On the recordApril 15, 1997
reclaiming my time, let me be clear. The gentleman did not mean, and I apologize to the gentleman, I will not in the future confuse what he says with what he believes, if that is what I am supposed to interpret. It did seem to me like he was saying we will let the President do that one. In fact, however, the point is still valid. This amendment does not deal with the Internal Revenue Code, big ``I'', big ``R'', big ``C''. It says the generic, the internal revenue of the United States. And cutting the CPI would increase the internal revenue of the United States, and it would clearly require a two-thirds vote. The point is it should not require a two-thirds vote. Democracy should be allowed to function. Today there is not a majority in this country for raising taxes. There might be a majority for reducing taxes. Suppose 10 years from now there is a different majority. Suppose 10 years from now people have changed their views? We have had economic growth; they want to deal more fully with certain things. They, in fact, decide they have to get that debt down and they would be willing to vote a tax increase dedicated to reducing the national debt. That ought to be a decision that the majority of the American people could take if they want to, and this is one more obstacle that we are trying to put in the way, those who support this, in the path of a majority. The majority today ought to do what it thinks is right. If it wants to reduce taxes, it should reduce taxes.
Source
govinfo.gov




