99–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 112–117 

BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 

JUNE 23, 2011.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS AND 

ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.J. Res. 1] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the joint 

resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced budget amendment to 

the Constitution of the United States, having considered the same, 

reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends 

that the joint resolution as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 3 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 13 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 14 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 14 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 24 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 24 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 24 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 26 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 26 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 26 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 28 

Additional Dissenting Views ................................................................................... 39 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
2 

The Amendment 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: 

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the 

United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 

within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: 

‘‘ARTICLE— 

‘‘SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for 

that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress 

shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote. 

‘‘SECTION 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of economic output of the United States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress 

shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount. 

‘‘SECTION 3. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall 

not be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide 

by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote. 

‘‘SECTION 4. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress 

a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which 

total outlays do not exceed total receipts. 

‘‘SECTION 5. A bill to increase revenue shall not become law unless two-thirds of 

the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote. 

‘‘SECTION 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal 

year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may 

be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and 

is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of 

each House, which becomes law. 

‘‘SECTION 7. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate 

legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts. 

‘‘SECTION 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays 

of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal. 

‘‘SECTION 9. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second 

fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.’’. 

Purpose and Summary 

H.J. Res. 1, proposing a balanced budget constitutional amendment, is designed to establish a balanced budget as the norm for 

Federal fiscal policy. To that end, the amendment requires a threefifths majority of each House’s total membership to approve a 

budget in which total Federal outlays exceed total receipts or to 

raise the limit on the public debt. Additionally, to help ensure that 

the budget is balanced, the amendment provides that annual outlays cannot exceed 18 percent of the country’s annual economic output—a limit tied to the amount of annual revenues the Federal 

Government historically generates—unless two-thirds of each 

House of Congress votes to exceed this level. Moreover, to deter the 

Federal Government from consuming an increasing share of the national economy, the amendment requires a two-thirds vote of each 

House’s total membership for a bill to increase revenue. This requirement also discourages excessive reliance on tax increases— 

rather than spending cuts—to achieve a balanced budget. The 

amendment allows Congress to waive the amendment’s requirements for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect 

or in which Congress determines by a joint resolution signed by the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
3 

1P.L. 99–177, 99 Stat. 1037. 

2P.L. 101–508; 104 Stat. 1388. 

3 U.S. Const. art. V. 

4 Id. 

President that ‘‘an imminent and serious military threat to national security’’ exists. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

The Federal budget deficit has become one of America’s most persistent political issues and a balanced Federal budget is a bipartisan goal of many Members of Congress. Since the 1930’s, dozens 

of proposals have called for constitutional amendments to address 

Federal budget deficits. In recent years, efforts to secure a constitutional rule to require a balanced Federal budget have intensified, 

as the Federal Government’s habitual failure to balance the budget 

has produced a debt of over $14 trillion. In this Congress, H.J. Res. 

1 proposes to amend the U.S. Constitution to require the annual 

Federal budget to be balanced by the later of the first fiscal year 

after December 31, 2016, or the second fiscal year after its ratification by the states. 

Moving the Federal budget closer to balance is a long-term necessity because the national debt cannot grow as a percentage of the 

country’s economic output indefinitely. Currently, the total national 

debt is over $14 trillion and deficits and spending continue to increase without regard to the burdens imposed on current and future taxpayers. Although persistent deficits threaten the country’s 

long-term prosperity, the Federal Government has proven unwilling or unable to regularly balance the Federal budget. Statutory 

controls on government spending have largely proven unsuccessful 

in limiting deficit spending. For instance, Congress repeatedly relaxed deficit targets in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act),1 and other 

budget control mechanisms, such as the Budget Enforcement Act 

of 1990 2 and Pay-As-You-Go rules, have not offered realistic longterm prospects of continued deficit reduction. 

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution may be the 

only way to control Federal spending and provide the country with 

the long-term fiscal discipline it so desperately needs. The adoption 

of H.J. Res. 1 would be more than a mere symbolic act. A balanced 

budget constitutional amendment would establish, in the country’s 

governing document, the basic principle that the Federal Government must not spend beyond its means. It would have a powerful 

impact on Federal fiscal policies by establishing a binding legal 

framework requiring Congress to make challenging decisions. H.J. 

Res. 1 is not a substitute for difficult legislative choices; rather, it 

is a catalyst for congressional action. 

A. Constitutional Amendment Procedures 

Congress may propose an amendment to the Constitution whenever two-thirds of both houses of Congress deem it necessary.3 Alternatively, Congress must call for a constitutional convention for 

the purpose of proposing amendments on application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.4 This alternative method has not 

been used to date, although at one point 32 of the requisite 34 

states called for a constitutional convention in response to the balVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:34 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR117.XXX HR117

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
4 

5 James K. Rogers, The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional 

Convention Amendment Process, 30 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 1005, 1010 (2007). 6 U.S. Const. art. V. 

7 James M. Buchanan, ‘‘Clarifying the Confusion About the Balanced Budget Amendment,’’ 48 

Nat’l Tax J. 347 (1995). 8 Heritage Foundation, Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut 

Spending, and Restore Prosperity 9, 13 (Stuart M. Butler et al. eds., 2011). 

anced budget issue.5 A constitutional amendment—whether proposed by two-thirds votes in Congress or by a constitutional convention—must be ratified by the legislatures or conventions in 

three-fourths of the states in accordance with the mode of ratification proposed by Congress.6 The preamble to H.J. Res. 1 proposes 

ratification by state legislature. 

B. The Federal Deficit 

The Founders and early U.S. Presidents were in almost unanimous agreement on the dangers of excessive public debt. According 

to Nobel Prize winning economist James Buchanan, ‘‘[p]oliticians 

prior to World War II would have considered it to be immoral to 

spend more than they were willing to generate in tax revenue, except during periods of extreme and temporary emergency.’’ 7 Consequently, for over 140 years of this country’s history—from 1789 

to 1932—balanced budgets or surplus budgets were the norm. However, since 1960 the United States has run annual Federal budget 

deficits in all but 6 fiscal years. 

Today, the United States is in the early stages of a severe fiscal 

crisis. The Federal debt has exceeded the Nation’s economic output 

in only three fiscal years during U.S. history—1945 through 1947. 

However, President Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget estimated 

that beginning in 2012, the gross Federal debt will exceed gross domestic product for the foreseeable future. That budget also predicts 

that the Federal deficit will more than double between 2009 and 

2020. Assuming that there are about 128 million U.S. households, 

the national debt will amount to over $200,000 per household by 

2020. These figures do not even reflect the unfunded liabilities 

from Social Security and Medicare commitments to current and future participants in these programs. Over the next 75 years, Social 

Security has promised to pay $7.8 trillion more in benefits than it 

will receive in payroll taxes and, over that same period, Medicare 

faces an unfunded liability in excess of $30 trillion.8

The tremendous amount of Federal spending does damage to the 

U.S. economy. By consuming such an overwhelming part of the 

capital in the economy, the government crowds out private sector 

investment. Thus, when government spending rises unchecked by 

fiscal responsibility, it chokes off the primary engines of economic 

growth and risks our long-term security. 

C. Statutory Attempts to Control Federal Spending and 

Deficits 

Opponents of the balanced budget amendment argue that Congress does not need a constitutional amendment to balance the 

budget because Congress can address spending and the deficit 

statutorily without waiting for ratification of a constitutional 

amendment. However, past statutory efforts have shown that Congress simply does not have the will to balance the budget for an 

extended period of time. Statutory efforts to balance the budget 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
5 

9P.L. 88–272, § 1, 78 Sta. 19. 

10P.L. 95–523, 92 Stat. 1887. 11 31 U.S.C. § 1103. 12P.L. 93–344, 88 Stat. 297. 13P.L. 95–435, § 7, 92 Stat. 1053. 14P.L. 96–389, § 3, 94 Stat. 1553. 15 31 U.S.C. § 1103. 

have failed because it is too easy for Congress simply to reverse 

course and rescind its previous declarations. Over the past 50 

years, Congress has had a dismal history of attempting to impose 

fiscal discipline on itself, despite numerous statutory proposals to 

achieve this end. 

Senses of the Congress. Congressional declarations that the budget should be balanced have had no effect of balancing the budget. 

For example, the Revenue Act of 1964 states that ‘‘[t]o further the 

objective of balanced budgets in the near future, Congress by this 

action recognizes the importance of taking all reasonable means to 

restrain government spending,’’ 9 and, the Humphrey-Hawkins Full 

Employment Act of 1978 included a provision calling for a balanced 

budget and declared that a balanced budget is an ‘‘important national requirement[].’’ 10 These and other pronouncements of the 

importance of balancing the budget—including the commitment 

codified in 31 U.S.C. § 1103 ‘‘that budget outlays of the United 

States Government for a fiscal year may be not more than the receipts of the Government for that year’’ 11—have done nothing to 

ameliorate the ever-increasing Federal deficit. 

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 12 requires the House and Senate 

to adopt a budget resolution each year, setting forth aggregate 

spending and revenue levels, and spending levels by major functional categories. The 1974 act includes an optional reconciliation 

procedure that provides for the development and consideration of 

revenue, spending, and debt-limit legislation. During the 1980’s 

and much of the 1990’s, reconciliation was used principally as a 

means of reducing the deficit. However, in recent years, the reconciliation process has been used mainly to expedite the passage of 

legislation that increases the deficit. Moreover, only in one 4-year 

period (1997–2001) after enactment of the 1974 act has the Federal 

budget been balanced. 

Byrd Amendments. After the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act failed to achieve the fiscal discipline that 

was envisioned, Congress enacted a series of ‘‘Byrd Amendments’’ 

in 1978, 1980, and 1982 to try to balance the budget. The first, 

passed as part of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, mandated 

that ‘‘total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts’’ beginning in fiscal year 1981.13 By 1980, the 

mandatory language of the 1978 amendment had been watered 

down to state only that ‘‘Congress reaffirms its commitment’’ to a 

balanced budget in fiscal year 1981.14 Finally, in 1982, the reference to fiscal year 1981 was deleted, such that under current law 

Congress perpetually ‘‘reaffirms its commitment’’ to a balanced 

Federal budget every year.15 Obviously, the statutory commitment 

of the Byrd Amendments has been ignored. 

