropriation accounts for departmental administration at the Department of Energy by $542 million over 5 years. The Secretary of Energy has been traveling extensively until this year, in fact, so much so that they have had to transfer funds from a defense program in the Department of Energy to offset some of the increased travel expenditures. In the President's budget they requested a 38-percent increase for departmental administration. This bill would rescind that increase and cut the administration budget for the Department of Energy to offset some of the lost revenue. So I rise in very strong support of the bill and would congratulate the Committee on Ways and Means for bringing it forward.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, May is National Physical Fitness and Sports Month, conducted by the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Every American should take this opportunity to celebrate and begin a fitness routine. The benefits from exercise are far-reaching. Studies have revealed that there is a direct connection between exercise and lower death rates from heart attacks, stroke, hypertension, non-insulin-dependent diabetes, brittle bones, anxiety, and depression. However, in lieu of this information many Americans continue to remain inactive, with little or no physical activity in their daily lives. Even low- to moderate-intensity activities like walking, gardening, or biking can bring benefits. I realize this so I have taken the opportunity to share my love of biking with my constituents. On my home page, you will find ``Biking with Barton.'' This is a detailed exploration on the Internet that allows you to link with other bike pages. I have included all sorts of biking information from biking events and books, to community activities, and details on how to bike to work. I am also happy to support organizations like the National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity. They have a long-term mission to motivate more Americans to be physically active. The national coalition is a collaborative partnership of groups who have identified physical activity and health as their primary mission and is facilitated by the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance; the American College of Sports Medicine; and the American Heart Association. To accomplish its goals the national coalition will use its network to provide ledaership to the American public and policymakers to increase the understanding, communication, and promotion of physical activity and health. They seek to develop consistent exercise messages to clarify for Americans the confusing array of information that currently exists and coordinate education efforts between the public and private sectors. I urge all Americans to challenge themselves this May, National Physical Fitness and Sports Month, to make physical activity a regular part of your life.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, few pieces of legislation pass this body with the bipartisan support that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 enjoy. Last month I held a telecommunications conference in my district with the goal in mind of letting my constituents of the Sixth District of Texas know how this bill will positively change their lives for the better. I believe it is important that people understand the importance and the magnitude of this legislation. The keynote speech was delivered by the President of the National Cable Television Association, Decker Anstrom. The speech he delivered that day seemed to translate the importance of this bill quite well. I would like to respectfully submit that speech for the Record. Remarks of NCTA President Decker Anstrom Before Congressman Joe Barton's Conference in Dallas, Texas Thank you, Congressman Barton for inviting me here today. I know I speak for not just the cable industry, but for the entire communications industry, in expressing my appreciation for your unwavering commitment to telecommunications reform and for your firm determination to make it happen. As you all probably know, Joe was quite a baseball pitcher, with a hard fastball. Now, in Washington, he's the Nolan Ryan of telecommunications, and will strike out any pointed-head regulator who dares to get in the way of competitive, deregulated markets. It's great to be back in Texas, which, as the TV commercial says, is just like a ``whole another country.'' Of course, Washington, DC, is it's own world: 60 square miles surrounded by reality. But Texas is the real world. In any event, it's only fitting that you should be focusing on the future of telecommunications, since telecommunications will have such a significant influence on the way we work, learn and live. Today, you've heard from a wide range of leaders in telecommunications, representing the diverse and competitive nature of the industries. If you reflect on what they've said, there's little doubt that we're entering a period of significant change--and great opportunity. Indeed, it's not an exaggeration to say that we are entering a revolutionary time in American telecommunications. What I'd like to try to do this afternoon is to put this revolution a little broader context by asking the question: what forces have come together to shape the telecommunications revolution now underway? And to try to answer the most important question: what will this revolution mean for communities, families and businesses? So, let me start with the first question: why a revolution now? I'd point to three major factors: dramatic changes in technology; dramatic changes in consumer demand; and the dramatic change in law and regulation. First, technology. Now I'm no engineer. In fact, I still can't tell you how TV signals can go