Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What we are talking about today is the rule, Mr. Speaker, the rule for the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense authorization bill. It is a bill that has been not only worked on very diligently by the brightest and best Members of Congress that we have, led by our chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), but also by a great number of other people who have spoken today; not only the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) but also the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who are both veterans of high stature. Mr. Speaker, today's rule allows for a full and fair consideration of all the controversial defense authorization issues. We are getting our military families off food stamps and we are going to provide a 3.7 percent pay increase. We are helping them by creating an Armed Services Thrift Savings Plan. We are doing those things that will improve military housing. We are doing things, I believe, that rearm our military to make sure that the young men and young women who represent America have not only the best fighting equipment, but also the circumstances and the will of a grateful Nation.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is politely respond to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) and agree with him that we must provide adequate healthcare for our Nation's retirees. However, the Committee on Rules with this rule has worked to ensure that our Nation adequately takes care of and lives up to its promises to the service men and women. We have allowed the House to consider amendments that would both expand the current Medicare pilot program and to create a permanent program, and those votes will be allowed today. This is about the rule, the rule to make sure that we have dealt fairly with everyone to allow this debate, and that is what this is for and that is why I am proud of what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is this infancy that we are talking about of the idea of democracy, a fair play of world order, and what is interesting is that reformers in China are those who are asking for America to recognize them and for what they are trying to accomplish. That is why PNTR; that is why WTO. And after watching China, and I know the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), not only as a Member of Congress for a longer period of time, but also just his esteemed vision of China for quite some time. We know that what happens is that when China joins this organization of world nations that what they will do is then begin to have a different agenda and instead of it being an adversarial one where, perhaps, it might manifest itself in the use of force, I believe and they believe that it will manifest itself to looking inward to China. The changes I believe and others espouse is that foreign or outside pressure will not be that which is the catalyst for change in China. It will be what is inside that comes from the people, that comes from the heart, which comes from their own ingenuity, which comes from their own spirit for freedom. And if we are able to match our can-do attitude, American ingenuity, with Chinese desire, we can create a catalyst that will change even the coldest heart. It is these things that America needs to stand for.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my chairman, for yielding to me, and would like to pick up on the same comments that our colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) talked about. For those who are listening to this, I would say to my chairman that we have just ended just a few minutes ago the meeting that we had, what is called a whip meeting, the permanent normal trade relations meeting. A good number of Members are around and very excited. We had a great report today not only about the status, what we call the whip check, but we also took comments and feedback from a number of Members of not only their concerns but also their ideas about what this all entails, what this PNTR stands for, the importance not only for America, but we broke it down during this meeting. We talked about the farmers, we talked about middle America, we talked about the importance of them being able to open up markets and get markets around the globe that will be available to them; in particular, China. How about if the people from Texas or the Midwest were able to sell an extra just one, one hamburger a day to every person in China? A billion hamburgers a day would be consumed. We talked about people who are in telecommunications and commerce in this country, the things that they develop. We know that many times it is not only goods and services, but it also includes intellectual property, the things that are developed as a result of the computer age, the technology that America has. And what is put at risk by this and China becoming a member of the WTO is nothing less than as I or United States Customs officials will tell us, them being in China and going throughout the stores in China, which in some sense are just like America, they have the Wal-Marts and the Biz-Marts and the everything marts, but on their shelves are many of the same items that we would have in America by a different name, because you see they do not have to follow the trade policies of the general world community. They can have what are called pirated software, pirated pieces of information, and that is the intellectual property that belongs to America. When they are a part of normal trade relations and WTO, they will participate with America and be trading partners. They will be interested in making sure that what is on theirselves is a relationship between the American company that makes this and the Chinese worker that will buy it. Continuous improvement, we talked about that being at risk. We talked about what is being at risk in terms of the ability that we have in our country to ensure that our national security, as well as the freedom in China is further. I can think of no better relationship to have with the country to continue being friends then to reach out to them and offer them not only the handshake of economic opportunity and trade, but also for them to become more like America. This is how they become more like America.