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. The Balanced Budget and Emergency 

Deficit Control Act of 1985 (also known as Gramm-Rudman-HolVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:37 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR117.XXX HR117

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
6 

16P.L. 99–177, 99 Stat. 1037. 17David Primo, Rules and Restraint 112 (2007). 18P.L. 65–43, 40 Stat. 288. 19Part of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and the Statutory PAYGO Act of 2010. 20P.L. 104–130, 110 Stat. 1200. 21The President was only to exercise the cancellation authority if he determined that such 

cancellation would reduce the Federal budget deficit and would not impair essential government 

functions or harm the national interest; and then notified the Congress in a special message 

of any such cancellation within five calendar days after enactment of the law providing such 

amount, item, or benefit. The act provided 30 days for the expedited congressional consideration 

of disapproval bills to reverse the cancellations contained in the special messages received from 

the President. 22 Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998). 

lings),16 mandated a balanced budget by fiscal year 1991. To reach 

that goal, the Act required automatic across-the-board spending 

cuts if Congress and the President could not agree on a balanced 

budget in a given year. This legislation proved inadequate at the 

task of closing the gap between the Federal Government’s revenue 

and expenditures and the national debt continued to grow. As one 

scholar has observed, ‘‘Gramm-Rudman-Hollings failed because the 

enforcement mechanism was not credible. Congress’s power to 

change the process was unconstrained. . . . As soon as punishments became too harsh, Congress could (and did) change the 

rules.’’ 17

Debt Ceiling. The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 established 

a statutory limit on Federal debt of $11.5 billion.18 Congress had 

previously approved each debt issuance separately. The statutory 

debt ceiling has done little to place a ceiling on the national debt. 

Since it was established, the debt ceiling has been raised nearly 

100 times and currently stands at over $14 trillion. 

PAYGO. Statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) 19 and House and 

Senate PAYGO rules are supposed to help reduce spending and 

deficits by preventing tax cuts and new direct spending that is not 

deficit neutral. However, PAYGO does nothing to deal with the 

costs of existing direct spending programs. Moreover, there are 

loopholes in PAYGO that allow its caps on new direct spending to 

be avoided. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service has even 

prepared a report entitled ‘‘Techniques for Preventing a Budget Sequester,’’ explaining ways around the PAYGO requirements. 

Line-item Veto. Because the President must approve or veto a 

spending or revenue act in its entirety, many advocates of greater 

budget discipline have proposed the President be granted a lineitem veto as a means of controlling Federal spending. In 1996, 

President Clinton signed into law the Line Item Veto Act.20 Under 

the Act, the President was authorized to strike individual items of 

discretionary spending, direct spending, and certain limited tax 

benefits in any law.21 While this law may have provided some 

measure of budget control, especially control over earmarks and 

other targeted spending, the law was declared unconstitutional by 

the Supreme Court in 1998.22

In one way or another, each of the statutory attempts to control 

Federal spending has failed to constrain Congress from spending 

beyond annual Federal revenues. This is in large part because no 

Congress can bind a succeeding Congress by a simple statute. Any 

statute Congress passes to reduce Federal spending or require balanced Federal budgets can be repealed by the simple expedient of 

adopting a new statute that conflicts with the earlier measure. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
7 

23 H.J. Res. 579, 74th Cong. 24S.J. Res. 97 (78th Cong.); H.J. Res. 195 (78th Cong.). 25S.J. Res. 58 (97th Cong.). 26 H.J. Res. 350 (97th Cong.). 27S.J. Res. 225 (99th Cong.). 28S.J. Res. 41 (103d Cong.). 29 H.J. Res. 1 (104th Cong.). 

D. Legislative History of the Balanced Budget Amendment 

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when a balanced Federal budget was the norm and part of the ‘‘unwritten constitution,’’ there was little need for Congress to focus on a balanced 

budget amendment. However, as the Federal Government has run 

regular budget deficits of an increasingly large magnitude, efforts 

to adopt a balanced budget constitutional amendment have become 

more intense. In 1936, Representative Harold Knutson of Minnesota proposed the first constitutional amendment to balance the 

Federal budget.23 His proposal would have established a per capita 

limitation on the Federal public debt. Under the proposed amendment Congress could run budget deficits, but only to the extent 

that the per capita ceiling was not breached. 

Since Representative Knutson’s proposed amendment, numerous 

constitutional amendments have been proposed to require a balanced budget. In the 78th Congress, Senator Millard Tydings and 

Representative Wesley Disney introduced constitutional amendments to prohibit government appropriations from exceeding receipts.24 Balanced budget constitutional amendments were introduced regularly in the 1950’s. Amendments were first proposed by 

Senators Styles Bridges and Harry Byrd and later by Senators 

Strom Thurman and Carl Curtis, to require the submission by the 

President of an annual balanced budget and to prevent Congress 

from adjourning without having enacted such a budget. 

More recent efforts for a balanced budget amendment commenced in 1975 when states began petitioning Congress for a constitutional convention under Article V of the Constitution for the 

purpose of considering a balanced budget constitutional amendment. As part of this effort, thirty-two states petitioned for a constitutional convention. 

The first real shot at Congress passing a balanced budget constitutional amendment did not come until the 1980’s. A balanced 

budget amendment passed the Senate by a 69-to-31 vote in 1982,25

but, although a substantial majority of the House voted in favor of 

the House version of the amendment, the 236-to-187 margin fell 

short of the required two-thirds threshold.26 After the 1982 failure 

to garner a two-thirds majority, successful discharge petition efforts in the House led to consideration of balanced budget proposals 

that passed by wide margins on three more occasions but failed to 

reach the two-thirds threshold—279-to-150 in 1990, 280-to-153 in 

1992, and 271-to-153 in 1994. Additionally, in the Senate, in 1986, 

a balanced budget amendment failed by one vote (66 to 34) 27 and 

again, in 1994, by four votes (63 to 37).28

The balanced budget amendment came to the forefront in 1995 

as part of the Contract with America. In 1995, a balanced budget 

amendment, for the first time ever, passed the House by the required two-thirds margin (300 to 132) 29 but fell one vote short in 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
8 

30S.J. Res. 1 (104th Cong.). The actual vote total was 65 to 35, but Senator Dole switched 

his vote to ‘‘no’’ in order to preserve his right to call the balanced budget amendment up for 

reconsideration. 31S.J. Res. 1 (105th Cong.). 32Kenneth W. Dam, The American Fiscal Constitution, 44 U Chi. L Rev 271, 272 (1977). 

the Senate of being sent to the states for ratification.30 And, in 

1997, the balanced budget amendment once again failed by to meet 

the two-thirds threshold in the Senate by one vote.31

E. The Current Proposal 

On January 5, 2011, Representative Goodlatte introduced H.J. 

Res. 1 to propose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and re-establish the formal and informal constitutional limitations on Federal spending and deficits that previously existed. The 

proposal has over 130 co-sponsors. H.J. Res. 1 is designed to discourage the Federal Government from engaging in deficit spending, 

increasing taxes, and raising the ceiling on debt held by the public. 

The basic provision in H.J. Res. 1 is that the Federal Government’s outlays cannot exceed receipts unless approved by a threefifths majority of both Houses of Congress. Additionally, the proposed balanced budget amendment requires a three-fifths vote in 

both Houses to increase the debt limit and a two-thirds vote to 

pass a bill to increase revenue. H.J. Res. 1 further provides that 

total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed eighteen percent 

of economic output of the United States, unless approved by twothirds of each House of Congress. 

Governmental flexibility is not compromised by the supermajority votes required by H.J. Res. 1 to overcome balanced budget 

requirements. Three-fifths vote provisions (with war and national 

security related exceptions) do not preclude deficit spending, tax increases, and increases in the debt ceiling but rather discourage 

such action from being taken lightly. The two-thirds vote required 

for legislation to increase tax revenue is an important feature of 

this constitutional amendment to discourage excessive reliance on 

tax increases rather than spending cuts to balance the budget. 

And, the supermajority vote requirement to increase the debt ceiling is to discourage government borrowing to pay for additional 

spending. 

F. H.J. Res. 1 is Consistent with the Constitution 

The balanced budget amendment proposed by H.J. Res. 1 is consistent with the nature and purpose of the U.S. Constitution, which 

already addresses economic issues in various contexts. Congressional powers delineated in the Constitution include laying and collecting taxes, imposing customs duties and tariffs, paying debts of 

the United States, borrowing money, regulating interstate commerce and commerce with foreign nations, and coining money. The 

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments include protections of property 

rights, and the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the income tax. 

According to Professor Kenneth Dam, ‘‘[w]hen one contemplates the 

Constitution as a whole, considering provisions not specifically directed to fiscal matters and taking into account the Federal structure created by the Constitution, an imposing edifice of fiscal powers and limitations can be perceived. The result is what I call the 

‘fiscal Constitution.’ ’’ 32 Because of the substantial attention the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
9 

33Whether the Constitution Should be Amended to Address the Federal Deficit?: Hearing Before Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011) 

(testimony of Andrew Moylan, National Taxpayers Union); see also Aaron Wildavsky, How to 

Limit Government Spending 74 (1980) (‘‘Dissatisfaction with monetary and debt policy under the 

Articles of Confederation spurred the devising of an entirely new document.’’). 34William Breit, ‘‘Starving the Leviathan: Balanced Budget Prescriptions Before Keynes,’’ in 

Fiscal Responsibility in Constitutional Democracy (James M. Buchanan and Richard E. Wagner 

eds., 1978). 35Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Governor William Plumer of New Hampshire (July 21, 

1816) in 7 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 19 (H. A. Washington ed. 1855). 36Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor (Nov. 26, 1798) in 4 The Writings of Thomas 

Jefferson 259 (1869). 

Constitution already gives to economics, arguments that fiscal policy does not belong in the Constitution are unconvincing. 

Indeed, the Constitution was born out of the fiscal problems 

caused by the Articles of Confederation. As historian Sidney Homer 

put it, ‘‘[i]n spite of the great potential economic strength of the 

new country, its financial and political system broke down completely in 1786. Credit at home and abroad was no longer available. 

