Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to add the name of our distinguished Democratic colleague, the Honorable Ralph Hall of Texas, as an original cosponsor to House Joint Resolution 1, the tax limitation balanced budget amendment congressional plan. His name was inadvertently left off the original list turned in on the day the bill was introduced.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Regular order. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this country was founded on the principle of no taxation without representation. Today many Americans believe that principle has been violated and that their elected Representatives in Washington have taxed them so that they can spend money on the special big-spending interests in Washington, DC. To correct this sad situation the new Republican majority has now introduced section 106 of the rule change increase income taxes. It also contains an absolute prohibition against retroactive tax increases. The opponents of this provision have been whining and wailing all evening about the constitutionality of this provision. The constitutional argument simply will not stand. In 1971, Mr. Speaker, in the Supreme Court case of Gordon versus Lance the Supreme Court blessed the constitutionality of supermajority restraints on the tax and spending propensities of government. I might also point out that numerous States have a supermajority requirement for tax increases in their State constitutions, including the State of Arkansas, the home State of our President, which requires a three-fourths vote. I might also point out that we plan, on January 19, to introduce a constitutional balanced-budget amendment that contains a 60 percent supermajority to increase taxes. The real question that we should be asking this evening is whether supermajority votes to raise income taxes really work. To answer that question let us look to the States that require supermajorities for such tax increases. An analysis of State spending between 1980 and 1987 shows that in States with supermajority requirements for tax increases their tax burden has gone down an average of 2 percent while States that do not have a supermajority tax rate requirement, their tax burden has gone up an average of 2 percent. That is a difference of 4 percent. When we look at State spending, in States with the supermajority requirement State spending has gone up 2 percent, but in States that do not have the supermajority requirement for income increases, their spending has increased 8.5 percent, or a net difference of 6\1/2\ percent. I say to my colleagues, ``If you take these differentials and apply them to the current Federal budget, you would see that, if we had a supermajority requirement for an income tax increase in effect today, our income taxes would be approximately $56 billion less, and our Federal spending would be approximately $105 billion less.'' Put simply, supermajority requirements for income tax increases do work. I have also asked my staff to go back and look at the major votes we have had in the last three decades on tax increases in the House of Representatives. There were 16 such votes. Seven of those were passed with a supermajority, seven were passed with less than a supermajority, and two were passed by voice vote. Interestingly enough, since the advent of C-SPAN television coverage in the early 1980's, only one tax increase has passed by more than the 60 percent supermajority. Amazingly, if we had had a three-fifths vote requirement for a tax increase in effect in the 1980's, we would have saved $666 billion in new taxes. I submit for the Record the charts and data to support this conclusion, and I ask for a yes vote. Let us start listening as much to the taxpayers of America as we do to the special interests of America and pass this amendment. History of Tax Increases--Major Tax Increases Since 1960 Since 1981: 1 Bill passed with 60 percent supermajority in each House. 4 Bills passed without 60 percent supermajority in each House. Those 4 bills added $666 billion in taxes. Tax Rate Extension Act of 1960--No. House 223-174, No, (56%). Senate 61-32, Yes, (66%). Tax Rate Extension Act of 1961--Yes. House 295-88, Yes, (77%). Senate voice. House Voice. Tax Rate Extension Act of 1962--Yes. House Voice. Senate voice. Tax Rate Extension Act of 1963--Yes. House 283-91, Yes, (76%). Senate voice. Excise Tax Rate Extension Act of 1964--Yes. House voice. Senate voice. Interest Equalization Tax Act of 1964--Yes. House 238-142, Yes, (63%). Senate 45-28, No, (62%). Interest Equalization Tax Extension Act of 1965--Yes. House 274-97, Yes, (74%). Senate voice. Tax Adjustment Act of 1966--Yes. House 288-102, Yes, (74%). Senate 72-5, Yes, (94%). Interest Equalization Tax Extension Act of 1967--Yes. House 224-83, Yes, (73%). Senate voice. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968--Yes. House 268-150, Yes, (64%). Senate 64-16, Yes, (80%). Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980--Yes. House 302-107, Yes, (74%). Senate 66-31, Yes, (68%). Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982--No: $214 billion. House 226-207, No, (52%). Senate 52-47, No, (52%). Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987--No: $40 billion. House 237-181, No, (57%). Senate 61-28, Yes, (62%). Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989--Yes: $25 billion. House 272-128, Yes, (68%). Senate 87-7, Yes, (93%). Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990--No: $137 billion. House 228-200, No, (53%). Senate 54-45, No, (55%). Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993--No: $275 billion. House 218-216, No, (50.2%). Senate 51-49, No, (51%).