through a solid wall-- although if it's any comfort to others in my predicament, I've asked senior engineers and they confirmed my guess: it's magic! But I can tell you that the competitive opportunities you heard about this morning are being fueled by the 0's and 1's of the digital age, tiny computer chips, and fiber optics. When we refer to digital technology we're really talking about technology that employs the language of computers--they communicate in digits, 0s and 1s. Until about 1990, we could only use that language to transmit data between computers. But then, researchers discoverd a way to break down TV pictures and sounds into those same 0's and 1's computer language. That meant that a telephone call, an E-Mail message, or a movie could all be transmitted using 0's and 1's--rather than using sound waves. Those 0's and 1's don't take up much room, in the air or inside a wire. The result: we can move lots of information very efficiently and quickly. Just think, only a few 0's and 1's gives you a chance to see and hear Roseanne perform while getting data on her weight and cholesterol levels at the same time! That's revolutionary--or maybe cause for a revolution! Meanwhile, those thin little electronic chips that run computers and other gizmos have continued to get tinier and tinier--while their capabilities have improved dramatically and their costs have plunged. And all that, in turn, has made it increasingly cheaper and easier to not only build computers that are smarter and faster, but also the telecommunications networks and electronics that use them. Further helping speed the development of the telecommunications revolution has been the rapid deployment of fiber optic wires, particularly in the cable industry. Through fiber optic cable, we can move those 0's and 1's at the speed of light. And as we all know, nothing moves faster than the speed of light. Except, of course, for Deion Sanders. The second major factor driving the telecommunications revolution is the revolution in consumer demand. This is a force that companies ignore at their peril. The plain fact is, of course, that the engineers can design all the widgets they can dream of--but without consumer demand, those widgets will remain on factory loading docks. Now, I don't propose to review thoroughly the profound changes that have been underway for at least a decade that are reshaping consumers' expectations and desires. But here are three significant economic, social and cultural changes that have affected us all and have helped drive the telecommunications revolution: One: average Americans appear to have less time for their personal lives and leisure--making them demand more products and services that are more convenient to use, when they want to use them. In particular, we'd like to go to one place for a package of services. That's why we like shopping malls. Two: continued inflation, coupled with sluggish growth in average wages, has turned most of us into more picky and choosy consumers--we're more price-sensitive and value- conscious when we buy things. An three: the explosion of personal freedom and independence in our society has made people more discontented with limited choices in the marketplace--we want options in what we buy. Think about how these forces have already been reflected in telecommunications just during the past 10-15 years: In 1980, most consumers could choose from just three broadcast networks; today there are more than 100 cable and broadcast networks to choose from. In the early 1980's, only 7 percent of U.S. households and a personal computer; today 40 percent do so. In 1980, only 2 percent of U.S. TV households had a VCR; today it's nearly 80 percent. And hold your hats on this one: In 1985, wireless phones were used by about 340,000 persons; that figure has since skyrocketed to 34 million! These trends all point to one inescapable conclusion: consumers and businesses no longer will stand still for shoddy service, or poor price/value, or no choices. If a telecommunications company can step in to address these concerns, they will win customers. With technology now enabling that to happen, that's why telecommunications markets like local phone service and cable, that historically have been characterized by a single provider, will change. Which brings me to the third major factor fueling the telecommunications revolution: the dramatic change in law and regulation, represented by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The telecommunications reform legislation enacted in February replaces a crazy-quilt-patchwork of judicial decisions and laws and regulations that limited competition and hampered telecommunications' firms development with a new deregulated policy that will stimulate growth and development. It's hard to believe, but the enactment of this legislation marked the first fundamental rewrite of federal communications laws in some 60 years. Not since 1934! Think about how very long ago that was. So long ago that the Dallas Cowboys were known only as people who rode horses and worked with cattle. So long ago that the New York Yankees were ``America's team'' As you all know, the new law lifts state and local legal barriers to competition in telecommunications. It's designed to make sure this competition is sustained--and kept on a level playing field--by requiring that local phone monopolies open their networks to competitors. And once the local phone monopolies do show that they've opened their networks to competitors, they get the green light to enter the long distance market. And, of direct interest those of us in the cable industry, the second the legislation was signed by the President into law, telephone companies got the OK to offer video programming