The impossibility of government without money, credit, or power 

led to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and a new nation in 

1789.’’ 33 In other words, the need to balance the budget and restore the good credit of the government led directly to the drafting 

of the Constitution in the first place. 

Moreover, the Framers and leaders of the U.S. government during most of this Nation’s history accepted balanced budget principles; accordingly, for approximately the first 150 years of this Nation’s history—from 1789 to 1932—balanced budgets or surplus 

budgets were the norm. When deficits did occur they generally 

were insignificant, usually related to wartime circumstances, and 

generally were compensated for by subsequent surpluses. Thus, for 

much for the Nation’s history, the requirement of budget balancing 

under normal economic circumstances was considered an unwritten 

constitutional rule. For this reason, mandating a balanced budget 

would have been superfluous in earlier times. According to Professor William Breit, 

[t]he balanced-budget rule which served as part of the 

Constitution was, of course, not in the form of a written 

statement that every expenditure had to be balanced by a 

tax. But it nevertheless had constitutional status. For expenditures in excess of receipts were considered to be in 

violation of moral principles. The imperative of the balanced budget was an extra-legal rule or custom that grew 

up around the formal document. It existed outside the precise letter of the Constitution on all fours with the system 

of political parties, the presidential cabinet, the actual operation of the electoral college system, and the doctrine of 

judicial review.34

But the country’s early political leaders were aware of the dangers of a Federal deficit. As Thomas Jefferson stated, ‘‘I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared.’’ 35 Thus, Jefferson 

wished ‘‘it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution . . . taking from the Federal Government the power of 

borrowing.’’ 36 In fact, early U.S. Presidents were in virtually unanimous agreement on the dangers of excessive public debt. In his 

first annual address to Congress, President John Adams stated 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
10 

37President John Adams, First Annual Address to Congress (Nov. 23, 1797). 38President James Madison, First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1809). 39 2 Messages and Papers of the Presidents 823 (J. Richardson ed. 1897). 40President John Quincy Adams, Third Annual Message to Congress (Dec. 4, 1827). 41 U.S. Cont. art. I, § 3 (‘‘No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds 

of the Members present.’’); U.S. Cont. art. I, § 5 (‘‘Each House may determine the Rules of its 

Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of twothirds, expel a Member.’’); U.S. Cont. art. I, § 7 (‘‘If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that 

House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other 

House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, 

it shall become a Law.’’); U.S. Cont. art. II, § 2 (‘‘[The President] shall have Power . . . to make 

Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.’’); U.S. Cont. art. V (‘‘The Congress, 

whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this 

Constitution.)’’; U.S. Cont. art. II, § 1 (‘‘[When choosing the President in the House,] a quorum 

for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a 

Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice.’’); U.S. Const. art. VII (‘‘The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.’’); U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3 (‘‘No person shall 

. . . hold any [US] office . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution . . . shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion. . . . But Congress may by a vote 

that, ‘‘[t]he consequences arising from the continual accumulation 

of public debts in other countries ought to admonish us to be careful to prevent their growth in our own.’’ 37 President James Madison stated that one of the primary goals of his Administration 

would be ‘‘to liberate the public resources by an honorable discharge of public debts.’’ 38 President James Monroe held a similar 

position observing that, after the elimination of the public debt, the 

government ‘‘would be left at liberty . . . to apply such portions of 

the revenue as may not be necessary for current expenses to such 

other objects as may be most conducive to the public security and 

welfare.’’ 39 President John Quincy Adams also found a balanced 

budget to be a sound maxim: ‘‘among the maxims of political economy which the stewards of the public money should never suffer 

without urgent necessity to be transcended is that of keeping the 

expenditures of the year within the limits of its receipts.’’ 40

Today, in an era of deficit spending, the balanced budget constitutional amendment is needed to give expression to a practice 

accepted widely for so many years—namely, spending within the 

country’s means. The balanced budget amendment is a major step 

toward securing an environment in which fiscally responsible policies are more easily attainable. The current environment is biased 

in favor of ever-increasing levels of Federal Government spending. 

Consistent with the Constitution’s framework, H.J. Res. 1 is 

needed to overcome the current bias in favor of increasing government spending by restoring the balanced budget principles that existed for much of the Nation’s history. The purpose of the amendment is not to write economic policy into the Constitution, nor does 

it propose to intrude the Constitution into Congress’s day-to-day 

spending and taxing decisions. Rather, the balanced budget amendment merely proposes to create a fiscal environment in which 

spending decisions will once again be constrained by available revenues. 

G. The Supermajority Voting Requirements in H.J. Res. 1 

Are Consistent with the Constitution 

Opponents of the balanced budget constitutional amendment 

have asserted that the amendment’s supermajority voting requirements should not be placed into Constitution. This argument, of 

course, ignores the nine other supermajority voting requirements 

already included in the Constitution.41 But more fundamentally it 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
11 

of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.’’); U.S. Const. amend. XXV, § 4 (‘‘If Congress 

. . . determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge 

the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as 

Acting President.’’). 42 John O. McGinnis and Michael B. Rappaport, The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: A Defense, 105 Yale L.J. 483, 509 (2005). 

fails to acknowledge the structure of the government created by the 

Constitution with its system of checks and balances and separation 

of powers designed to impose restraints on the actions of the people’s elected representatives. Over the years, Americans have suffered from the removal of written and unwritten constraints that 

were intended by the framers to limit the authority of Congress. 

Rather than being contrary to the Constitution, the balanced budget constitutional amendment’s supermajority voting requirements 

aim to restore necessary structural constraints on the Congress. 

One of the fundamental problems of with any democratic form of 

government is ‘‘that concentrated interest groups have more influence with legislators than diffuse groups, even if the diffuse groups 

represent a numerical majority. Our present budget crisis is in 

large measure a reflection of repeated instances of this dynamic.’’ 42

The taxes and borrowing required to pay for expenditures do not 

impose a substantial constraint on Congress because the true cost 

of taxes and borrowing by the Federal Government is diffused over 

the entire population and, in many cases, future generations. As 

Professor E. Donald Elliott has explained, 

Most government spending programs provide significant 

benefits to relatively concentrated, and, therefore, relatively well-organized and politically effective constituencies. On the other hand, the costs of government spending are spread over a large and diffuse group—taxpayers. 

Because the incremental cost of each government spending 

decision is relatively insignificant to individual taxpayers, 

and because the benefits from organizing to oppose government spending are speculative and difficult to appropriate, . . . it will be difficult, if not impossible, to organize the broad mass of taxpayers, as such, into an effective 

counterweight to spending that benefits ‘‘special interest 

groups’’ with more narrowly focused interests. Thus, . . . 

there is an inherent bias built into the political system in 

favor of spending to benefit organized constituencies, even 

when the total costs of a program exceed its benefits. . . . 

The basic institutional checks designed by the framers of 

the Constitution to limit the power of interest groups have 

long since eroded. First, the seventeenth amendment provided direct popular election of Senators. Second, the electoral college has now become largely vestigial, so that as 

a practical matter, the President is also popularly elected. 

Third, a vast ‘‘administrative state’’ with broad delegated 

powers has arisen that lies largely outside the system of 

checks and balances crafted so carefully by the framers. 

Finally, as both the country and the nature of government 

have changed, the principle of geographic diversity of interests, upon which the framers placed primary reliance, is 

no longer as potent a check on the power of special interest 

groups as it may once have been. Today there are many 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
12 

43 E. Donald Elliott, Constitutional Conventions and the Deficit, 1985 Duke L.J. 1077, 1090– 

91, 1095 (1985). 44Proposed Balanced Budget/Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment: Hearing on S.J. Res. 

5 Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 98th Cong. 

(1984) (statement of Professor Milton Friedman). 45 Id. 46The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison). 47The Federalist No. 10 (James Madison). Madison defined ‘‘faction’’ as a ‘‘majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse or passion, or of interest 

adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the 

whole.’’ 

interest groups that are more or less evenly distributed 

throughout the country (Social Security recipients, for example), and they can bring potent electoral pressures to 

bear on Representatives, Senators, and Presidents alike. 

The cumulative effect of these changes is to render our 

political institutions systematically vulnerable to the influence of well-organized, narrowly-focused groups seeking 

subsidies or other forms of preferential treatment from the 

Federal Government. The current deficit is merely the outward symptom of these more fundamental problems, resulting from the way in which our political institutions 

have evolved.43

In other words, the concept of ‘‘limited government’’ or ‘‘enumerated powers’’ that was at the root of the Constitution and that 

served to check the growth of the public sector during most of the 

Nation’s history has been altered drastically by the evolution of 

public policy and constitutional interpretation during the 20th century in a manner that never could have been predicted by the 

framers of the Constitution. As Milton Friedman observed, constraints in the Constitution and originally envisioned by the framers ‘‘to limit Federal action in the economic area . . . have now 

been swept away.’’ 44 According to Professor Friedman, these constraints ‘‘cannot be restored in their initial form. But some replacement is desperately needed.’’ 45 The supermajority voting requirements in H.J. Res. 1 provide that restraint. 

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, ‘‘[g]overnment 

is the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern 

man, neither external nor internal controls on government would 

be necessary.’’ 46 The supermajority rules H.J. Res. 1 proposes are 

necessary ‘‘controls on government’’ spending and budget deficits. 

Madison emphasized the paramount responsibility of the new Government to ‘‘break and control the violence of faction.’’ 47 According 

to Madison, the causes of ‘‘factions’’ are ‘‘sown in the nature of 

man’’ and must be controlled by the institutions created by the 

Constitution. 

The Federal Government’s present financial crisis, in part, is the 

creation of, and continues because of, the role of factions within the 

political process. The supermajority voting requirements proposed 

by H.J. Res. 1 should be understood as an attempt to counteract 

those interests and restore the original constitutional balance on 

deficits and spending and are entirely consistent with the framers 

understanding of a constitutional republic. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
13 

48 143 Cong. Rec. S1865 (daily ed. March 4, 1997). 

