U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–814 PDF 2014

CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS 

TO OUR ESCALATING NATIONAL DEBT: 

EXAMINING BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 24, 2014 

Serial No. 113–85 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 24, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 1 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, as read by the 

Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 2 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 4 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9 

The Honorable Mike Coffman, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Colorado 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

The Honorable Justin Amash, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Michigan 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 18 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25 

The Honorable David Schweikert, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Arizona 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Ph.D., President, American Action Forum 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 33 

Henry J. Aaron, Ph.D., Bruce and Virginia MacLaury Senior Fellow, The 

Brookings Institution 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42 

David Primo, Ph.D., Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor, University of Rochester 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 49 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 51 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 79 
Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Supplemental Material submitted by David Primo, Ph.D., Ani and Mark 

Gabrellian Professor, University of Rochester ................................................... 84 

Revision to the Prepared Statement of Henry J. Aaron, Ph.D., Bruce and 

Virginia MacLaury Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution ......................... 122 

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 123 

Prepared Statement of Pete Sepp, Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union (NTU) ............................................................................................. 133 

Response to Questions for the Record from Henry J. Aaron, Ph.D., Bruce 

and Virginia MacLaury Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution ................. 142 
(1) 

CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS TO OUR ESCALATING NATIONAL DEBT: EXAMINING BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENTS 

THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks (acting-Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Coble, 

Chabot, Bachus, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Marino, Labrador, Holding, Collins, DeSantis, Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Johnson, 

DelBene, and Garcia. 

Staff present: Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Zachary 

Somers, Counsel; Kelsey Deterding, Clerk; (Minority) Perry 

Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; James Park, Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Professional 

Staff Member. 

Mr. FRANKS [presiding]. The Judiciary Committee will come to 

order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. 

We want to welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on constitutional solutions to our escalating national debt, examining balanced budget amendments. And I will begin by recognizing myself 

for an opening statement. 

Chairman Goodlatte has asked me to apologize for his absence 

at the beginning of today’s hearing. He had an unmovable scheduling conflict that is preventing him from being here at the start 

of today’s hearing. And given his gallant leadership over the years 

on the balanced budget amendment, I know he truly regrets not 

being here to start this hearing. 

In his absence, Chairman Goodlatte has asked me to give his 

opening statement. However, before I turn to that, I would like to 

make a few comments of my own on this topic, which is one of the 

most pressing problems facing America today. 
2 

We must change America’s course on Federal spending and enormous Federal deficits. It is absolutely necessary that balanced Federal budgets once again become the norm. 

Unfortunately, deficit spending has become the way of life for the 

Federal Government. But it always was not this way. For the first 

140 years of America’s history, we lived under an unwritten constitutional rule that budgets should be balanced except during 

times of war. According to Nobel Prize winning economist James 

Buchanan, ‘‘politicians prior to World War II would have considered it to be immoral to spend more money than they were willing 

to generate in tax revenue except during periods of extreme and 

temporary emergency.’’ 

We must return to those roots. The Federal Government cannot 

continue to spend us into oblivion. The one solution that has teeth 

to impose spending restraint on the Federal Government is a constitutional amendment. 

Since the 1930’s, there have been numerous proposed constitutional amendments to require a balanced budget. Unfortunately, 

none of those constitutional approaches to spending restraint have 

been adopted. 

Over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison 

that ‘‘no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid 

during the course of its own existence’’ because, according to Jefferson, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living 

generation. 

Today America is contracting debts that will burden multiple future generations. It is time for Congress to put an end to this practice. 

And I will now turn to Chairman Goodlatte’s opening statement. 

March 2, 1995 was a pivotal day in the history of our country. 

On that day, the U.S. Senate failed by one vote to send a balanced 

budget constitutional amendment to the States for ratification. The 

amendment had passed the House by the required two-thirds majority, and the Senate vote was the last legislative hurdle before 

ratification by the States. 

If Congress had listened to the American people and sent that 

amendment to the States for ratification, we would not be facing 

the fiscal crisis we are today. Rather, balancing the Federal budget 

would have been the norm instead of the exception over the past 

20 years, and we would have nothing like the annual deficits and 

skyrocketing debt we currently face. 

In 1995, when the balanced budget amendment came within one 

vote of passing, the gross Federal debt stood at $4.9 trillion. Today 

it stands at over $17.5 trillion. The Federal debt held by the public 

is rising as well and it is increasing rapidly as a percentage of the 

country’s economic output. Unlike the past, when the debt spiked 

to pay for wars of finite duration and then was reduced gradually 

after the hostilities ended, more recently the debt has risen as a 

result of having to pay for entitlement programs that are of indefinite duration and difficult to reduce over time. 

As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has observed, 

quote, such high and rising debt will have serious negative consequences. Interest rates increase considerably. Productivity and 
3 

wages will be lower. High debt increases the risk of a financial crisis. 

