F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Let me propose a deal for the gentleman. Since we should be debating something else, if the gentleman will yield back the balance of his time, I will yield back the balance of mine and we can vote right away on this.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. If I have been listening to you and hearing you correctly, do you believe that the debate on this constitutional amendment tonight is a waste of time?

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there has been a vigorous debate on the rule. Most of the debate on the rule was on the merits of House Joint Resolution 96. It is a simple and straightforward proposal. It proposes to amend the United States Constitution to require a two-thirds vote for tax increases, and by requiring a two-thirds vote on tax increases, there would be a requirement that there be a consensus within the Congress, and hopefully within the American public, that taxes should go up. I think that given the history of some of the tax debates that have occurred since I have been in Congress, that type of consensus is sadly needed. The American public has been asking Senators and Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, to be Americans first and partisans second, and to be both bipartisan and nonpartisan when approaching the problems facing the country. All too often, we have very hot debates and very split votes with very narrow majorities, and the American public, I think, is probably as evenly politically divided today as at any time in the history of the country. The Republicans control this House by six votes, the Democrats control the other body by one vote. The 2000 Presidential election was the closest Presidential election in the history of the country. I do not think that the voters, in dividing themselves so evenly, voted for gridlock and expected nothing to be done during the 2-year period in 2001 and 2002. With a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, neither side will be able to use majority voting power, narrow as it may be, to one-up the other and to pass a tax increase. Maybe a constitutional provision that has the effect of forcing bipartisanship will bring about the bipartisanship in economic issues that has been so sorely lacking, as contrasted to the bipartisanship in facing the war on terrorism. I can tell the Members, I do not think I would be standing here today presenting this constitutional amendment to the House of Representatives if it were not for the one-vote margin by which the then-majority Democratic party passed a big tax increase in 1993, 218 to 216 in the House and 51 to 50 in the other body, where then-Vice President Gore was called upon to break a tie. Because of the reaction of the American public against the majority using its voting power in the way that it did, it had a sea change in the 1994 elections and brought Republicans to majorities in both the House and Senate. So I think that by requiring bipartisanship on tax policy, which is one of the two key elements of our Federal economic policy that Congress has control of, spending being the other, we are going to be able to perhaps force both parties to compromise, to seek consensus, and to seek support before going for a tax increase. Now, I have looked at what this constitutional amendment would have done to tax increases over the last 22 years, had it been in effect. What I came up with is kind of surprising. The opponents of this constitutional amendment repeatedly state that it will be impossible to ever pass a tax increase, nohow, no way, if a two-thirds vote was required in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. Since 1980, there have been 16 tax increases enacted into law by the Congress of the United States. Surprisingly, 10 of those tax increases passed both Houses by two-thirds majorities, if we look at the vote on the conference report, which is the final version of the tax bill. That included the 1980 reconciliation act; the 1980 crude oil windfall profits tax; the $50 billion Social Security tax increase, which was necessary to restore solvency to the Social Security trust fund in 1983; the 1986 reconciliation act; the 1986 tax reform act, which increased taxes in 3 of the 5 following years and decreased them in the other 2; the 1988 Miscellaneous Revenue Act; the 1989 reconciliation act; the 1992 energy policy tax act; the 1996 Small Business Job Protection Act; and the 1998 Internal Revenue Service restructuring act. All of those were tax increase bills, I would submit, of more than a de minimis amount, because the smallest of these raised taxes by $1 billion, which I think very few people would argue being de minimis. The tax increases which were enacted that failed of a two-thirds vote in the House were the 1982 Tax Equity and Fairness Responsibility Act, or TEFRA; the 1984 deficit reduction act; the 1985 reconciliation act; the 1987 reconciliation act; the 1990 reconciliation act; and the 1993 reconciliation act, which was the big tax increase that I referred to earlier on. So people who really want bipartisanship being forced upon the Congress on tax policy should vote in favor of this, because it will mean, the way the voters are presently divided, that neither political party will have the votes to be able to pass a tax increase on the American people solely with their own votes. They will have to reach out and compromise with the other party, and then sell this issue to the American public. That is why I am in favor of this constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, once again the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is wrong. Had he read the amendment that is being proposed, revenue-neutral legislation which raise taxes here and lower taxes there in an equal amount do not require a two-thirds vote. They can be passed by a majority vote. So if the gentleman from Texas wanted to close all of these loopholes that he was talking about, maybe including some that benefit the oil industry, then perhaps enough money could be raised to repeal the marriage tax penalty or to provide further relief on the death tax to small business owners and farmers. As long as he wants to give a tax break for the money that he raises on closing the loopholes, then it is a majority. But if he wants to stick the American public with a tax increase and not give a tax break, then it requires a two-thirds vote. So all I am saying is that if the gentleman from Texas really wants to be generous with the taxpayers because of his very sincere opposition to loopholes, tell us where you would lower taxes and then you would get a majority vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 96 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2621) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to consumer product protection, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That is correct. The debate is not relevant to the bill that is under discussion.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the shrinking district from Utah (Mr. Hansen).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's discussion is not germane to the subject of H.R. 2054.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from an expanding district in Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate the same point of order I made with the previous speaker: The debate does not relate to H.R. 2054. The rules are quite plain that in motions to suspend the rules it must.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand the regular order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the gentleman's debate is not confined to or relating to H.R. 2054, once again.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I must once again reiterate my point of order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker----

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2068, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2068, a bill to revise, codify, and enact without substantive change certain general and permanent laws relating to public buildings, property, and works, as title 40, ``Public Buildings, Property, and Works'' of the United States Code. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, is a cosponsor of this legislation. This bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel as part of the program required by title 2, United States Code, 285b, to prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary, one title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States. The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over the revision and codification of the statutes of the United States. This bill is a result of the exercise of that jurisdiction. It makes no substantive change in existing law. Rather, it removes ambiguities, contradictions and other imperfections from existing law and repeals obsolete, superfluous and superseded provisions. Simply stated, enacting title 40 as positive law will make the title easier and more reliable to use. I introduced the bill on June 6, 2001. Upon introduction, the bill was circulated for comment to interested parties including committees of Congress and agencies and Departments of the executive branch. Originally, all comments were to be submitted no later than September 10, 2001. However, at the request of the Office of Management and Budget, the due date for comments was extended to March 15, 2002, to provide ample time for study and review. The General Services Administration provided extensive comments on the bill, and several other agencies and Departments of the government also provided comments. The Office of Law Revision Counsel reviewed and considered all comments, contacting parties to resolve outstanding questions. Some comments, suggesting substantive changes, could not be incorporated in the restatement because this bill makes no substantive change in existing law. Other comments proposing changes to improve organization and clarity were incorporated in the restatement. The Committee on the Judiciary adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute prepared by the Office of Law Revision Counsel, which reflects the changes resulting from the review and comment process. The Law Revision Counsel indicates that he is satisfied that this legislation makes no substantive change in existing law. Therefore, no additional cost to the government would be incurred as a result of its enactment. I urge all members to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3297, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the events of September 11 have brought to life the heroism displayed by our public safety officers and those who assist them in the line of duty. This tragedy has also created many unique and unfortunate situations that have not been fully contemplated prior to September 11. In these cases, we have a responsibility as a Congress to act so that our laws treat fairly those who die in the line of duty. Father Mychal F. Judge, a priest who years earlier had consoled the families of TWA Flight 800 after it exploded off of Long Island and who had gone on a recent peace mission to Northern Ireland, had been a chaplain with the New York City Fire Department since 1992. He was ministering to the victims at the World Trade Center when a rain of debris showered upon him, resulting in his death. This legislation is given a short name in recognition of Father Judge and his efforts while addressing two concerns which his situation has brought to light. Under current law, the Bureau of Justice Assistance is directed to make payment of monetary benefits to the survivors of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty. This bill addresses any ambiguity in existing law by specifically naming chaplains who are in service as being eligible for the same benefits as other public service officers. Under current law, benefits may only be paid to the spouse, child or parent of the deceased. H.R. 3297 allows benefits to be paid to whomever the chaplain has designated as the beneficiary of his or her life insurance policy in the event that the deceased has no living spouse, child or parent. In the case of Father Judge, the benefit would go to his two surviving sisters. I urge all Members to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.