directly to their customers--as well as to manufacture telecommunications equipment and to continue to offer information services. In short--everyone's market has been opened to competition. The bottom line: telecommunications law has finally caught up with technology and consumer demand. Now that the new telecommunications reform law has stripped away major competitive barriers, the path is clear for the digital revolution to pick up real steam. What will that mean for consumers and businesses? Fundamentally, it means competition and choices. But things may be confused and messy for a few years. Clearly, now that telecommunications reform is fact, we can expect competition to take off in many places. Today's local phone monopolies, including the dominant Regional Bell Companies, will face competition for the first time--from cable companies, long distance companies, and other Bell companies. For example, here in Texas, cable company Time Warner recently received approval from the state public utilities commission to offer local phone service. Teleport, which is fully owned by cable companies, has also received a green light to provide local phone services in Dallas. In the long distance market, Bell companies will offer new competition to long distance companies like AT&T, MCI, and Sprint. The television marketplace will become more competitive, too. The cable industry will continue to face fast-growing competition from direct broadcast satellite (DBS) firms, microwave-based cable systems (MMDS), and, of course, from telephone companies who will offer cable service. In Richardson, SBC Communications already is providing cable service in competition with the cable company, TCI. But if I can add a parochial note here: Like those tough football linebackers from small Texas towns, we cable guys may be smaller than the bigger kids from Dallas and Houston, but we're faster and leaner--and we'll give the telephone companies a run for their money as we move to compete with them for phone service. This new competition won't come easily. To construct new facilities, develop and market new services and continue to strengthen core businesses will cost telecommunications companies tens of billions of dollars in the next decade. And companies will need to acquire new marketing and technical expertise. For many, the best route for entering new markets will be to seek out allies who have that missing ingredient necessary for competitive leadership--the right experience, the right technology, the right programming, or the right marketing know-how needed to obtain that prized competitive edge, not to mention the access to more capital! So with the competition growing fiercer, expect all sorts of arrangements, alliances and mergers as companies battle for the hearts and minds of consumers and businesses. In some cases, it may involve consolidation within one sector, such as the just-announced merger between the two Bell companies, PacTel and SBC Communications. In other cases, it may involve mergers across sectors, such as the recently announced merger between phone giant U.S. West and Continental Cablevision. There will also be partnerships and ventures across industry lines to help each company compete in new markets. Sprint, for example now has a partnership with three leading cable companies, TCI, Cox and Comcast, to provide local phone services, in combination with Sprint's long distance service. Cooperative arrangements won't be limited to the biggest companies, however. For example, cable company TLCA, based in Tyler, Texas, is now reselling long distance phone services at competitive rates through an alliance with a small independent telephone company in Texas, Lufkin Conroe Telecommunications. At first blush, all these mergers and alliances may seem to be anti-competitive. After all, aren't big companies simply getting bigger? Yes--but: keep your eye on the end-game. It's not to protect business-as-usual. Rather, these alliances are designed to build up the muscle needed for the competitive clashes ahead. The ultimate goal of all these companies will be to become consumers' and businesses' first choice for one-stop shopping for voice, video and data services. And consumers and businesses will win--with firms offering convenient, often discounted packages of telecommunications services we can't even imagine today. This competition won't be pretty. In the next few years you'll see plenty of confusion as consumers try to make heads or tails out of what's going on. We'll need a scorecard to know who's offering what--at what prices. And be ready to have your dinner hour interrupted and your mailbox stuffed. We will undoubtedly be saturated by high- octaine marketing campaigns out to sign up customers for new packages of communications services. Remember when AT&T began to face heated competition from MCI and Sprint? A once quiet marketplace suddenly turned into the telecommunications industry's equivalent of the New Hampshire primary--with TV ads and mail solicitations from the long distance competitors seemingly appearing almost daily. That may be tame to the marketing that we will see for all communications services! Consumers may find it frustrating, at first, to try to sort out all the dramatic changes coming in this industry. But the telecommunications revolution, by providing competition and choices, will make consumers the ultimate winner. This revolution will have particular meaning in business, education, and technology. Business, big and small, will benefit from increased efficiencies and worker productivity provided by enhanced communications services. New wireless paging systems and other communications devices will make business traveling easier and more productive. Video