Date: 2002-06-12
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 96. Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment. There are three key points that are relevant to this constitutional amendment. This Constitutional Amendment states that any bill changing the internal revenue laws will require approval by twothirds of the Members of both the House and Senate. A constitutional amendment must pass both houses of Congress by a % vote before it is passed onto the states for ratification. Adoption of the 16th amendment in 1913 first allowed direct taxation of the American people by the federal government. The underlying legislation of H.J. Res. 96. is an attempt to help the most well to do Americans through a constitutional amendment that limits the ability of Congress to raise taxes and cut deficits. It is no secret that this legislation is designed to disproportionately help the richest people in this country. H.J. Res. 96 could make it difficult to maintain a balanced budget or to develop a responsible plan to restore Medicare or Social Security to longterm solvency. H.J. Res. 96 is a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America with respect to tax limitations. that would require any bill. resolution. or other legislative measure changing the internal revenue laws require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of twothirds of the Members of that House voting and present. unless the bill is determined at the time of adoption. in a reasonable manner prescribed by law. not to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount. By requiring a twothirds supermajority to adopt certain legislation. H.J. Res. 96 diminishes the vote of every Member of the House and Senate. denying the seminal concept of "one person one vote". This fundamental democratic principle ensures that a small minority may not prevent passage of important legislation.. This legislation presents a real danger to future balanced budgets and Medicare and Social Security. Under H.J. Res. 96. it would be incredibly difficult obtaining the requisite twothirds supermajority required to pass important. fiscally responsible deficitreducing packages. And at a time in our history when the Baby Boomers are now retiring. H.J. Res. 96 could make it more difficult to increase Medicare premiums for those most able to pay their fair share of the bill. and could make it difficult balancing both Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes in the long term. H.J. Res. 96 would make it nearly impossible to plug tax loopholes and eliminate corporate tax welfare. or even to increase tax enforcement against foreign corporations. H.J. Res. 96 would also make it nearly impossible to balance the budget. or develop a responsible plan to restore Medicare or Social Security to longterm financial solvency. I am deeply troubled by the concept of divesting a Member of the full import of his or her vote. As Professor Samuel Thompson. one of this Nations leading tax law authorities. observed at a 1997 House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the same proposal: "the core problem with this proposed Constitutional amendment is that it would give special interest groups the upper hand in the tax legislative process." By requiring a supermajority to do something as basic as getting the money to run government. H.J. Res. 96 diminishes the power of a members vote. It is a diminution. It is a disparagement. It is inappropriate. and the fact that this particular amendment has failed seven times in a row suggests that Congress knows it. H.J. Res. 96 will also make it nearly impossible to eliminate tax loopholes. thereby locking in the current tax system at the time of ratification. The core problem with this proposed constittional amendment is that it would give special interest groups the upper hand in the tax legislative process. Once a group of taxpayers receives either a planned or unplanned tax benefit with a simple majority vote of both Houses of Congress. the group will then be able to preserve the tax benefit with just a 34 percent vote of one House of Congress. In addition. H.J. Res. 96 would make it inordinately difficult to make foreign corporations pay their fare share of taxes on income earned in this country. Congress would even be limited from changing the law to increase penalties against foreign multinationals that avoid U.S. taxes by claiming that profits earned in the U.S. were realized in offshore tax havens. Estimates of the costs of such tax dodges are also significant. An Internal Revenue Service Study estimated that foreign corporations cheated on their tax returns to the tune of $30 billion per year. Another definitional problem arises from the fact that it is unclear how and when the socalled "de minimis" increase is to be measured. particularly in the context of a roughly $2 trillion annual budget. What if a bill resulted in increased revenues in years 1 and 2. but lower revenues thereafter? It is also unclear when the revenue impact is to be assessed. based off estimates prior to the bills effective date. or subsequent determinations calculated many years out. Further. if a tax bill was retroactively found to be unconstitutional. the tax refund issues could present insurmountable logistical and budget problems. I hope that my colleagues take seriously the path H.J. Res. 96 would lead us down were it to be adopted as is. therefore. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 96. Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.