H. The Balanced Budget Amendment and Social Security 

and Medicare 

A continuation of deficit spending poses the greatest long-term 

threat to the integrity of Social Security, Medicare, and other government benefit programs. Yet, during committee consideration of 

the balanced budget, members of the minority offered five amendments to in some way limit the application of balanced budget principles to Social Security, Medicare, or other government benefit 

programs. But the balanced budget amendment is exactly what 

these programs need if they are to continue providing benefits into 

the future. The balanced budget amendment will help save these 

worthy government programs by strengthening the economy, reducing interest rates and inflation (which helps senior citizens living 

on fixed incomes), and ensuring that the Federal Government has 

the funds available to meet its Social Security and Medicare obligations when they become due. 

The best way to ensure that Social Security, Medicare, and other 

programs will have enduring value is for the Federal Government 

to get its fiscal house in order. As Robert Myers, Social Security’s 

former chief actuary and deputy commissioner, wrote, in support of 

a balanced budget amendment, 

If we continue to run Federal deficits year after year, and 

if interest payments continue to rise at an alarming rate, 

we will face two dangerous possibilities. Either we will 

raid the trust funds to pay for our prolificacy, or we will 

print money, dishonestly inflating our way out of indebtedness. Both cases would devastate the real value of the Social Security Trust Funds. Regaining control of our fiscal 

affairs is the most important step that we can take to protect the soundness of the Social Security trust funds.48

It appears that the motivation of those offering amendments to 

exempt or otherwise limit the balanced budget amendment’s application to government benefit programs is to attempt to prevent the 

benefits those programs provide from being reduced. This concern 

is misplaced. Adoption of a balanced budget constitutional amendment will not in any way mean that government benefits, such as 

Social Security benefits, will be reduced. There is no reason to believe that the balanced budget amendment will cause the Federal 

Government to abandon its commitment to older Americans; Social 

Security and Medicare enjoy broad congressional support. The balanced budget amendment should enhance, not detract from the 

protection these programs enjoy in the future. 

Hearings 

The Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution held 1 day of 

hearings on proposed amendments to the Constitution to control 

the Federal budget deficit on May 13, 2011. Testimony was received from the Honorable Bob Goodlatte; David Primo, Associate 

Professor of Political Science, University of Rochester, and Senior 

Scholar, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; Robert Greenstein, Founder and President, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; and Andrew Moylan, Vice President of Government Affairs, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
14 

National Taxpayers Union. Additional material was submitted by 

Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment, Renewing American Leadership Action, National Tax Limitation Committee, and the 60 Plus 

Association. 

Committee Consideration 

On June 15, 2011, the Committee met in open session and ordered the joint resolution H.J. Res. 1 favorably reported with an 

amendment, by a rollcall vote of 20 to 12, a quorum being present. 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.J. 

Res. 1. 

1. An amendment by Mr. Conyers: (1) exempting from the calculation of total receipts all receipts derived from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, and (2) exempting from the calculation 

of total outlays all outlays of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust 

Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust 

Fund. Defeated 9 to 17. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte ....................................................................................................

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
15 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 9 17 

2. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to lower the annual cap on 

Federal outlays from 20 percent of the economic output of the 

United States to 18 percent of economic output. Approved 13 to 11. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte ....................................................................................................

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 13 11 

3. An amendment by Mr. Watt to strike the balanced budget 

constitutional amendment’s requirements that: (1) the public debt 

limit shall not be increased unless three-fifths of each House votes 

to provide for such an increase, and (2) a bill to increase revenue 

shall not become law unless three-fifths of each House votes to provides for such an increase. Defeated 7 to 17. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
16 

ROLLCALL NO. 3 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................................................................

Mr. Coble ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan .........................................................................................................

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 7 17 

4. An amendment by Mr. Nadler to exclude oil and natural gas 

companies with annual gross receipts in excess of $10 billion from 

the balanced budget constitutional amendment’s requirement that 

a bill to raise revenue must be approved by three-fifths of each 

House. Defeated 7 to 12. 

ROLLCALL NO. 4 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
17 

ROLLCALL NO. 4—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin .........................................................................................................

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson .......................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez.

Total ................................................................................................ 7 12 

5. An amendment by Mr. Nadler to allow Congress to waive the 

requirements of the balanced budget constitutional amendment for 

up to 2 fiscal years if real economic growth is or will be negative 

for two consecutive quarters. Defeated 9 to 17. 

ROLLCALL NO. 5 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
18 

ROLLCALL NO. 5—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 9 17 

6. An amendment by Mr. Scott to strike the balanced budget 

constitutional amendment’s requirement that a bill to increase revenue shall not become law unless three-fifths of each House votes 

to provide for such an increase. Defeated 7 to 16. 

ROLLCALL NO. 6 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 7 16 

7. An amendment by Mr. Scott to strike the balanced budget 

constitutional amendment’s requirement that the public debt limit 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
19 

shall not be increased unless three-fifths of each House votes to 

provide for such an increase. Defeated 7 to 17. 

ROLLCALL NO. 7 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 7 17 

8. An amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee to allow Congress to 

waive the requirements of the balanced budget constitutional 

amendment for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in the use of military force. Defeated 5 to 18. 

ROLLCALL NO. 8 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
20 

ROLLCALL NO. 8—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ......................................................................................................

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 5 18 

9. An amendment by Mr. Conyers: (1) exempting from the calculation of total receipts all receipts derived from the Federal OldAge and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, and (2) exempting from the calculation of total outlays all outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 

Trust Fund. Defeated 8 to 19. 

ROLLCALL NO. 9 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
21 

ROLLCALL NO. 9—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 8 19 

10. An amendment by Mr. Jordan to require a two-thirds, rather 

than a three-fifths, majority of each House of Congress to pass a 

bill to increase revenue. Approved 17 to 8. 

ROLLCALL NO. 10 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
22 

ROLLCALL NO. 10—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Total ................................................................................................ 17 8 

11. Two amendments by Ms. Jackson Lee considered en bloc to: 

(1) require a three-fifths majority of each House to pass a bill to 

limit funding for or privatize Social Security or Medicare, and (2) 

require a three-fifths majority of each House to pass a bill to limit 

funding for Medicaid. Defeated 7 to 21. 

ROLLCALL NO. 11 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cohen ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 7 21 

12. An amendment by Mr. Deutch to exempt from the balanced 

budget constitutional amendment’s calculation of total outlays, outlays authorized under section 215(i) of the Social Security Act. Defeated 12 to 15. 

ROLLCALL NO. 12 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
23 

ROLLCALL NO. 12—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ......................................................................................

Mr. Coble ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ......................................................................................................

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 12 15 

13. Motion to report H.J. Res. 1 favorably, as amended. Passed 

20 to 12. 

ROLLCALL NO. 13 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Smith, Chairman ........................................................................................ X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ...........................................................................................................

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe .............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Griffin ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Marino ......................................................................................................... X 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
24 

ROLLCALL NO. 13—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Gowdy ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Ross ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Adams ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Quayle ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member .................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pierluisi ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................

Ms. Chu ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Deutch ........................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Total ................................................................................................ 20 12 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 1, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, June 21, 2011. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, CHAIRMAN, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.J. Res 1, a joint resolution 

proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the 

United States. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
25 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Barry Blom. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.J. Res. 1—A joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

H.J. Res. 1 would propose an amendment to the Constitution 

that would prohibit total outlays of the United States from exceeding total receipts in a fiscal year; such a requirement could be overridden by a three-fifths vote in each House. The amendment also 

would require that: 

• Total outlays in any fiscal year not exceed 18 percent of 

gross domestic product (GDP), unless the Congress approves 

a specific increase over that amount by a two-thirds vote; 

• A three-fifths vote be taken in each House to raise the limit 

on federal debt held by the public and a two-thirds vote to 

approve any bill that increases revenue; and 

• The proposed budget submitted by the President be in balance. 

Such provisions could be waived for any fiscal year in which a 

declaration of war is in effect or if a majority of each House determines that the United States is engaged in a military conflict that 

poses an imminent and serious military threat to national security. 

The amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the 

states within 7 years of its submission for ratification, although no 

state would be required to take action on the resolution, either to 

reject or approve it. If ratified by the required number of states, 

the amendment would take effect beginning with fiscal year 2018 

or the second fiscal year after its ratification, whichever is later. 

The budgetary impact of adopting this amendment to the Constitution is very uncertain because it depends on when it would 

take effect and the extent to which the Congress would exercise the 

discretion provided by the amendment to approve budget deficits. 

Ultimately, changes in budgetary outcomes would depend on what 

future legislation was adopted to meet the requirements set by the 

amendment and how effective that legislation would be in meeting 

those targets. 

Under the assumptions governing CBO’s latest baseline projections (namely that current laws remain unchanged), the budget 

deficit in 2018—the first year the amendment could potentially 

take effect—would total $585 billion (2.8 percent of GDP). Under 

those assumptions, outlays in 2018 would equal 23.2 percent of 

GDP, while revenues would total 20.4 percent. Outlays have averaged close to 21 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. 

By itself, enacting H.J. Res. 1 would not affect direct spending 

or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
26 

H.J. Res. 1 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Barry Blom. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.J. Res. 1 proposes 

an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require the annual Federal budget to be balanced (unless three-fifths of each House votes 

to pass a budget in which total outlays exceed total receipts) to restore fiscal discipline over Federal spending and protect the country’s future economic strength and national standard of living. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.J. Res. 1 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 1. This section provides that total outlays for any fiscal 

year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless 

three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress provide 

by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall 

vote. This provision forces Congress to commit itself each year to 

implementing a balanced budget, but recognizes the need for congressional flexibility to respond appropriately to unforeseen circumstances. 

Section 2. This section provides that total outlays for any fiscal 

year cannot exceed eighteen percent of annual economic output of 

the United States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress approves a specific increase in outlays above this amount. This limit 

reflects the share of economic output that Federal revenues have 

typically represented since World War II. Because spending should 

be linked to the average and customary revenues of the Federal 

Government if the annual budget is to be balanced, capping total 

outlays at eighteen percent of economic output furthers the overall 

purpose of the balanced budget amendment. 