conferencing will reduce the need for it. Many will be increasingly able to work from home. And, lower local and long distance phone rates brought on by competition will help everyone's bottom line. In education, through high-speed Internet access, students will increasingly have the means to connect, at the speed of light, to the world's best libraries--such as the Library of Congress--and top research centers. Television will make long-distance learning a reality. Quite simply, the telecommunications revolution will enable us to bring the world into every classroom. Finaly, the digital revolution will not just provide consumers with far more choices in the home, but also help give them more control over how their families use those services. In our mass culture, families increasingly want-- and need--to be able to control what their children experience. Through new viewer discretion technologies such as the v-chip, and other digital applications, and the new TV ratings system that cable and the broadcasters will introduce by early 1997, parents will have more tools to make more informed, smarter decisions about what their children see on TV and use on the Internet. In conclusion, I want to again thank Congressman Barton for his leadership that made telecommunications reform law--and thereby created a deregulated marketplace that will allow the telecommunications revolution to flourish. Like Texas, this revolution will be limited only by our imaginations.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in favor of the amendment. I have been listening to the debate in my office on C-SPAN, and I was not going to speak, but I am a cosponsor of the amendment. I am a Republican. I consider myself to be a conservative. I had a grandmother who lived in public housing. She passed away several years ago at the age of 95. There were four units in her housing complex in a small town in central Texas. I do not know if it was a local regulation or a Federal regulation, but she was not allowed to have a pet. I think she should have been allowed to. The gentlewoman from New York Susan Molinari, is the chief sponsor on this amendment with the gentlewoman who has been debating it on the floor on the Democratic side, and I hope that we do pass it. I want our colleagues to know that this is a bipartisan issue. It crosses party lines, and at least one person on this side who is in favor of it is going to vote for it and speak for it. Hopefully we will allow those senior citizens who want to have pets to let the local housing authority allow them to have pets.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I want to be in favor of it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Automotive Service Association [ASA] on the occasion of its 45th anniversary. ASA is the oldest and largest trade association of its kind representing all segments of the independent automotive repair industry, including transmission, mechanical, and collision repair facilities. The association now includes more than 12,000 businesses. The association now includes more than 12,000 businesses, 28 State groups and 220 chapters located throughout the world. Over the past 45 years, ASA has merged with a variety of automotive repair associations to enable the industry to speak with a singular and unified voice. These groups include the Independent Garagemen's Association of Texas [IGA], the Independent Garage Owners of America [IGO], the Auto Body Association of America [ABAA], the Automotive Service Councils [ASC] and, the Independent Automotive Service Association [IASA]. In addition to providing a host of member benefits, ASA annually sponsors the world's largest collision repair event, the International Autobody Congress and Exposition [NACE], the Congress of Automotive Repair and Service [CARS], the Northern Autobody Congress and Exposition and the ASA Annual Convention. In fact, NACE has been selected from a wide range of applicants to participate in the U.S. Department of Commerce's International Buyer Program. This recognition serves as acknowledgement of the quality of the event and the export potential of the industry it serves. ASA members recognize their obligation to professionalism. Members subscribe to a code of ethics, which governs the methods by which they conduct their business practices. Among other things, an ASA member is sworn to perform high quality repair service at a fair and just price; use only proven merchandise of high quality distributed by reputable firms; employ the best skilled technicians; recommend corrective and maintenance services, explaining to the customer which of these are required to correct existing problems and which are for preventive maintenance. ASA also endeavors to assist its members to improve the quality of repairs through management and technician training programs. The Automotive Service Association Management Institute [ASAMI] provides continuing management education in the areas of leadership, business, finance, personnel, operations, and personal enrichment. The ASA anniversary will be recognized throughout the year at ASA- sponsored events and ASA's official publication AutoInc. will feature a special anniversary issue. I am pleased to honor the association today on this special occasion.