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Never has there been a more logical explanation to understand the differences between the two parties. The Democrats today in the minority stand up and say things that take time, ideas that take time to mature are bad ideas, like raising the earning limits for seniors that took 30 years before we could get that done. A balanced budget, 30 years of Democrat control to where we had $5.5 trillion worth of debt in this country. Welfare reform. Bad ideas. These are the same words we hear over and over and over again. IRS Tax Code reform. Silly. Who would want that? I am pleased to say that the Republican Party wants it. I am pleased to say that people back home want it. I am pleased to say that today what we are doing is very important for people who understand that it is too easy for Congress to raise taxes. I am proud of what we are doing. It may take us 20 more years; it may take us 5 more years. But I will tell you that it is the right thing to do. The speaker before talked about people leaving this country, leaving this country because they do not want to pay taxes. That could be true. I think it is that they realize they have got to pay too much in taxes. The things that they had worked hard for all their life, that they then could sit back and enjoy life is being taken from them by a tax code, an unfair tax code, the threat of a Congress raising taxes to take more and more from people who had earned the money. That is why people are leaving. They are not leaving because it would be more difficult to raise taxes. They are not leaving because they are concerned about somebody taking less of their money. They are concerned about someone coming and taking from them what they have worked hard for. This is an important issue. This is a defining issue in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very proud and pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Farmsville, North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Bloomfield Hills, Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), representing the Sixth District of Texas, who brought this effort to the floor of the House of Representatives, and who is one of the most articulate spokesmen for the Tax Limitation Amendment. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I pass to the remaining and closing speaker that we have, I would like to thank three people: Marty McGuinness from my staff; Steve Waguespack, who is from the staff of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton); and Elizabeth Kowal from the staff of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from the Fourth District of Texas (Mr. Hall), a gentleman who is a close friend of mine and the cosponsor and co-lead of this joint resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) from the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me the time, and I would like to move into general debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts pointing out, in his view, how this is just wasting time and it is the majority party that has nothing better to do. I want the gentleman to know that that is an argument that we hear over and over and over and have heard this over and over and over. This is what we would be led to believe about a balanced budget; whether we would have a balanced budget or not. The other side simply said there is no need for a balanced budget. America is great. Things are headed in the right direction. Well, it was the Republican Party that brought forth not only the ideas but had the conviction to make sure that we would continue to talk about a balanced budget, even when there were people who believed it would never, ever happen. I recall Senator Fritz Hollings, who is a marvelous Senator in the other body, stated that if we ever had a balanced budget by the year 2002, he would take a high dive off the top of the capitol. A high dive. It will never happen. There will never, ever be a balanced budget. That is what we were told on the other side. We were told about welfare reform that welfare reform should never happen because welfare reform would put millions of people out in the streets and babies and families sleeping on sidewalks. Well, lo and behold, we had welfare reform, and we had welfare reform Republican- style that is so successful that even President Clinton calls it his own package today. Welfare reform that has led to not only changing behavior of people who had been on welfare for generation after generation, but welfare reform that has led to a 47 percent reduction in the amount of people who have had their hands out. Instead, we have found jobs available because the Republican Party had the presence of mind to fight those who said we would never have a balanced budget; we would never have an economy where we could employ all the people who were on welfare. And about IRS reform, they said, oh, there is nothing wrong with the IRS. The Tax Code is great. We love that. That is the Democrat Party mantra: no problem with America. We need to keep it the exact same way that we have got it today. Well, it was a few voices in the Republican Party, who are still alive and well today, and with more than enough votes to pass these bills, with more than enough votes to talk about our vision for America, that want to make it more difficult to raise taxes in America. Oh, my colleagues may say, the Constitution should address this. Well, we did not even have any tax bills; we could not even tax until the 16th amendment, until 1913. What happened in 1913, when we began taxing in America? The IRS looks entirely different than it does today. Why today do we need this? We need this two-thirds tax limitation because we need to make it more difficult to raise taxes. We, today in America, are at a precious time in our history. The precious time is that the Republican Party has made it possible as a result of the balanced budget, when the other side said no and it was a silly idea, the other side said welfare reform is a silly idea and we should never have it, the IRS Tax Code reform the other side said was a silly idea and that we should not do it. That is what has unleashed the power of the American energy. And it is called the free market system; men and women who go to work every day, who are making America work; and yet even today, when we have a surplus, our President has proposed a $96 billion tax increase in the year 2000. That is why we need to make sure that it requires two-thirds of this body and two-thirds of the Senate to say, yes, President Clinton and Vice President Gore, we want your ideas, we want to raise taxes by $96 billion. Well, I am sure we will hear it said over and over about what a great plan the President's budget is; that President Clinton has the best budget, great for everybody; yet not one Member of this body would even sponsor the President's plan. Not one person would sponsor the President's budget. There is a reason why. There is a reason why today we are on the floor of the House of Representatives to say that we need to make it harder to raise taxes in America.