Section 3. This section provides that the limit on the public debt 

of the United States cannot be increased unless three-fifths of both 

Houses of Congress provide for an increase by law. Section 3 is designed to ensure that increases in the ceiling on debt held by the 

public require greater consensus than ordinary legislation. Such a 

requirement reflects sensitivity to the impact debt increases have 

on the interest burden imposed on future generations. 

Section 4. This section requires the President to transmit a balanced budget to Congress prior to each fiscal year. It imposes a responsibility on the Executive Branch to make difficult choices 

among competing national priorities rather than permitting the 

President to distance himself (or herself) from the hard work of 

proposing spending cuts. The goal of bringing outlays into line with 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
27 

receipts is important enough to provide roles for both the Executive 

and Legislative Branches. 

Section 5. This section imposes a supermajority voting requirement to increase Federal revenues. A bill increasing the Federal 

revenues must have the support of two-thirds of each House’s total 

membership. The objective is to discourage excessive reliance on 

tax increases—rather than spending cuts—to achieve a balanced 

budget. Tax increases can depress economic activity and prove 

counterproductive to deficit reduction efforts. 

Section 6. This section delineates circumstances that permit a 

waiver of the balanced budget amendment’s provisions. Congressional authority to exercise a waiver ‘‘for any fiscal year in which 

a declaration of war is in effect’’ provides a very limited remedy because declarations of war are anachronistic in modern times. 

United States military actions since World War II have not involved declarations of war. The waiver based on an ‘‘imminent and 

serious military threat to national security’’ is more likely to be utilized. Under the language of Section 6, Congress may declare such 

a threat by enacting a joint resolution, supported by a majority of 

each House’s total membership and signed into law by the President. The need for congressional action on a joint resolution and 

presidential assent (or a veto override) helps to ensure that this 

waiver mechanism will not be abused. 

Section 7. This section provides for Congress to ‘‘enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.’’ This mandate for 

continued congressional involvement recognizes that the broad language of the constitutional amendment cannot be effectuated without an active congressional role in delineating the details of implementation. 

Section 8. This section defines ‘‘total outlays’’ and ‘‘total receipts’’—terms that appear in Section 1. All monies received by the 

Treasury except borrowed funds are embraced by the term ‘‘total 

receipts,’’ and all disbursements from the Treasury except funds for 

repayment of principal on the Federal debt are embraced by the 

term ‘‘total outlays.’’ 

Section 9. This section delineates the effective date of the constitutional amendment. It will take effect at the beginning of the 

first fiscal year after December 31, 2016, or on the second fiscal 

year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later. Since the 

Article’s preamble requires ratification by three-fourths of the 

states ‘‘within 7 years after the date of its submission for ratification,’’ Section 9’s effective date provision is not open-ended. If Congress submits the balanced budget constitutional amendment to 

the states for ratification this year, the 7-year deadline will expire 

in the year 2018 and the amendment will take effect—if at all— 

not later than the beginning of fiscal year 2021. 

Section 9 contemplates a transition period of sufficient duration 

to permit the United States to move from deficit spending to a balanced budget without major economic disruption. Although substantial spending cuts will require many adjustments, the implementation date provided for in section 9 is sufficiently long to facilitate an orderly transition. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
28 

1Letter from 9to5 National Association of Working Women, AFL-CIO; All Education Matters; 

Alliance for Retired Americans; American Association of People with Disabilities; American Association of University Women; American Federation of Government Employees; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; American Federation of Teachers; American 

Network of Community Options and Resources; The Arc of the United States; Asian American 

Justice Center; Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses; Bazelon Center 

for Mental Health Law; Campaign for America’s Future; Campaign for Community Change; 

CenterLink: The Community of LGBT Centers; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Corporation for Enterprise Development; Children Now; Children’s Defense Fund; Cities for 

Progress, Institute for Policy Studies; the City Project, CLASP; Coalition on Human Needs; 

Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism; Committee for Education Funding; Communications Workers of America; Community Action Partnership; Demos; Direct Care Alliance; 

Disability Rights and Education and Defense Fund; Easter Seals; Equal Justice Society; Families USA, Family Equality Council; Farmworker Justice; Food Research and Action Center; 

Friends of the Earth; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; Health & Disability Advocates; Health Care for America Now; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and 

Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW); Japanese American Citizens League; Jewish Funds for Justice; Jewish Labor Committee; Latinos for a Secure Retirement; Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League 

of Women Voters of the U.S.; Legal Momentum; Mental Health America; Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational 

Fund; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National African American Drug Policy Coalition; National AIDS Housing Coalition; National Alliance on Mental Illness; National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum; National Association for Children’s Behavioral Health; National Association for Hispanic Elderly; National Association of Colored 

Women’s Clubs; National Assocation of Human Rights Workers; National Association of Social 

Workers; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Transgeder Equality; National 

Coalition for Asian Pacific Americans Community Development; National/Community Reinvestment Coalition; National Congress of American Indians; National Congress of Black Women; 

National Council of Jewish Women; National Council on Independent Living; National Disability 

Rights Network; National Education Association; National Employment Law Project; National 

Dissenting Views 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (BBA 

or Amendment) ostensibly mandates a balanced budget in each fiscal year beginning as soon as 2018. In reality, however, this 

Amendment does a great deal more, much of which is inimical to 

the fundamental tenets of a republican form of government. It may, 

in fact, actually undermine the goal of a balanced budget. The BBA 

threatens the survival of such critical programs as Social Security 

and Medicare, which serve as fundamental safety nets for millions 

of hardworking Americans. It undermines other important priorities including national security, veterans’ health care, aid to education and the poor, support for family farmers, a vital national infrastructure, and all manner of government functions that are necessary to the needs of a western industrialized democracy. The 

Amendment skews all future budget debates in favor of deep 

spending cuts while virtually taking any additional revenues, or 

tax reforms, off the table. Its shortsighted restrictions threaten the 

standing of the dollar as a stable, reliable global reserve currency 

by undermining confidence in the full faith and credit of the United 

States in a manner unprecedented in the Nation’s history. 

And, the BBA could hobble the ability of the Federal Government 

to promote growth during economic downturns and to invest in future needs, thereby threatening to condemn America to permanent 

status as a second rate economy. 

The BBA is opposed by numerous organizations committed to the 

economic well being of the United States as well as organizations 

concerned with the needs of the elderly, the middle class, our children, and other basic needs of national importance. These groups 

include a coalition of 123 religious, labor, education, civil rights, 

child advocacy, and other organizations; 1 a coalition of six national 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
29 

Fair Housing Alliance; National Focus on Gender Education; National Gay and Lesbian Task 

Force Action Fund; National Health Law Program; National Immigrration Law Center; National 

Korean American Service & Education Consortium; National Latina Institutue for Reproductive 

Health; National Legal Aid & Defender Association; National Low Income Housing Coalition; 

National Organization for Women; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Priorities Project; National Senior Citizens Law Center; National Skills Coalition; National Urban 

League; National Women’s Law Center; NETWOR, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; 

Not Dead Yet; Office of Gender and Racial Justice, RE&WM, GAMC, Presbyterian Church 

(USA); OMB Watch; Paralyzed Veterans of America; PHI—Quality Care Through Quality Jobs; 

Physicians for Social Responsibility; PolicyLink; Poverty & Race Research Action Council; 

ProgressNow; Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Coalition; RESULTS: The Power to End 

Poverty; SER—Jobs for Progress National; Service Employees International Union; Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.; Sisters of Mercey Institute Justice Team; Social 

Security Works; South Asian Americans Leading Together; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; Southern Poverty Law Center; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United 

Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; United for a Fair Economy; United States Student Association; United Steelworkers; U.S. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association; USAction; Voices for Progress; Wider Opportunities for Women; Women’s Missionary Society of the African Methodist Episcopal Church 

to Members of the House Judiciary Committee (June 1, 2011) (on file with the Subcommittee 

on the Constitution). 2Letter from Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth; National Resources Defense Council, 

Population Action International, Public Citizen, Wilderness Society, Voices for Progress to House 

Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (June 15, 

2011) (on file with the Subcommittee on the Constitution). 3Letter from Craig Jennings, Director, Federal Fiscal Policy, OMB Watch, to House Judiciary 

Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (June 1, 2011) (on 

file with the Subcommittee on the Constitution). 4Letter from William Samuel, Director, Government Affairs Department, AFL-CIO, to House 

Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (June 2, 

2011) (on file with the Subcommittee on the Constitution). 5Letter from Michelle Nawar, Director of Legislation, Service Employees International Union, 

to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. 

(June 3, 2011) (on file with the Subcommittee on the Constitution). 6Letter from Charles M. Loveless, Director of Legislation, AFSCME, to Members of the U.S. 

House of Representative (June 1, 2011) (on file with the Subcommittee on the Constitution). 7Letter from Kim Anderson, Director of Government Relations, and Mary Kusler, Manager 

of Federal Advocacy, National Education Association, to Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (June 2, 2011) (on file with the Subcommittee on the Constitution). 8Letter from Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-President, and Joan Entmacher, Vice President for 

Family Economic Security, National Women’s Law Center, to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (June 1, 2011) (on file with the Subcommittee on the Constitution). 9Letter from Abigail Evans, President, and Joel Packer, Executive Director, Committee for 

Education Funding, to Members of the House Judiciary Committee (June 14, 2011) (on file with 

the Subcommittee on the Constitution). 10Letter from Deborah Weinstein, Executive Director, Coalition on Human Needs, to House 

Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (June 3, 

2011) (on file with the Subcommittee on the Constitution). 

environmental organizations representing more than one million 

members and activists; 2 OMB Watch; 3 AFL-CIO; 4 Service Employees International Union; 5 the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; 6 the National Education Association; 7 the National Women’s Law Center; 8 Committee for Education Funding; 9 and the Coalition on Human Needs.10

For these reasons, and those discussed below, we respectfully dissent and urge our colleagues to reject this dangerous and destructive constitutional amendment. 

II. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO

BALANCE THE BUDGET

During the 1990’s, Congress was able to eliminate the deficit and 

run surpluses without the aid of a balanced budget amendment. It 

took the reckless fiscal policies of President George W. Bush and 

a Republican Congress to turn that record surplus into record deficits in record time. That ‘‘accomplishment’’ is not evidence that our 

Constitution is in need of amendment. Rather, it demonstrates the 

result of disastrous choices made by those in power. The record 

calls not for a constitutional amendment, but for greater political 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
30 

11Mindy R. Levit, The Federal Debt: An Analysis of Movements from World War II to the 

Present, Congressional Research Service, Congressional Research Service Report RL34712 (Sept. 

