John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. I hope he teaches a law school course for Members of Congress in the evenings with or without credit because I completely agree with him. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to read this one more time. Outside the context of a few 19th century municipal bond cases, the Federal courts have not directly imposed a tax except for a single school desegregation case, Missouri v. Jenkins. And even this isolated case was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1995, when the Justices unanimously rejected the concept of direct Federal court imposition of taxes. End of sentence.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am going to read this one more time. I am going to read it slowly.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman, yes.

Mr. CONYERS. All right, that is all I need. The majority whip should use his own time. Now let me ask the majority whip, who is enjoying this as much as I am, ``Do you have any judges in mind since you made that statement a few months ago or do you plan to do anything about your pronouncements on that subject?''

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman from Texas got a list and it is growing. Well, does the gentleman plan to ever do anything with the list, though? That is the point, and I yield again.

Mr. CONYERS. With pleasure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let us all go to law school. All right? The Supreme Court case. Outside the context of a few 19th century municipal bond cases, the Federal courts have not directly imposed a tax except for a single school desegregation case, Missouri v. Jenkins. And even this isolated case was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1995 when the Justices unanimously rejected the concept of a direct Federal court imposition of taxes. Now, is that clear or is it not? Mr. Chairman, I did not ask the gentleman anything. I just wanted to get his attention to read simple English to him of what the Supreme Court said. The gentleman may get his own time.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, before we vote, the Supreme Court said, in the case that the gentleman read so clearly, and the question when he could not remember what I asked, said that the court cannot impose taxes. Repeat. The court cannot impose taxes. They can enforce an order for taxes. That is the case. So I urge the gentleman to read it again.

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Then that means up to now the gentleman does not have a candidate but he has got a list.

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CONYERS. I will get to that later. Right now I am making my own presentation, and I wanted to make sure I am quoting the gentleman correctly.

Mr. CONYERS. I get it. Then the gentleman does not have a candidate right now. He has got a list. And I am not yielding any more. The gentleman from Texas can get time. I got a way for him to get as much time as he wants, but it is on the other side on his own time. Okay.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. CONYERS. No, I am not going to go there. I am not going to go there. He has got a list and he is working on it, but he does not have a name yet so I got to wait. Said just stay tuned and he is going to make his presentation when the time comes.

Mr. CONYERS. I am not going to go there, either. Maybe he will tell us today, maybe he will not. Maybe he will come up with a list next month. Who knows? That is what he is telling me. Well, now, ``Congressional Republicans yesterday rallied,'' this is the great Washington newspaper, the Washington Times, ``Congressional Republicans yesterday rallied behind House Majority Whip Tom DeLay's announcement that the GOP will pursue impeachment proceedings against activist Federal judges.'' Now I would like to gain the distinguished majority whip's attention again. Excuse me, sir, if I may gain your attention again.

Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment. I just want to gain the gentleman's attention first. Okay. I thank the gentleman. ``Congressional Republicans yesterday rallied behind House Majority Whip Tom DeLay's announcement that the GOP will pursue impeachment proceedings against activist Federal judges.'' And I will be happy to yield to the gentleman. What generally is his description of activist Federal judges?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am wiping the tears from my eyes from the touching Holiday Inn story of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), where he peeked into the door and saw himself with this family. And I just want him to know, wherever he is, that if that family had gotten a fair and honest campaign financing system that the Speaker of the House continues to bottle up, they would have more money. If that family in the Holiday Inn that he peeked in on was relying on Medicare or Social Security, they would oppose the amendment because it threatens their viability. If that family relied on a minimum wage, they would be hurt by this Republican Congress that does not want to raise the minimum wage. If for all of the Republicans that claim that they are for lower taxes but for really huge tax loopholes, they would realize how fraudulent this measure is. It really takes some acting to pull this off every April around tax time. The same people who are willing to throw out and undercut the cornerstone of our democracy majority rule to let this repose in a small and a controlled system, reversing the principles of James Madison. I think that this is outrageous that we would permanently enshrine $450 billion corporate and tax loopholes in an amendment like this. Ladies and gentlemen, I call on you this year, I called on you last year, I called on you the year before, reject this foolishness that demeans the House of Representatives.

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for making that announcement, but I made it earlier. I made it first.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. It does not mean that everybody learned the same thing at that class. I mean everyone did their own thing. So some of this information is very important about the Constitution that we are discussing here today. Now the $50 billion cigarette tax reduction for the tobacco industry, which the Speaker knows about since his fingerprints are the only ones on it, would have required a two-thirds majority to have taken out. That is what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) keeps telling the Republicans, that that is what the problem with this giveaway bill is that they are masquerading as something good for working folks. It is a corporate giveaway, and they are not going to get away with it again. They did not succeed last year and it does not look like they are going to do it again. Appendix data do not show better economic performance in states with supermajority requirements The Heritage Foundation contends that states in which a supermajority vote of the legislature is required to raise taxes have experienced faster economic growth and fewer tax increases than other states. A March 1996 Heritage report looks at the seven states that have had supermajority requirements in place for a number of years--Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Dakota--and finds that five of the seven states experienced slower than average growth in tax revenue. It also finds that five of the seven states (but not the same five states) experienced faster economic growth than the average state. The Heritage report suggests a casual link between supermajority limits, lower taxes, and faster economic growth, saying ``. . . there is no escaping the logical relationship between supermajorities and super state performances.'' \3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Daniel J. Mitchell, ``Why a Supermajority Would Protect Taxpayers,'' The Heritage Foundation, March 29, 1996. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the Heritage study is fundamentally flawed. It considers only state-level tax changes rather than changes in total state and local revenues, despite the capacity of states to shift costs and responsibilities to local governments. In addition, it compares 1980, a year in which the economy was just turning down from the peak of an economic expansion, with 1992, a year at the beginning of a recovery from a deep recession. Economists and analysts generally frown upon comparisons that use years representing different points in the business cycle. If one measures state and local revenues, examines years that represent similar points in the business cycle, and looks at various measures of economic growth, conclusions very different from those Heritage has presented may be drawn. By some measures, supermajority states have had less economic growth than other states and have not had smaller tax increases. For example: Five of the seven states with supermajority requirements experienced lower-than-average economic growth, as measured by changes in per capita personal incomes between 1979 and 1989. (These years both represented business cycle peaks.) Four of the seven supermajority states had lower-than-average economic growth during this period as measured by changes in Gross State Product. In addition, five of the seven states with supermajority requirements had higher-than-average growth of state and local revenues as a percent of residents' incomes from 1979 to 1989. Five of the seven states (not the same five) had higher-than-average increases in state and local taxes per capita from 1984 to 1993, two other years falling at similar points in the business cycle. This is not to say that supermajority requirements hinder economic growth and lead to revenue increases. Rather, the point is that different choices of years and of measures of taxes and economic growth lead to diametrically opposed results. This should serve as a strong caution that no valid conclusions about the effects of supermajority requirements can be drawn from the type of simplistic analysis the Heritage Foundation has conducted.