F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, if the House would read the constitutional amendment, they would find that the gentleman from Virginia, with all due respect, is misinterpreting what is in the amendment. The amendment says that a loophole can be closed by a majority vote if the money that is raised as a result of closing the loophole is used to provide tax relief for the American people elsewhere. But where the two-thirds vote comes in is if the loophole is closed and the money is raised and is used to finance increased spending. So what this Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment encourages is using the money from closed loopholes to provide tax relief for the American people, rather than financing a spending spree by the Congress of the United States. I think that that is entirely logical. What the amendment does is it says if you want to spend the money from the loophole, it is two-thirds; if you want to give it in tax relief, it is a majority. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, it is the same old story. When all else fails, drop the Social Security red herring. This constitutional amendment will not cut Social Security. If there is a revenue pinch, it will force Congress and the Nation to set priorities. Social Security has always been the top priority, and it always will be the top priority, because it is the principal part of our social safety net for senior citizens. So if the shoe starts to pinch because of a revenue shortfall, or the baby boom generation collecting the Social Security that they have earned, it will force cuts in other programs. We all know that there are huge wastes of money in the other programs, and this will provide the fiscal discipline for Congress to set better priorities than it historically has in the past. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to tell the rest of the story. The gentleman from Michigan is so right that the Articles of Confederation did require a supermajority of nine of the 13 States to raise taxes. But the Constitution as originally ratified by the States was even more severe. It prohibited direct taxes on the people and required a constitutional amendment in the beginning of the last century to allow the income tax to be constitutionally passed by Congress. So if we are looking at what Madison hath written, Madison put an even greater straitjacket on the Congress' ability to raise taxes than the Articles of Confederation had. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I am very interested in the argument of the gentleman from Michigan. Under this constitutional amendment, we could repeal a tax loophole that gave these outrageous benefits to the corporation he mentioned by a majority vote as long as the revenue that was raised was distributed to the American people. If there was just a flat out repeal, it would take a two-thirds vote. This would make it easier to give tax relief to the American people in repealing these loopholes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield further, with all due respect to my good friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I am certainly happy, Mr. Speaker, that he was not around to promote his earlier argument about Madison's enlightenment at the time the Congress debated the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments 140 years ago. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I recall one of the compromises that got the Constitution through the convention in the States was one that permitted slaves to be imported for the first 20 years of the Constitution and did not specifically omit slavery. Now, was Madison enlightened at that time, or did we need to amend the Constitution to get rid of something that my State fought to get rid of in the Civil War?

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 41, the tax limitation amendment, which was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and ordered reported by the Committee on Judiciary on April 4. This important legislation would amend the Constitution by requiring a two-thirds majority vote by Congress for any bill that increases the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount. The effect of this amendment would not preclude Congress from amending the internal revenue laws so long as the change in the law did not increase revenue by more than a de minimis amount. For example, a bill that both lowered and increased taxes, if it were revenue neutral would not be subject to the two-thirds requirement, nor would it would a bill intended to raise revenue by reducing taxes. In addition, the two-thirds majority requirement would be waived when a declaration of war is in effect or when both Houses of Congress pass a resolution which becomes law stating that the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to national security. Mr. Speaker, 15 States have adopted similar tax limitation amendments. According to statistics provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, these States have benefited from greater rates of increased employment, greater economic growth, decreased government spending, and decreased rates of tax growth. Although similar amendments have been unsuccessfully considered by the House over the past few years, the need for tax reform has never been greater. According to the Congressional Budget Office, with the exception of 1942, the overall amount of individual income tax revenues is a higher percentage of our gross domestic product than any other time in our history. The bottom line is the taxes today are too high. Federal, State, and local taxes consume about 40 percent of the income of the average family. That is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. As Congress debates meaningful tax relief for the American people, it is also important to recognize that Congress's voracious appetite for spending still endures. That is why I think it is more important than ever for this Congress to reconsider and support a measure that will make it more difficult for Congress to raise taxes in the future. Inevitably, there will come a time when Congress wishes to spend more but will not have budget surpluses to rely upon. There will be many who will argue that, in order for Congress to spend more from here in Washington, D.C., we will need to take more from the hard-working citizens across our great Nation. However, I believe this is the wrong approach, and there is another way to meet our Nation's priorities. That is by taking our bill and reducing wasteful spending, ferreting out fraud and eliminating ineffective programs. Raising taxes should be a last-ditch option and should occur only after careful consideration with broad consensus. Mr. Speaker, a constitutional amendment is a big step; but I believe our history of tax hikes illustrates that, in this case, it is necessary and an important step that will bring needed discipline to Congress and relief to America's people. I urge the passage of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 118, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 41) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations.