17, 2010). 12 James Horney & Kathy Ruffing, Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive 

Large Projected Deficits, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, (May 10, 2011), available at 

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3490. 13OMB, Historical Tables: Table 7.1—Federal Debt at the End of the Year: 1940–2016, (2011), 

available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist07zl1.xls 

(last visited June 20, 2011). 14 In a January 2010 report, ‘‘The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020,’’ 

the CBO projects that a full extension of Pres. Bush’s tax cuts, plus a permanent fix to the alternative minimum tax, will cost $3.7 trillion over 10 years, not including debt service costs. The 

JCT estimated in a March 2010 report, ‘‘Present Law and The President’s Fiscal Year 2011 

Budget Proposals Related to Selected Individual Income Tax Provisions Scheduled to Expire 

Under the Sunset Provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001,’’ 

that the cost of extending just those cuts that affect people making less than $250,000 and permanently fixing the alternative minimum tax will cost $3 trillion. The difference—a bit less than 

$700 billion—is the cost of extending just those cuts for the wealthiest. See Michael Linden & 

Michael Ettlinger, Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year, 

(July, 29, 2010) available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/ 

letlcutslexpire.html. 15The interest rates implied in the CBO’s baseline budget projection used in the March 2010 

report entitled, ‘‘An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2011,’’ were 

used to calculate the additional debt service cost. Id. 16 Id. 17 Amy Belasco, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations 

Since 9/11, Congressional Research Service Report RL33110, at 3 Table 1: Estimated War 

Funding by Operations: FY2001-FY2012 War Request (Mar. 29, 2011). 

courage, accountability, prudence, foresight, and restraint by our 

elected officials, including some of those who now support this 

Amendment. 

While waging war on two fronts, the Bush Administration championed tax cuts for the wealthy and increases in defense spending 

as well as new expenditures for such salutary programs as Medicare Part D. These were among the significant contributors to the 

resulting deficit in the Federal budget. In particular, tax cuts in 

2001 and 2003 caused revenue to fall as of 2004 by more than 4 

percentage points of GDP. At the same time, Federal spending rose 

from 18.2 percent of GDP in 2000 to 19.6 percent of GDP in 2007, 

all while the economy was showing signs of weakness, leading to 

its near collapse just a year later.11

From 2001 to 2010, the Bush Administration’s tax cuts added 

$2.6 trillion to the public debt,12 nearly fifty percent of the total 

debt accrued during this period.13 Congressional Budget Office 

(CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) projections estimate 

that maintaining the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 (which were to sunset in 2010) for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans will reduce 

revenues by about $690 billion over the next 10 years.14 When the 

interest payments are factored in to these numbers, the true price 

of maintaining the tax cuts for the wealthy jumps by almost $140 

billion.15 In total, keeping the cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans will cost almost $830 billion over the next 10 years.16

While revenues were decreasing as a result of the Bush tax cuts, 

defense spending jumped dramatically to fund both the Iraq and 

Afghanistan Wars. There were also substantial spending increases 

for enhanced security measures necessitated by the Global War on 

Terror, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. During the 7 years President Bush was in office after the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, nearly $800 billion was 

spent on these two wars and enhanced security measures.17

Among the Bush Administration’s other initiatives was the creation of Medicare Part D in 2003. This worthwhile program, unforVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:34 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR117.XXX HR117

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
31 

18Marc Labonte & Margot L. Crandall-Hollick, The Impact of Major Legislation on Budget 

Deficits: 2001 to 2010, CRS Report R41134 (May 20, 2011). 19 It is significant to note that, because of population patterns, Senators representing some 

7.5 percent of the population could prevent a bill from obtaining a two-thirds majority. U.S. Census Bureau, available at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 

(last visited June 20, 2011). 20THE FEDERALIST NO. 58, at 361 (James Madison). 21Proposing An Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to Require Two-Thirds 

Majorities for Bills Increasing Taxes: Hearing on H.J. Res. 159, Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 107 (1996). 22There are 9 matters for which a supermajority vote is required under the Constitution: art. 

I, § 3, cl. 6 (conviction in impeachment trials); art. I, § 5, cl. 2 (expulsion of a Member of Congress); art. 1, § 7, cl. 2 (override a Presidential veto); art. II, § 1, cl. 3 (quorum shall consist of 

one or more members from two-thirds of the States to elect the President); art. II, § 2, cl. 2 (consent to a treaty); art. V (proposing amendments to the Constitution); amend. XII (quorum of 

Continued 

tunately, was unfunded. Its cost has been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $395 billion over its first 10 years.18

III. THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC

Apart from its economic weaknesses, the proposed BBA undercuts the very principle upon which our Nation was founded, namely, majority rule. By requiring a supermajority to pass certain legislation, the Amendment would shift power away from the majority 

of the American people to a determined minority. 

The framers of the Constitution wisely rejected the principle of 

requiring a supermajority for basic government functions.19 James 

Madison vehemently argued against supermajorities. He stated: 

That some advantages might have resulted from such a 

precaution cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these 

considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the 

opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general 

good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to 

the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage 

of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the 

general weal, or, in particular emergencies to extort unreasonable indulgences.20

At a Constitution Subcommittee hearing during the 104th Congress, Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R–IL), then-Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, echoed similar concerns: 

I am troubled by the concept of divesting a Member of the 

full import of his or her vote. You are diluting the vote of 

Members by requiring a supermajority of them to do something as basic to government as acquire the revenue to run 

government. It is a diminution. It is a disparagement. It 

is a reduction of the impact, the import, of one man, one 

vote.21

Supporters of the BBA have sought to justify the departure from 

majority rule by pointing to other provisions in the Constitution 

that require a two-thirds vote, such as approving a treaty or obtaining a conviction in a congressional impeachment trial.22 This 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
32 

members representing two-thirds of the States to elect the President and the Vice President); 

amend. XIV, § 3 (to remove disability); and amend. XXV, § 4 (removal of President for disability). 23 Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.J. Res. 1, Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States, Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. at 6– 

39 (June 3, 2011). 24Letter from Robert H. Bork to Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the House, (July 10, 1990), reprinted in Op. Ed., Robert H. Bork, A Seasoned Argument, Wash. Post, at A23 (June 10, 1992). 

argument, however, overlooks the fact that not one of these supermajority requirements pertain to the day-to-day operations of the 

government. Limiting such congressional authority is an invitation 

to gridlock. 

Rep. Melvin L. Watt (D–NC) offered an amendment that would 

have struck the supermajority requirements to increase revenues 

and to raise the debt limit. The amendment was rejected on a party 

line vote.23

The BBA would also open the possibility of life-tenured Federal 

judges making decisions on taxing and spending policy instead of 

directly-elected and accountable Members of Congress and the 

President. This concern has long-dogged proposals that would place 

budgetary decisions in the Constitution, but which has consistently 

been dismissed by proponents as not worthy of consideration. For 

example, when the BBA was being considered by Congress in 1990, 

former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Robert Bork issued the following warning: 

Scores or hundreds of suits might be filed in Federal district courts around the country. Many of these suits would 

be founded on different theories of how the amendment 

had been violated. The confusion, not to mention the burden on the court system, would be enormous. Nothing 

would be settled, moreover, until one or more of such actions finally reached the Supreme Court. That means we 

could expect a decision [about a given fiscal year 5 years 

after it has passed]. Nor is it at all clear what could be 

done if the Court found that the amendment had been violated 5 years earlier.24

The BBA clearly presents the possibility that courts would be 

asked to determine whether legislation did in fact increase revenues, whether outlays did in fact exceed receipts, and any number 

of other complex budgetary issues that would acquire a constitutional dimension. It also begs the question whether a court, in 

crafting a remedy for a violation, could order cuts to spending or 

increases in taxes in order to meet the requirements of the BBA. 

IV. THE AMENDMENT IS NOT LIMITED TO A BALANCED BUDGET

REQUIREMENT

While the BBA purports to require a balanced budget and to provide the tools necessary to facilitate and enforce that requirement, 

several provisions are either unrelated to that goal, or would make 

a balanced budget more difficult to attain. 

A. Supermajority Requirements Will Promote Greater Deficits. 

While the ostensible purpose of the supermajority requirements 

in the Amendment are intended to make it more difficult for Congress to exceed the balanced budget requirement, as Rep. Robert 

C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D–VA) argues, the need to obtain a three-fifths 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
33 

25During the markup of H.J. Res. 1, Rep. Scott made the following remarks: 

The fact of the matter is the core provision of this underlying constitutional amendment 

will make it impossible to ever balance the budget from a practical point of view. If 

you need 60 percent to pass the budget—and you are going to need 60 percent. Any 

budget on the table requires 60 percent. Now, are you more likely to pass the Republican Study Group and explain to your constituents 70 percent cuts or, since you need 

60 percent anyway, are you more likely to have more tax cuts and more spending increases? When you get to the last couple of votes to pass a tough bill like a tough budget, the last couple of votes you pick up are not—and I am not going to vote for it unless 

you increase some more taxes or unless you do some more spending cuts. The last few 

votes are bought with spending increases and tax cuts. And so the core provision of the 

bill will make it less likely that we can achieve the goals that my colleagues from Virginia have spoken of. 

Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.J. Res. 1, Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. at 53 (June 

2, 2011) (statement of Rep. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D–VA)). 26 Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.J. Res. 1, Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States, Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. at 157– 

67 (June 3, 2011). 27 In 2001, a similar measure, H.J.Res. 41, failed by a vote of 232–189. 147 CONG. REC. H1582 

(daily ed. Apr. 25, 2001) (Roll no. 87). Its predecessor, H.J. Res. 94, was taken straight to the 

floor and failed by a vote of 234–192 in 2000. 146 CONG. REC. H2146 (daily ed. Apr. 12, 2000) 

(Roll no. 119). In 1999, H.J. Res. 37 was taken straight to the floor and failed by a vote of 229– 

199. 145 CONG. REC. H2097 (daily ed. Apr. 15, 1999) (Roll no. 90). In 1998, H.J. Res. 111 was 

taken straight to the floor and failed by a vote of 238–186. 144 CONG. REC. H2170 (daily ed. 