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the much maligned author of this amendment, I feel somewhat put upon. Some of the more polite things the amendment has been called tonight are irresponsible, stupid and insane. It has not been called unnecessary. There have been concerns expressed about the procedure by which it has been brought to the floor. I think some of those concerns are valid. But there has not been anything substantively said against the policy we are attempting to adopt. We have heard some concerns about the language. Yet the rule offered the Democrats an alternative. If they support the policy but do not agree with the specific language, they could have brought a substitute amendment based on the same policy to the floor, and they chose not to do so. There has been much said about the history and the Founding Fathers and how in 1787 there was no requirement for supermajority vote for a tax increase in the Constitution. That is true. The original Constitution prevented an income tax of any kind. The 16th Amendment in 1913 made income taxes constitutional. So, for over 125 years the tax limitation provision that we had in the Constitution was that all tax bills should originate in the House of Representatives, which was the body closest to the people and the only Federal body always elected by the people. But beginning in 1913, with the 16th amendment, we began to have income taxes in this Nation. The first income tax was 1 percent on income up to $20,000. In 1913, one-tenth of 1 percent of the American people had to file a Federal income tax, one-tenth of 1 percent. Since 1913, the average marginal tax rate on the American taxpayer has grown to 39.8 percent of 40 percent, which is a 4,000 percent increase, 4,000 percent increase in the marginal tax rate on the American taxpayer since 1913 and the passage of the first income tax. Enough is enough. It is time this evening to pass the two-thirds tax limitation constitutional amendment and send it to the other body for ratification so it can go to the States. We do not have a revenue problem in the U.S. Federal Government. Federal revenues in the time that I have been in this body since 1985 have grown an average of $55 billion a year, $55 billion a year revenue growth. But, unfortunately, spending has grown $59 billion a year, $59 billion a year. We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending restraint problem. Fortunately, we have a laboratory called the State governments. There are States that have tax limitations in their constitutions or in their laws, and in those States that have it, there are four things that are true in every State: Their taxes are lower; their taxes go up slower; their jobs increase faster; and economic growth in those States goes up faster. Interestingly, no State that has tax limitations repealed it. In fact, States are adding to it. There are 18 States that are considering adding some form of tax limitation to their constitutions right now, the most current one being Nevada, where it is going to be voted on by the voters this November. Tax limitation for supermajority vote requirements does work. The polls support that. Seventy-three percent of the American people support it. Eighty percent of Republicans support it. Eighty percent of independents support it. Interestingly enough, 64 percent of the Democrats, self-identified support it, low-income support it, with 80 percent. Middle-income people, 77 percent margins. High income people, 64 percent margins. Those are polls. Let us talk about real people in Innis, Texas, where I live, real people like Jan and Troy Rogers, who own the hardware store. They support it. Real people like Bill and Helen Templen, who own the drugstore, they support it. Single-parent families, like Linda Gillespie, who works for me and has a son and daughter-in-law, married, both working, and a daughter working her way through college, they support it. They support it because they know that the average American family today spends more time working for the government to pay the government the tax revenue than they do for their own family, any other thing in their family budget. We simply, Mr. Speaker and Members of this body, must pass the tax limitation language this evening, send it to the other body for ratification, send it to the States so that three-fourths of the States may have an opportunity to ratify this. On tax day, April 15, 1996, it is time to say enough is enough and pass this. If we do not pass it, we are like the movie villain Freddie in ``Friday the 13th.'' We will be back next year on April 15, 1997, until we do pass it. It is not if we are going to pass it, it is when we are going to pass it. This is not something that takes a long learning curve. In my town meetings when I talk about this, after the first 10 to 15 seconds the people are for it. I have yet to have one person in my town meetings or my public meetings in the last year who say they oppose it, making it more difficult to raise their taxes. So let us, please, Mr. Speaker, vote for the two-thirds supermajority vote to require a tax increase on the American people.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] who is one of the original sponsors of this legislation and who helped pass similar legislation in the Arizona legislature, which is now in the Arizona constitution.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, can the manager of the bill yield to me to close on his time?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion or at least concern on our side. I am the sponsor of the amendment, and I was under the understanding that I have the right to close. I would like a ruling on that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] in whose State there is a supermajority tax limitation amendment for that State. (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], distinguished whip, who is operating at reduced power because of an accident rollerblading in Sugar Land.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the honorable gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], one of our chief sponsors of this legislation. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)