ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, April 16, 1996 TAG: 9604160078
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: Associated Press
An election-year Republican push for a constitutional amendment making it much more difficult to raise federal taxes failed in the House on Monday night.
After a debate conducted while millions of Americans' scrambled to meet their income-tax filing deadline, the House voted 243-177 in favor of the proposed amendment. But that was 37 votes short of the two-thirds majority required for approval.
Supporters conceded from the start that their chance of victory was slim, but they said the vote would illustrate the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Just 24 Democrats joined 219 Republicans in favor of the bill. Sixteen Republicans, 160 Democrats and one independent opposed it. All of Virginia's Democrats opposed the measure. They were joined by Rep. Herbert Bateman, R-Newport News. The state's other Republicans supported it.
``The American people ... understand that what they have left in their paycheck is not enough,'' said Rep. Bill Archer, R-Texas, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
GOP leaders had timed the debate to end with a vote a few hours before the midnight filing deadline for most taxpayers on the East Coast. Democrats said that was aimed at attracting maximum news coverage, and they employed a series of procedural maneuvers that delayed the vote until 11:33 p.m.
``It deserves better treatment in the House than a rush job to meet a politically sexy vote deadline that the majority admits is a matter of symbolism. The Constitution should not be used to make political statements,'' said Rep. David Skaggs, D-Colo.
The amendment would have required that any law ``to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount'' be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate. Congress could waive the restriction for up to two years in the event of a major military conflict.
The amendment's sponsors' definition of de minimis - one tenth of one percent of total revenue - would permit a tax increase of about $1.4 billion if it were in effect this year.
Opponents, including the Clinton administration and the bipartisan anti-deficit group, The Concord Coalition, argued the amendment would make it harder to close tax loopholes and would cement political gridlock in the budget deficit debate.
Thirty-four senators from 17 states - representing as little as 10 percent of the nation's population - could block a tax increase if the amendment were in the Constitution.
``A democratic majority rule is clearly preferable to rule by a minority in determining the direction of the nation's fiscal policy,'' Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said in a letter to House leaders.
But supporters said the amendment would prevent what a lead sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, called a ``tyranny of the majority.''
``You want consensus. ... You don't want a slim majority in the heat of the moment taking action that will affect future generations,'' he said.
Meanwhile, Jack Kemp, housing secretary in the Bush administration, and former Delaware Gov. Pete duPont appeared before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee to plug the Senate version of the amendment.
Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas has promised a vote by the end of this month in the Senate, where the chances of passage are even slimmer than in the House.
LENGTH: Medium: 68 linesby CNB