Apr. 22, 1998) (Roll no. 102). In 1997, H.J. Res. 62 passed the Committee by a vote of 18–10, 

but failed in the full House by a vote of 233–190. 143 CONG. REC. H1506 (daily ed. Apr. 15, 

1997) (Roll no. 78). In 1996, H.J. Res. 159 was taken straight to the floor and failed by a vote 

of 243–177. 142 CONG. REC. H3304 (daily ed. Apr. 15, 1996) (Roll no. 117). 

vote to run a deficit may require a great deal more legislative 

‘‘horse-trading’’ in order to secure the necessary number of votes.25

We have all been involved in the legislative process generally, and 

the budgetary process in particular, long enough to have witnessed 

the extent to which legislative leaders have had to accede to individual members’ demands for specific pork-barrel projects, in order 

to gather the needed votes to pass legislation, raising the overall 

cost. 

The need to obtain supermajorities—especially in times of economic distress when revenues decline, demands for government 

services increase, and deficits grow—would likely increase the 

power of individual holdouts, resulting in increased, rather than 

decreased spending. Thus, the multiple supermajority requirements 

in the Amendment would have the tendency to increase, rather 

than decrease the deficit. 

B. Tax Limitation Amendment Would Promote Deficits 

Section 5 of the BBA provides that a ‘‘bill to increase revenue 

shall not become law unless three-fifths of the whole number of 

each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a roll-call 

vote.’’ An amendment offered by Rep. Jim Jordan (R–OH) and 

passed by the Committee further exacerbated this requirement by 

raising the threshold to two-thirds.26 It should be noted, however 

that during past Republican-controlled Congresses, beginning with 

the Republican ‘‘Contract with America,’’ a separate tax limitation 

constitutional amendment was routinely considered, and just as 

routinely rejected.27

Adopting a supermajority tax requirement would repeat the very 

mistakes made in the 1780’s under the Articles of Confederation, 

which required a vote of nine of the 13 States to raise revenue. It 

is because this system worked so poorly that the founding fathers 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
34 

28Proposing An Amendment to the Constitution with Respect to Tax Limitations on H. J. Res. 

62, Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 1st 

Sess. (1997) [hereinafter 1997 Judiciary Committee Hearing] (statement of Robert Greenstein, 

Executive Director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). 29 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, The Moment of Truth, at 28 

(Dec. 2010) (emphasis in original). 30 Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.J. Res. 1, Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States, Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. at 77– 

109; 39–49 (June 3, 2011). 31 Id. at 39–49. 

sought to fashion a national government that could operate 

through majority rule.28

While some may believe that a tax limitation is a desirable policy, this requirement will make it more difficult to balance the 

budget by making increased revenues difficult, if not impossible, to 

obtain. Although the imposition of new taxes or increased taxes 

may be a policy some would prefer to reject, it is by no means the 

case that the Constitution should place the option beyond reach for 

all time. 

In addition, the language of the BBA is not clear and could 

present difficult implementation problems, possibly placing tax policy, in the final analysis, in the hands of Federal judges. For example, it is unclear from the text what a ‘‘bill to increase revenue’’ 

would include. While it would likely apply to a new tax or an increase in a tax rate, it could also include a repeal of a special interest tax loophole. As a result, the BBA could allow a special interest 

tax loophole, even one that was the result of clear corruption, to 

pass by a simple majority, or even a voice vote, but would impose 

a constitutional requirement of a two-thirds roll call vote of each 

house to repeal it. The BBA would essentially enshrine in the Constitution some of the most unfair and—in some circumstances—corrupt features of our tax code and thereby undermine the widely accepted goal of removing such special interest provisions from law 

and simplifying compliance. 

As the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform 

recently observed: 

In the quarter century since the last comprehensive tax reform, Washington has riddled the system with countless 

tax expenditures, which are simply sending by another 

name. These tax earmarks—amounting to $1.1 trillion a 

year of spending in the tax code—not only increase the 

deficit, but cause tax rates to be too high. Instead of promoting economic growth and competitiveness, our current 

code drives up health care costs and provided special treatment to special interests. The code presents individuals 

and businesses with perverse economic incentives instead 

of a level playing field.29

Rep. Scott offered an amendment to strike this section.30 Rep. 

Jerrold Nadler (D–NY) offered an amendment that would allow 

special interest tax breaks for large producers of oil or natural gas 

to be repealed by a simple majority vote.31 Both amendments were 

rejected on a party line vote. 

The BBA presents various questions of interpretation. Would the 

Amendment’s restriction apply to a 1, 5, or 10-year budget window? 

Would a bill resulting in increased revenues in years 1 and 2, but 

lower revenues thereafter require a two-thirds vote? The AmendVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:34 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR117.XXX HR117

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
35 

32 H.J.Res 1, 112th Cong. § 2 (2011). The bill, as introduced capped outlays at ‘‘one-fifth.’’ An 

amendment offered by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R–TX) changed this to 18 percent. 33 Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Glossary, available at http:// 

www.bea.gov/glossary/glossarylg.htm (Last visited: June 20, 2011). 34Office of Management and Budget, Table 15.3 Total Government Expenditures as Percentages of GDP: 1948–2010, at 344–5, Fiscal Year 2012 Historical Tables Budget of the United 

States (2010). 35 Congressional Budget Office, A 125-Year Picture of the Federal Government’s Share of the 

Economy, 1950–2075, at 2 (July 3, 2002). 36 H.J. Res. 1, 112th Cong. § 3 (2011). 

ment is also silent on when the revenue impact would be assessed. 

Would it, as provided in section 7, rely solely on estimates of outlays and receipts, or would an error in an estimate of the impact 

of the tax measure that in fact resulted in an increase in revenues 

require a retroactive change—and court ordered refunds—based on 

actual receipts? If this is not the case, could estimates be used to 

circumvent the two-thirds requirement? If an adjustment and tax 

refund were necessary, would the loss in revenues and existing assets trigger the other requirements of the Amendment, necessitating either offsetting budget cuts or a three-fifths vote to permit 

the resulting imbalance? 

C. A Cap on Outlays Is a New and Dangerous Innovation 

The BBA includes a provision that would cap total Federal outlays at 18 percent of ‘‘economic output of the United States, unless 

two-thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount.’’ 32 We assume that by ‘‘economic output of the United States’’ the resolution’s authors mean 

‘‘gross domestic product,’’ which is defined as the ‘‘market value of 

goods and services produced by labor and property in the United 

States, regardless of nationality.’’ 33

This cap, however, appears to be arbitrary. No arguments supporting the idea that 18 percent is an economically ideal rate have 

been put forward any more than for the 20 percent cap in the bill 

as introduced, or the 19 percent cap in an amendment filed by Rep. 

Louie Gohmert (R–TX), but not considered by the Committee. The 

sole argument was to appeal to historical experience which by no 

means supports the 18 percent figure. It is, as with other parts of 

the BBA, merely a policy preference posing as a constitutional principle. In reality, the historical record indicates that outlays, as a 

percentage of GDP, have varied significantly. 

Federal outlays have not dropped below 18 percent since FY 

1967, and have not dropped below 17 percent since FY 1957.34 According to the Congressional Budget Office: 

Spending by the Federal Government grew from approximately 3 percent of GDP in 1925 to 15.6 percent in 1950. 

Following the Depression, World War II abruptly boosted 

Federal spending to approximately 42 percent of GDP, but 

afterward it dropped and resumed a less volatile trend.’’ 35

D. BBA’s Debt Ceiling Is Arbitrary 

The Amendment would impose a three-fifths vote requirement in 

order to increase the debt ceiling.36 Recent experience demonstrates, however, that even obtaining a simple majority vote can 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
36 

37See, e.g., 157 Cong. Rec. H 3783 (daily ed. May 31, 2011) (vote on A Bill to Implement the 

President’s Request to Increase the Statutory Limit on the Public Debt, H.R. 1954, 112th Cong. 

(2011)). 38Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states, ‘‘The validity of the public debt of the United 

States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for 

services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United 

States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection 

or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; 

but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.’’ Although section 4 

‘‘was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the Government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. . . . ‘[T]he validity of the public debt’. . . [embraces] whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations,’’ and applies to government bonds issued after as well as before adoption of the Amendment. Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 354 (1935). In Perry, the Court concluded that the 

Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, insofar as it attempted to override the gold-clause obligation 

in a Fourth Liberty Loan Gold Bond ‘‘went beyond the congressional power.’’ Id. On a Confederate bond problem, see Branch v. Haas, 16 F. 53 (C.C.M.D. Ala. 1883) (citing Hanauer v. Woodruff, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 439 (1873), and Thorington v. Smith, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 1 (1869)); see also The Pietro Campanella, 73 F. Supp. 18 (D. Md. 1947). 39Zachary A. Goldfarb & Felicia Sonmez, Moody’s Warns of Downgrade, WALL ST. J. (June 

3, 2011), at A11. 40 Id. 41 Clifford Marks & Humberto Sanchez, S&P Lowers U.S. Debt Outlook from ‘Stable’ to ‘Negative’—Ratings Agency Reaffirms ‘AAA’ Rating, but Worries Policymakers Will Fail to Agree on 

Deficit Reduction, National Journal.com (Apr. 19, 2011), available at http://nationaljournal.com/ 

economy/s-amp-p-lowers-u-s-debt-outlook-from-stable-to-negative-20110418. 42Peter Schroeder, Fitch Warns US Would eEdanger AAA Rating With Even ‘Technical’ Default, The Hill (June 8, 2011), available at http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/165365- 

fitch-warns-against-default-of-any-length. 43 Amy Scott, Some Republicans OK with short-lived debt default, Marketplace Morning Report (June 8, 2011), available at http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/06/08/amsome-republicans-ok-with-shortlived-debt-default/?refid=0. 

be elusive.37 The current budgetary deadlock has placed the creditworthiness of the United States in question for the first time since 

the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.38

The consequences of a default by the United States on its obligations, or even the growing concern in the world markets about the 

risk of such a default, could be catastrophic. Recently, Moody’s Investors Service warned that it might soon downgrade the credit 

rating of the United States because of mounting concerns that the 

government will default on its obligations.39 Moody’s stated, ‘‘The 

heightened polarization over the debt limit has increased the odds 

of a short-lived default.’’ 40 In April, Standard & Poor’s, citing continued gridlock in budget negotiations, lowered its outlook on the 

Federal debt position from ‘‘stable’’ to ‘‘negative.’’ 41 Similarly, Fitch 

Ratings warned of a downgrading of our national debt obligations 

in the event of a technical default.42

Regrettably, Republican leaders seem to be unaware of, or indifferent to, the dangers of this brinkmanship over the debt ceiling. 