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 to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 41.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 118 and I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), as well as the chairman of the Committee on Rules and all the other members of the Committee on Rules, for their hard work on this fair rule. As the sponsor of H.J. Res. 41, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has played a leadership role on issues such as tax fairness and simplification and deserves credit for his persistence and leadership in advancing the proposed constitutional amendment that is before the House today. Madam Speaker, this rule is similar to past rules providing for the consideration of proposed constitutional amendments. The rule provides for 2 hours of thorough debate and an opportunity for the minority to offer a substitute amendment. I believe this is a fair rule, which will provide ample time for debate and amendment, and I urge Members to support this rule.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am re-introducing legislation, the Freedom from Unfair Energy Levy Act or ``FUEL Act,'' to alleviate the impact of current high fuel prices. My legislation would place a six-month moratorium on federal motor fuel excise taxes, including the 18.3 cent per gallon tax consumers pay for gasoline and the 24.3 cent per gallon tax on diesel fuel, and eliminate permanently the 4.3 cent per gallon tax increase approved in 1993. Last year, when I first introduced the FUEL Act, I warned of the threat that high energy prices posed to our economy. As was illustrated clearly in the 1970s and early 1990s, fuel price hikes can cause widespread damage to economic well being. Unfortunately, high energy costs have continued to plague the U.S. since that warning and our economy is beginning to suffer the consequences. Some have argued that money from fuel taxes is more useful in Washington than in Americans' pockets, helping motorists afford the high price of gasoline. In reality, the economic damage caused by high fuel prices far outweighs any impact on federal spending that a six-month moratorium could cause. Congress should act now to mitigate the economic damage caused by steep energy costs. The current high gasoline prices across the country are a continuation of the energy problems that began during the Clinton administration. In recent years, domestic energy production has fallen to its lowest level since before World War II. The failure to increase domestic production has made the U.S. increasingly vulnerable to the whims of OPEC nations, who recently slashed their oil production in order to increase their profitability. Compounding the problem is the increase in the gasoline tax that was enacted in 1993. That year, when fuel prices were low, Democrats in Congress, President Clinton, and a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Gore combined to increase federal fuel taxes. The FUEL Act would reverse that increase and represents a sound first step in the development of a comprehensive, long-term policy to lower energy costs. Besides addressing long-term concerns, my legislation provides immediate assistance to the problem of high fuel costs. By halting the collection of federal fuel taxes for six months, consumers will see an immediate dip of nearly 20 cents in the cost of gasoline at the pump. This six month moratorium will help to keep prices down over the summer months which often see steep fuel cost increases. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to fight rising energy prices.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today disappointed by the news that NASA has again acquiesced to inappropriate Russian demands to the Space Station program. Russia will be sending Dennis Tito, a 60-year- old American millionaire, as one of its contributions to this week's mission to the Space Station. What unique characteristics does Mr. Tito possess that earned his place on this mission? Cold hard cash. $20 million of it from Mr. Tito to the Russians is all it took for a rocket-powered trip to the Space Station. Unfortunately, this partnership based on a core scientific mission apparently is now the next Club Med for those able to pony up millions of dollars to the Russian Government. So how is it that the Russians, whose Station nonperformance cost the U.S. taxpayers at least 2 years' delay and over $5 billion in cost overruns, can brazenly increase the safety risk of the entire mission? They can because NASA's management did not provide the necessary safeguards earlier in this so-called partnership. NASA's forced acquiescence to Russia regarding Mr. Tito is just the latest example of the Russians taking NASA's management to the cleaners.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, as one who went to the University of Wisconsin, Madison, that has much better football and basketball teams than either Harvard or Yale, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today the House considers H.R. 768, the Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2001. This bill was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). It makes permanent an antitrust exemption that allows universities to agree on common standards of need when awarding financial aid. This exemption has been passed on a temporary basis several times without controversy, and the current version is set to expire at the end of September. It appears to be working well, and I am hopeful that it now can be made permanent. In a moment the sponsors of the bill, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), will seek time for a further explanation. I appreciate their work on this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 768, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 768) to amend the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 to make permanent the favorable treatment of need-based educational aid under the antitrust laws.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary have until Friday, April 20, to file legislation reports on the following: H.R. 392, Private Relief Bill for Nancy Wilson; H.R. 503, Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001; H.R. 863, Consequence for Juvenile Offenders Act of 2001; H.R. 1209, Child Status Protection Act of 2001; and H.J. Res. 41, Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment. This request has been cleared with the minority.