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the minority pointing out all the wonderful things that my party has done: a balanced budget, welfare reform, IRS Tax Code reform. These were not tax increases that required a supermajority. They were tax decreases and things that would increase not only the efficiency of America but bring more freedom for people. I also would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), a Democrat, for his bipartisan effort to ensure that not only the people of Ohio but the people of this country understand that this is not a Republican or Democrat issue, this is a simple matter: Do we want to make it more difficult to raise taxes on American citizens? Do we want to make it more difficult for America to have to pay more taxes? Do we want to raise the bar to a level that would say this is not about willy-nilly tax increases, this is about something serious because it comes right out of their pocket? Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the honorable gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here we continue with the wonderful debate, which is what this amendment is all about, an opportunity for us to debate in the open, on the floor of the House of Representatives, the question of whether we are going to make it more difficult for Congress to raise taxes, raise taxes on the American taxpayer or not. It is a question of whether Washington, D.C. is going to make it more difficult to raise taxes or whether we are going to keep the status quo. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle once again talk about all the things that this Republican Congress has not done, all the things that we have had an opportunity to do. I would remind my colleagues that, in fact, these same words were said about a balanced budget. I remember running for Congress back in 1994, and people were saying to me over and over and over again, We will never have a balanced budget. It will never happen in my lifetime. Well, there were people who did believe it. The naysayers who were there today are people who understand that this economy that we have in America, the opportunity, the growing economic development that we have, jobs in communities, schools that are producing not only brighter and better students but students who have technology at their fingertips, this is a part of what happens when we have a grand and bold idea, an idea that has always on the other side been talked about in negative ways: It would never happen. A balanced budget is silly. No need to do that. Welfare reform, the same way. We talked about welfare reform on the floor of this House of Representatives, and day after day after day it was the other side, it was the minority party, who said, we do not need welfare reform. It will not amount to anything. As a matter of fact, it will harm the children of America. IRS Tax Code reform. We hear the gentleman from Texas say that the Republicans have done nothing with what they had. In fact, what we have done is done things that are for the taxpayer: A $500 per child tax credit, a $500 per child tax credit that matters. Every single time an American who has a child goes to fill out their tax form, they get a $500 per child tax credit. It is going to happen again this Saturday as Americans are filling out their forms, they will get that. Cutting capital gains. We heard, Cutting capital gains? A dangerous, risky proposition. We should not do that. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the 1997 capital gains tax cut that Republicans voted on and supported that was signed by the President has meant that America has a booming economy. Oh, the minority said, do Members realize that the tax collector, the United States government, will have $9 billion less in their coffers? Well, once again the minority party is concerned about the tax collector. It was the Republican party who was concerned about the taxpayer. What happened? What happened was that the tax collector got $90 billion additional dollars in the Treasury, just like Republicans, through the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, said that we will make a substantial investment in America because we are going to lower the risk. We are going to encourage people to participate in that which we are doing. We are going to take people and move them from welfare to work. We are going to enrich communities because we are going to allow dollars to be invested in America. Oh, but there is more. This Republican do-nothing Congress raised the exemption for death taxes. That is not do-nothing, that is a realistic opportunity for people upon their death to know that their estate, instead of being broken up and splintered to the wind, thrown to the wind, and family businesses, small businesses and land, agricultural producers of food for not only this country but the world being broken up just because of a Tax Code, we heard, Oh, no, cannot do that. Bad idea. That is for rich people. The education savings accounts, it was the Republican party who stood up against the naysayers of the Democrat party saying, This is bad for America, it is bad for public education to have education savings accounts. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Members that as the father of two little boys, one who is a 10-year-old who is a straight A student, who has taken advantage of books and education and computers and technology, the opportunity for him to be no different than other children who want to learn and read, for parents who get up and go to work every day and work hard to save money for that education for that child is important; also the parent of a 6-year-old Downs syndrome little boy, which my wife and I are, I know that our son needs more investment in not only his education but his development, just to make sure that he can stand on his own two feet and have an opportunity to make a go of it by himself. That is why we offer the education savings account. That is why we cut capital gains. That is why we had a $500 per child tax credit. That is why we raised the exemption for death taxes. That is why just 2 weeks ago this House voted 422 to nothing on what had been controversial years before, to say we should raise the earning limits for seniors. We should not deny senior citizens who choose to work, which allows them not only to be in business but also to be healthier and happier, not to lose their social security because the Tax Code said that was the right way. I am proud of my party. I am proud of my party and people back home and groups that will work to say, We need to make it more difficult to raise taxes. We need to make it more difficult, and it is a simple matter. That is what this amendment is all about. I will confess, we may not get the amount of votes that we need today. We will get a majority of the votes, but we will not get enough. But the dream lives on forever. We intend to continue with this. Yes, it is done at tax time. It is done at a time when people understand that there is a voice, not a voice in the wilderness but a voice on the floor of the House of Representatives, the people's body. We are going to get 240 votes on this today. We are going to stand up and talk about how it should be more difficult to raise taxes. I am proud of what my party stands for. I know what the other side stands for. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who is my good friend, during the time on the floor the gentleman wanted us to question why we are advancing this idea, what possibly could Republicans be for. Why are we advancing this idea? It is quite simple. We would like to make it more difficult to raise taxes on the American taxpayer. Secondly, the gentleman asked, oh, my gosh if we had this, how would we respond to emergencies? The obvious implication is, could not raise taxes, could not raise taxes in the event of an emergency. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very interesting that if we follow this, then we would have to respond to a crisis or any crisis in the following manner: number one, we would have to raise taxes; that is the first thing the Democrat Party wants to do. Number two, raise spending. Go spend it, go spend all of the taxpayers money, spend more and more and more. Number three, increase inefficiency, bigger government. Give it to the government, bring it to Washington, D.C. My proposition is quite the opposite. My proposition is that it should be more about efficiency. Under a post-tax limitation amendment, the first thing that would happen is, government would have to increase efficiency. Government would have to look inward to itself. It would have to do the same thing that I do at home with my wife and my family. We would have to live within a budget; could not raise taxes as easily; have to work within what we have; have to make some hard decisions; have to prioritize. It would increase efficiency because it would require the Government and the Congress to make tough decisions. Today, the path of least resistance, let us raise taxes, let us raise spending, let us just go do the same old Washington dance. Secondly, under a post-tax limitation amendment, it would mean that we would have to then look at raising spending. How are we going to do that? Well, we would do that if there is an emergency because we had already squeezed the lemon dry. We could already prove to people back home we have looked inward, we have been efficient. Now what we have to do is to raise spending. Remember, we are in a surplus condition. We do need to use more efficiently the money that has been given to us. Lastly, the thing that would be required, which is what the taxpayers, I believe, sent all of us to Congress to do, and that is lastly then to consider the last option or the least easy option, raise taxes. This, to me, is what it is all about, that the Congress of the United States should have to come on the floor of the House of Representatives to debate the issues, to talk about efficiency, to do the right thing for the taxpayer back home; but the easiest thing should not be to raise taxes. That is where the minority party, that is where they fall virtually every time. That is where they are falling today. That is the difference between these two parties in Washington, D.C. Somebody that says let us just raise taxes, let us go raise taxes on the people who have the money, let us go raise taxes on people who have been successful, people who create our economy, people who provide jobs, we are going to make it more difficult. That is what this argument is about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Goddard, Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am really not surprised for us to be debating in this manner that what we are doing does not make sense, it is unnecessary, it is unwise, no one would be in favor of making it harder to raise taxes. It is bad for America, it is all for the rich. Well, in fact, the reason why we are standing up today is for the exact people that we have talked about that the minority says is bad for them. There is a power model in this same vein that was followed and begun some 30 years ago. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) from the Seventh District of Texas, now the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, when he came to Congress 30 years ago, the first bill that he dropped as a Member of Congress said that he would like to raise the earnings limit that was placed on senior citizens. For 25 years, he was not only called names and made fun of, but Members of the other side made sure that they said that is not necessary, it is for rich people. In fact, it was for the senior citizens of this country. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) became the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman from Texas then held the first hearings that were necessary to begin the dialogue and the debate. Then this senior earnings limit began appearing on the floor of the House of Representatives because Republicans knew that it was important to senior citizens; and beyond that, it was simply fair and the right thing to do. Several times, it was voted on on the floor of the House of Representatives. Our friends on the other side had an opportunity every time to vote against senior citizens in lifting this earnings limit. Well, Mr. Speaker, what happened then is, because of efforts by the Republican Party where we quit spending every single penny of Social Security, the surplus, and we started putting it back into Social Security, my friends on the other side of the aisle began feeling a little bit queasy about who was making progress with the American taxpayer; in this case, it was the senior citizen of America. Just 3 weeks ago, this House of Representatives passed 422 to nothing, unanimously in the Senate, that we would lift the earnings limit. The President of the United States signed this into law after vetoing this several times. The President said, boy, he wished we could have done more, could have done more for senior citizens, but not everybody is for making the same kind of progress. He recognized that there are honest differences on both sides of the aisle. Yes, we understand that honesty. We understand those honest differences today. Today we are now in our 10th year of what may be a 30-year effort to make it harder to raise taxes. As usual, one side is going to be supportive of this, by and large, and the other side is going to drag their heels. But we are not going to be frustrated. We are not going to worry about what the rhetoric is. We are going to continue to stand up on the side of the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Stratford, Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my colleague and assistant Majority Whip.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for his engagement in this issue on the rule. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a friend of the taxpayer, a gentleman who is a staunch supporter, a good conservative, chairman of the CATs, Conservative Action Team here. (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 471 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 471 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 94, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to tax limitations. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides for one amendment printed in the Congressional Record if offered by the minority leader or his designee which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, with tax day arriving at the end of this week, there is certainly no better time for the House to consider this important constitutional amendment. The tax limitation amendment starts from this very simple premise that it should be harder, not easier, for government to raise taxes. The average American pays more in taxes than it does in food, clothing, shelter, and transportation combined. For too long, the tax burden imposed by the Government has been going up, not going down. I am very, very proud to sponsor this constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will allow the House to begin debate on one of the most serious matters to be considered by this House, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. When our Founding Fathers met more than 200 years ago to draft what became the Constitution of the United States, there was agreement on what problems our Nation faced and our Constitution was drafted to address these problems. In many instances, they wrote specific language protecting people from what at times could be an oppressive, intrusive, or overbearing Federal Government. They protected bedrock foundations to our liberty and freedom, such as life, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Just as importantly, the Founding Fathers required certain actions and laws passed by Congress to obtain a supermajority vote, not just a simple majority because they foresaw that the people must overwhelmingly support some action. Our Founding Fathers were so insightful and ingenious in their preparation of the Constitution that they enlisted within our system of checks and balances a Constitution which would clearly enumerate occasions where a supermajority would be appropriate as a guardian of the people. A vote of two-thirds of both houses, for example, is required to override a presidential veto. A two-thirds vote of the Senate is required to approve treaties or to convict an impeached Federal official. But a two-thirds vote in Congress is not yet required for raising taxes. In my view, our Founding Fathers would recognize that under the current system there is an inherent bias towards raising taxes and might have supported this constitutional amendment. There has long been a bias towards raising taxes under the current system. Spending benefits are targeted at specific groups. These special interests successfully lobby Congress and the President for more and more spending. Taxes, on the other hand, are spread among millions of people. Taxpayers usually cannot come together as efficiently as a special interest group with a specific appropriation in mind. As Congress seeks to keep the budget in balance, yet spending has still remained high, the easiest answer always for Congress is simply to raise taxes. The Federal budget is currently in balance, in part due to spending constraints by Congress, as well as hard work and global-leading productivity of American workers, but short economic downturns can be expected. Future Congresses may not be as fiscally responsible and return to the ways of deficit spending. The easy answer then is to raise taxes. Making it more difficult to raise taxes balances the options available to Congress and makes decisions on the size of government. It is critical that this balance be achieved. By requiring a supermajority to raise taxes, an incentive for government agencies would be created to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and to create efficiency rather than simply turning to more deficit spending or to increase taxes. It is important to remember that there was no Federal income tax when our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution. Not until 1913 was the 16th amendment of the Constitution passed to allow Congress to tax the American people. The first tax ranged from 1 to 7 percent and only applied to the wealthiest Americans. Today, some taxes are collected by the Federal Government at a 50 percent rate. Medieval serfs gave 30 percent of their output to the lord of the manor. Egyptian peasants gave 20 percent of their toils in their fields to the Pharaoh. God only required 10 percent from the people of Israel. Yet in America, Federal, State and local taxes eat up many times in excess of 40 percent of the average American's income. The burden of tax rates is not only too high, but that is only half the story. As tax rates have increased, the heavy hand of the tax collecting branch of our government has been strengthened. It has been determined by our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), that our Federal income tax collection agency, the Internal Revenue Service, sends out more than 8 billion pages of forms and instructions each year. Our Federal income tax collection agency is twice as big as the CIA and five times bigger than the Federal Bureau of Investigation. No other institution poses such a threat to liberty than the Internal Revenue Service and our Tax Code, and this is all as a consequence that tax rates are too high and the Tax Code is too complex. A constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes would help alleviate some of this misfortune. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``The God who gave us life gave us liberty.'' I imagine that Thomas Jefferson never envisioned such an intrusive agency as the IRS. Today, unfortunately, the reality is the IRS is a prevalent part of our daily lives, particularly this week with the April 15 tax deadline fast approaching. Every year, Americans are taxed for billions and billions of dollars. Sometimes these taxes that are passed are retroactively done so. Sometimes they are passed from generation to generation and sometimes they are forced upon us even after death by the Federal Government. So today, Mr. Speaker, I stand before my colleagues with a bipartisan coalition to put forth to the States a question of liberty. Will we make it harder for Congress to raise taxes on its citizens? Will we require a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress to pass a tax increase on to working Americans and children? Will we pass this amendment to the Constitution and require a supermajority, not just a simple majority to raise taxes? This amendment will apply to all tax increases from the Federal Government, not just tax hikes. A two-thirds vote requirement would allow Congress to raise taxes in time of war or national emergency, but would simultaneously prevent the intrusive and penalizing tax increases that have been enacted with recklessness to fund government expansion over the last decades. As we speak, several States of this great Union, including Arizona, California, Florida and Missouri, have adopted measures requiring that any tax increase by their legislature pass by a two-thirds majority. It is time that the Federal Government joins these States in listening to the voice of the American people. It should be harder to raise taxes. Had this amendment been adopted sooner, the four largest tax increases since 1980, in 1982, 1983, 1990 and 1993 all would have failed. That tax increase in 1993 was the largest tax increase in American history and it passed just by one vote. These tax increases totaled $666 billion to the American taxpayer. The bottom line of this debate, Mr. Speaker, is that we should make it more difficult to raise taxes on the American people. Those that oppose it will do so because they want to make it easier to raise taxes on the American people. Mr. Speaker, this is the defining issue. Those Members who support this amendment are here to support the taxpayers of America. Those Members who oppose it today are here to defend the tax collectors of America. It is really that simple. We hear rhetoric from opponents of this legislation citing jurisdiction, procedure, and a slew of other glossary terms but nothing can hide the reality that America and all taxpayers support a two- thirds tax limitation because they want to make it more difficult to raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, like many Members of this body I not only oppose raising taxes, I support making our Tax Code fairer, simpler, and flatter. The tax limitation amendment allows for tax reform and it provides that any tax reform is revenue neutral or provides a net tax cut. Also, any fundamental tax reform which would have the overall effect of lowering taxes could also still pass with a simple majority. The tax limitation amendment also allows for a simple majority vote to eliminate tax loopholes. The de minimis exemption would allow nearly all loopholes to be closed without the supermajority requirement. We may hear from opponents today, those who will be saying to make it more difficult to raise taxes that the Government would be unable to function if a supermajority is required. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage Members to look back at their States. Fourteen States require a supermajority to raise taxes. Millions of Americans living in these States have enjoyed slower growth in taxes, slower growth in government spending, faster growing economies, and lower unemployment rates. Tax limitation can bring to all Americans those things that are benefits that are enjoyed by those living in tax limitation States. This amendment protects the American people. It makes it harder for the Federal Government to raise taxes on its citizens and that is why I am here today. Today we can take one step closer to regaining liberty and ensuring future generations the freedom of our Founding Fathers intended for all Americans to enjoy. This debate is about liberty. This debate is about requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes on America. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would remind my colleagues that this is a fair rule adopted by a voice vote yesterday in the Committee on Rules. It is the standard rule under which this proposal has been considered for years in the past. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.