Republican Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan appears not to 

grasp the gravity of the situation. For example, he recently opined, 

‘‘If a bondholder misses a payment for a day or two or three or 

four—what is more important is you are putting the government 

in a materially better position to better pay its bills going forward.’’ 43 This is precisely the ‘‘technical default’’ about which Fitch 

has recently warned. When an individual goes into technical default, as described by Rep. Ryan, he or she pays substantial penalties in the form of penalties and in ballooning interest rates. The 

same fate does befall nations, and the consequences are uniformly 

catastrophic. 

The debt, while a substantial problem, is not the cause of our 

current precarious position in the eyes of the bond market. As 

Bloomberg News reports, ‘‘For all the debate about the deficit in 

Washington, bond market yields in the U.S. are lower now than 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
37 

44David Lerman, Ryan, Geithner Offer Different Views on Agreement to increase Debt Ceiling, Bloomberg News (Apr. 18,2011). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011–04–17/ryan-geithneroffer-different-views-of-agreement-to-increase-debt-ceiling.html. 45 Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.J. Res. 1, Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States, Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. at 125– 

138 (June 3, 2011). 46 Congressional Budget Office, Estimated Impact of ARRA on Employment and Economic 

Output from January 2011 through March 2011 at 3 (May 2011). 

when the government was running a budget surplus a decade ago, 

even though Treasury Department data show that the amount of 

marketable debt outstanding has risen to $9.13 trillion from $4.34 

trillion in mid-2007.’’ 44

E. The Amendment recognizes only military emergencies 

Although there are many reasons why a nation might need to 

run a deficit, section 6 of the BBA permits such to occur only during ‘‘any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in a 

military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military 

threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, 

adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which 

becomes law.’’ 

Interestingly, while the BBA’s waiver only applies if the United 

States is at war, any military necessity that might require a buildup in preparation for hostilities is not recognized. It is also not 

clear whether the Global War on Terror would be covered by the 

waiver. If the waiver does apply, then—at least for the foreseeable 

future—it could be argued that the United States will always be 

in a conflict ‘‘which causes an imminent and serious military threat 

to the national security,’’ and therefore render this proposed constitutional amendment a nullity. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D–TX) 

offered an amendment that would have clarified that the exception 

applied to all military conflicts. The amendment was rejected.45

There are, however, other types of emergencies in which deficit 

spending may be needed. Periods of depression or serious recession 

sometimes call for deficit spending. It would be a mistake for the 

Constitution—as proposed to be amended by the BBA—to prohibit, 

categorically, this type of stimulus spending absent the concurrence 

of a supermajority. 

For example, the CBO, in its most recent periodic report, estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 2011, the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 raised real GDP by between 1.1 and 3.1 percent, lowered the unemployment rate by between .06 and 1.8 percent, increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 3.3 million, and increased the 

number of full time equivalent jobs by 1.6 million to 4.6 million 

compared with what would have occurred otherwise. CBO estimates that the effects of ARRA on output peaked in the first half 

of 2010 and have since diminished.46 Rep. Nadler offered an 

amendment that would have allowed Congress, by a majority vote 

of both Houses, to suspend the application of the BBA if economic 

growth has been, or will be, negative for 2 consecutive quarters. 

While there is disagreement among members of the Committee on 

the utility of deficit spending during a recession or a depression, 

it is a matter of economic policy, and the people’s elected representVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:34 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR117.XXX HR117

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
38 

47 Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.J. Res. 1, Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States, Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. at 49– 

75 (June 3, 2011). 48Whether the Constitution Should be Amended to Address the Federal Deficit?: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011) 

(statement of Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R–VA)). 49 Robert Greenstein, James R. Horney & Kelsey Merrick, Balanced Budget Amendment 

Would Require More Extreme Cuts than Ryan Plan: Chief Sponsor Cites Republican Study 

Committee Budget, Which Would Cut $9 Trillion Over Next Decade, as Model, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (June 6, 2011), available at http://www.cbpp.org/files/6–6–11bud.pdf 

(Last visited: June 21, 2011). 50 Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.J. Res. 1, Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States, Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. at 36– 

79 (June 2, 2011); 138–157 (June 3, 2011); 41–51 (June 15, 2011). 

atives, not the Constitution, should make that judgment. The Nadler amendment was rejected on a party line vote.47

V. THE AMENDMENT WOULD DESTROY MEDICARE AND

SOCIAL SECURITY

The BBA requires a balanced budget by as soon as fiscal year 

2018. Given the current deficit, it is fair to ask how the proponents 

foresee this objective being attained. Rep. Nadler asked the sponsor, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R–VA) that precise question. And, Rep. 

Nadler pointed out that the recently passed Republican Budget 

projected balance only by fiscal year 2040. Rep. Goodlatte responded, ‘‘I would direct to you the House Republican Study Committee Budget which balances it in 9 years.’’ 48

It should be noted that what the Republican Study Committee 

(RSC) proposed in its budget was rejected by House. It is also important to understand what the consequences of meeting this deadline would be. Under the RSC plan, which would require the Nation’s budget to achieve balance in 2020, Federal expenditures 

would be cut by more than $9 trillion over the coming decade, compared with current amounts. And, it would cut total non-defense 

discretionary programs by approximately 70 percent by 2021, and 

by more than $3 trillion over the next 10 years. It contains deeper 

Medicare cuts than the Ryan budget, which recently passed the 

House. The RSC budget includes the Ryan budget proposal to convert Medicare to vouchers and raise its eligibility age from 65 to 

67, but it raises the eligibility age sooner than the Ryan budget 

would. It would raise the Social Security retirement age to 70. In 

2021, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), and Supplemental Security Income would be cut in half.49 Given the size of projected 

shortfalls, and the proposed constitutional impediment to increasing revenues, these cuts, or ones very much like them, would be necessitated by the BBA. 

Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D–MI), Rep. Ted Deutch (D– 

FL), and Rep. Jackson Lee offered amendments that would have 

protected Medicare and Social Security, by removing them from the 

budget calculations. The amendments were rejected on party line 

votes.50

VI. CONCLUSION

Never before, with the exception of the disastrous experiment of 

Prohibition, has this Nation written specific policy preferences into 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
39 

51 Justice Holmes, in his famous dissent, warned against using the Constitution as a tool of 

economic policy. He wrote, ‘‘The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social 

Statistics.’’ Lochner v. People of the State of New York, 198 U.S. 45, 75 (1905). 

the Constitution.51 The Constitution is a document intended to lay 

out policies to allow Americans to express their preferences in a political system that safeguards the rights of all, and to permit the 

popular will to find expression in law. Amending the Constitution 

to settle certain economic and policy questions for all time not only 

violates the underlying purpose of that document, but risks economic catastrophe and hardship for the middle class, the poor, the 

very young, and the elderly. It would forever consign the concept 

of one person one vote to the dustbin of history. It would represent 

a catastrophic historic turning point for this country, and we urge 

our colleagues to reject it. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. HOWARD L. BERMAN. JERROLD NADLER. ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT. SHEILA JACKSON LEE. MAXINE WATERS. STEVE COHEN. HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR. PEDRO R. PIERLUISI. MIKE QUIGLEY. JUDY CHU. TED DEUTCH. LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ. 

Additional Dissenting Views 

The discussion about this proposed amendment to the Constitution has totally been about the title of the amendment and not 

about its provisions. Incredibly, the provisions of this amendment 

do not require a balanced budget and actually will make it more 

difficult for future Congresses to balance the budget. 

Every budget considered by the House earlier this year, and in 

fact nearly every budget over the last decade, was not balanced in 

the first fiscal year. Each of these budgets would have required a 

three-fifths majority to pass the House and the Senate under the 

provisions of this amendment. Commonsense would suggest that a 

meaningful deficit reduction plan would be more difficult to pass 

with a supermajority rather than a simple majority, and therefore 

the enactment of the Balanced Budget Amendment would make it 

more difficult to the balance budget. Other than the title, there is 

nothing in this amendment which makes it more likely that Congress will pass a fiscally responsible budget instead of a fiscally irresponsible budget. In fact the supermajority requirement to raise 

revenues will obviously make it more difficult to balance the budget. The December 2010 extension of the Bush-era tax cuts added 

$800 billion to the deficit and easily passed both houses of Congress. If this amendment had been in effect, its provisions would 

not have prevented Congress from adding $800 billion to our deficit, because tax cuts could be passed with a simple majority. 

Furthermore, a two-thirds requirement to pass a spending plan 

over 18% of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would jeopVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:34 Jun 24, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR117.XXX HR117

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
40 

ardize Social Security and Medicare. Total outlays of the federal 

government have not been below 18% of GDP since the passage of 

Medicare. An 18% spending cap would put immediate pressure on 

Congress to make significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security. 

Under the provisions of the amendment, Congress could drastically 

cut Medicare and Social Security by a simple majority to meet the 

18% of GDP threshold but in order to save these important programs with either new taxes or spending above 18% of GDP would 

require a two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate. 

In conclusion, we should be debating the provisions of the 

amendment, not just the title. The amendment does not require a 

balanced budget, and in fact will make it more difficult to balance 

the budget. Furthermore, the amendment jeopardizes Medicare and 

Social Security by allowing cuts in these programs with a simple 

majority while requiring a supermajority to save these programs 

with new taxes. Balancing the budget requires tough choices; the 

Balanced Budget Amendment will make it less likely that those 

tough choices will be made. 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS