F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 119, and I would like to commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and all of the members of the Committee on Rules for their hard work on this fair rule. Mr. Speaker, this rule is almost identical to the rule passed in the 106th Congress to consider similar legislation that provides for thorough consideration of H.R. 503 by authorizing 2 hours of debate and an opportunity for the minority to offer a substitute amendment which will be debated for 1 hour. This is a fair rule which will provide ample time for both debate and amendment. Furthermore, the rule provides that the amendment committed in the Committee on Rules report, which makes a technical change to the Uniform Code of Military Justice shall be considered as adopted when the rule is adopted. I appreciate the indulgence of the Committee on Rules with regard to the small perfecting provision, and I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for working with me to facilitate the consideration of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this rule.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington is dead wrong. This is similar to bills that have been enacted into law in many States, and anybody who is charged for killing an unborn child would have used that constitutional argument as a defense. In no State has a Federal court or a State court struck down a similar law. The woman who is assaulted and whose unborn child has been killed or maimed has already made her choice, and that is to bear that child. Why do we not respect the choice that that woman has made? Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint). (Mr. DeMINT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 503, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. This amendment is very simple. It makes it harder for Congress to raise taxes. It requires Congress to put fiscal discipline on itself so that if there are loopholes closed, the tax relief would be given to the American people rather than being spent on some type of proposal that maybe the American people would not approve of. The original Constitution written by James Madison prohibited direct taxes except ``in proportion to the census, or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.'' When the Congress attempted to pass an income tax in the late 1890s, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. On February 13, 1913, the 16th amendment was ratified by the several States and became a part of our Nation's Constitution which specifically gave the Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration. Since that time, boy, have those income taxes taken off. With the constitutional amendment ratified in 1913, the heavy hand of the Congress and of the Federal Government has dipped deeper and deeper into the pockets of the people of the United States of America, so that today Federal income taxes as expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product are higher than at any time in the peacetime history of our country, including during World War II in many of the years. So I guess the question is really simple. Given the track record of Congress since 1913, do we want to continue making it easy for Congress to raise taxes? Or do we want to force Congress to cut spending, to have better priorities, and then to attempt to achieve a national consensus to raise taxes as a last resort? Because a two-thirds vote does require a national consensus to be formed. I would hope that the Members of the House would approve this constitutional amendment and send it to the other body, because it will send a message that this Congress is serious about making it tough for future Congresses to raise taxes and to force them to set priorities in spending the public's money, not the Congress' money but the public's money. I ask for an aye vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the gentleman from North Carolina to recognize his final speaker, and then we can wrap this up.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the Framers of the Constitution have used terms of art like due process of law and equal protection under the law and the courts have interpreted it. If the argument of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is that we should draft constitutional amendments so tightly that the courts do not interpret it, then I think we probably would have to rewrite the Constitution right from article I, section 1. We do not want to do that. But we do want to give Congress the authority to determine what de minimis is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) to demonstrate the bipartisan support this amendment has.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, very plainly, on page 3, lines 4 and 5 of the constitutional amendment, it says that Congress defines by law what a de minimis amount is. So this does not require litigation. But having said that, listening to the argument of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) would have persuaded the Members of the first Congress and the Congress that sat in 1863 to reject the 1st and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution. Because if one looks at the Constitution annotated, those amendments have been the subject of countless court decisions by the Supreme Court as well as the appeals courts and the district courts because they were not, quote, properly drafted, and because they would have, quote, encouraged litigation. I do not think, had the gentleman from New York been in the first Congress or in the Civil War Congress he would have voted against the 1st amendment and the 14th amendment. But the argument that he used which does not hold water with this amendment is that this amendment does not encourage litigation because it says that Congress defines by law what a de minimis amount is.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself. Mr. Speaker, in response to the comment that I made, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) said that since the income tax amendment was ratified in 1913, we have done very well. I would agree with her 100 percent. We have done too well. We have done too well having an escalating cascade of taxes on the American people. What has happened is that we went from the original Constitution that seemed to serve us very well for 140 years prohibiting direct taxes on the American people, to having the pendulum swing far too far in the other direction so that now the Federal tax expressed as a percentage of GDP is the highest in peacetime history of our country. Mr. Speaker, this amendment pushes that pendulum back in the middle by making it harder to raise taxes. I think the American people would say hooray for that because Congress has been much to eager since 1913 to dip into the pockets of the American taxpayer deeper and deeper. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentlewoman from Texas aware that the Constitution written by the Founding Fathers prohibited Congress from levying direct taxes on the American people, and it required an amendment about 100 years ago in order to allow Congress to even have the power to do what we are talking about?

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, the President proposes and the Congress disposes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is really not true, because if we cut out other wasteful spending in other parts of the government, we can put more money into prescription drugs, and it is a matter of priority.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, but let us debate prescription drugs at the time that the bill comes before us.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I will reclaim my time then, because we have a chance to talk about prescription drugs a little bit later on when the prescription drug bill comes to the floor of the Congress. So I think we really ought to defer that debate until when it is really the question that is before us.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute, and I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts and his very articulate self has kind of laid forth the Democratic platform on what they would like the Congress to accomplish during the next 2 years. We are not dealing with prescription drugs and all of the other issues that the gentleman from Massachusetts is talking about. We are dealing with the simple proposition of whether the Constitution should be amended to make it harder for Congress to raise taxes. That is the proposal that is before us, and that is the proposal that we are voting upon today. Now, I would submit that the American people think that it should be hard to raise taxes, and I would also submit that the American people historically have not trusted Congress very much when the time comes to deal with bills that raise taxes. So all this amendment proposes to do is to force there to be a national consensus on raising taxes, which is required in a two-thirds vote. It is really pretty simple.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yesterday I introduced a bill to suspend the Federal gasoline tax to provide some relief to our motorists and our truck drivers. I would invite the gentleman from Massachusetts and others who feel that way to cosponsor this bill.