What is particularly troubling is that the debts we are incurring 

will burden multiple future generations. Indeed, a 2013 cross-national study found that the United States ranked worst among 29 

advanced countries in the degree to which it imposes unfair debt 

burdens on future generations. It is time for Congress to stop saddling future generations with the burden of crushing debts to pay 

for current spending. We should not pass on to our children and 

our grandchildren the bleak fiscal future that our unsustainable 

spending is creating. 

The only way to ensure that Congress acts with fiscal restraint 

over the long term is to pass a balanced budget amendment. Experience has proven time and again that Congress cannot for any significant length of time rein in the excessive spending. Annual deficits and the resulting debt continue to grow due to political pressures that the Constitution’s structure no longer serves to restrain. 

Simply raising taxes is not the answer. In order to pay for entitlement spending alone solely by raising taxes, we would have to 

double the marginal tax rates for all income brackets over the next 

30 years. That is all income brackets over the next 30 years. Indeed, even if the Government confiscated all of the Americans’ personal income for the entire year, you will could not pay off the national debt. 

In order for Congress to be able to consistently make the tough 

decisions necessary to sustain fiscal responsibility, Congress must 

have the external pressure of a balanced budget requirement to 

force it to do so. 

The Framers of the Constitution were familiar with the need for 

constitutional restrictions on deficit spending. When the Constitution was ratified, it was the States that had exhibited out-of-control 

fiscal mismanagement by issuing, quote, bills of credit to effectively 

print money to pay for projects and service debt. As a result of that 

lack of fiscal discipline, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution 

specifically deprives States of the power to issue bills of credit. 

Over 200 years later, it is the Federal Government that has proven 

its inability to adopt sound fiscal policies, and thus it is now time 

to adopt a constitutional restraint on Federal fiscal mismanagement. 

Several versions of the balanced budget amendment have been 

introduced this Congress, including two that Chairman Goodlatte 

introduced on the first day of Congress, as he has every Congress 

for the last 7 years. H.J. Res. 2 is nearly identical to the text that 

passed the House in 1995 and failed in the Senate by one vote. It 

requires that total annual outlays not exceed total annual receipts. 

It also requires a true majority of each chamber to pass tax increases and a three-fifths majority to raise the debt limit. 

H.J. Res. 1, which Chairman Goodlatte also introduced, goes further. In addition to the provisions of H.J. Res. 2, it requires a 

three-fifths majority to raise taxes and it imposes an annual cap 

on Federal spending. 

While the Chairman’s preference is to pass the stronger version 

of the balanced budget amendment, the two-thirds majority re-
4 

quirement for passing a constitutional amendment demands that 

we achieve bipartisan support for any such approach. 

Our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution. We must rise above partisanship and join together to send a 

balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. 

We are at a crossroads. We can make the tough choices to control 

spending and pave the way for a return to surpluses and paying 

down the national debt or we can continue further down the road 

of chronic deficits, leaving our children and grandchildren with 

crippling debt that is not of their own making. The choice is ours 

and the stakes are very high. 

And I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of 

witnesses today about this important issue. 

And I would now turn to Mr. Conyers, the Ranking Member of 

the Judiciary Committee, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome to all of my colleagues. I too will have to take a 

temporary leave, as Chairman Goodlatte has, but I hope to get 

back in time to hear Bobby Scott, a distinguished senior Member 

of this Committee, and his testimony. 

Members of the Committee, the balanced budget amendment was 

not a good idea when it was included in the Contract with America 

in 1994, and it is still not a good idea today, 20 years later. 

To begin with, a balanced budget amendment could undermine 

critical programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and other Government programs financed through accumulated savings in trust 

funds. One of our distinguished witnesses, a respected economist 

with Brookings, has made clear a balanced budget amendment 

threatens the ability to pay Social Security, Medicare, and other 

benefits like military and civil service pensions. This is because all 

of the programs are financed through trust funds that build their 

reserves through holding Treasury securities as assets which they 

sell off to pay current and future benefits. 

Balanced budget amendment proposals, however, would bar the 

Social Security, Medicare, hospital insurance, and other similar 

trust funds from being able to draw on prior accumulated savings 

to pay benefits because they all require that total outlays not exceed total receipts for each given fiscal year. 

If a trust fund were to draw on its prior accumulated savings, 

it would count as a deficit, as deficit spending under a balanced 

budget amendment, which would be prohibited unless a super majority of both houses of Congress override the requirements or the 

rest of the Federal budget runs a surplus for the year. Not likely 

to happen. This would put current and future payment of Social 

Security, Medicare, and military pension and other benefits at risk. 

It would also undermine the Federal Government’s absolute guarantee of up to a quarter of a million dollars for individual bank deposit accounts. And in an economic downturn, such as the one we 

faced in 2008, that could lead to a panic, a run on banks, and another depression. 

A balanced budget amendment, I am sorry to say, is nothing but 

a rhetorical gimmick or worse a political charade. 

Conservatives know that the only way they would actually balance the budget is to decimate Social Security and Medicare with 
5 

steep funding cuts which is what they, of course, will not want to 

talk about publicly ahead of time. So instead, they are once again 

talking about the balanced budget amendment fig leaf. 

I remind my friends that it was the fiscal recklessness of a 

former President and the Republican controlled Congress that first 

got us into the fiscal challenge we face. In particular, the massive 

tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 for the wealthiest Americans caused revenue to fall as of 2004 by more than 4 percentage points of the 

gross domestic product. At the same time, Federal spending rose in 

2000, in 2007, and all while the economy was showing signs of 

weakness leading to its near collapse just a year later. 

A large part of that spending increase was a result of ballooning 

defense spending, which jumped dramatically to fund the Iraq and 

Afghanistan wars. According to the Center for Budget and Policy 

Priorities, the Bush administration’s tax cuts added $2.6 trillion to 

the public debt. And according to the Office of Management and 

Budget, OMB, these cuts accounted for nearly half of the total debt 

accrued during this period. 

During the 1990’s, Congress was able to eliminate the deficit and 

run surpluses without the aid of a balanced budget amendment. 

Remember that, please. There is no reason why greater political 

courage, accountability, and restraint among elected officials cannot achieve the same result while avoiding the pitfalls of a constitutional balanced budget amendment. 

Finally, a balanced budget amendment would undermine the 

Government’s ability to respond to economic slowdowns and thereby prevent the Nation a speedier economic recovery. 

This is not the first time that it has been explained to this Committee the Government must have flexibility to engage in deficit 

spending through the use of automatic stabilizers to improve the 

economy. When the economy weakens, incomes of individuals and 

businesses fail because of job losses and declining purchases which 

results in reduced tax revenues. And to end this downward spiral, 

Social Security, unemployment, nutrition assistance, and other 

benefits help to stabilize the decline in purchases of goods and 

services resulting from the decline in incomes. 

That is why essential programs such as these which, especially 

in the light of declining revenues, must be paid through deficit 

spending, and they are called automatic stabilizers. Yet, a balanced 

budget amendment, by requiring that total outlays not exceed total 

receipts every fiscal year, would effectively prohibit the government 

from using these critical stabilizers. 

Although most amendment proposals do contain some sort of exception to this prohibition, they also require a super majority vote 

in both houses of the legislative body to override the balanced 

budget mandate. And by the time that Congress could react, potentially months after the fact, it would be too late for the stabilizers 

to have any effect, even assuming that a super majority in Congress agrees that there is a problem to address. 

So in sum, a balanced budget amendment would result in longer, 

more severe recessions. It would prolong the suffering of the jobless 

and impede the ability of Main Street to recover in a struggling 

economy. 
6 

A balanced budget amendment would insert the courts into an 

inherently political matter, creating the potential for a litigation 

nightmare and upending of the principle of separation of powers. 

I seldom remember ever quoting the conservative constitutional 

scholar, Robert Bork, but I do now, and he said scores or hundreds 

of suits might be filed in Federal district courts around the country. 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. Nor is 

it all clear what could be done if the Court found that the amendment had been violated 5 years earlier. End quotation. 

While I am not known for agreeing with Judge Bork, his warning 

about the potential for endless litigation in the courts over budget 

policy should be heeded. 

In crafting a remedy for a violation, a court could direct cuts to 

spending or increases in taxes in order to meet the requirements 

of the balanced budget amendment. Courts have long recognized 

that such complex economic matters should be left to the elected 

and politically accountable branches rather than to unelected 

judges to decide. 

And for these reasons, Mr. Chairman and Members, I oppose the 

concept of a constitutional balanced budget amendment. 

And I thank the Chair and yield back any balance of time that 

may be remaining. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

And without objection, other Members’ opening statements will 

be made part of the record. 

We have a very distinguished Member panel today and I welcome you all. And if you would all rise, I will begin by swearing 

in the witnesses.[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. FRANKS. Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses responded in the affirmative. 

Our first witness is Congressman Peter DeFazio. Representative 

DeFazio was first elected to Congress in 1986 and currently represents Oregon’s 4th Congressional District. He serves as the 

Ranking minority Member on the House Committee on Natural Resources. Earlier this Congress, Representative DeFazio joined me 

in the effort to send a balanced budget amendment to the States 

for ratification by agreeing to be the lead cosponsor of H.J. Res. 2. 

Our second witness is Congressman Mike Coffman. Representative Coffman represents Colorado’s 6th Congressional District and 

was fist elected to Congress in 2008. Representative Coffman 

serves as the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. He is also the Chair of 

the Congressional Balanced Budget Amendment Caucus. 

Our third witness is Congressman Justin Amash. Representative 

Amash is currently serving his second term in Congress and represents Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District. Representative 

Amash is the lead sponsor of H.J. Res. 24, the Business Cycle Balanced Budget Amendment. The Business Cycle Balanced Budget 

Amendment requires a balanced budget over a 3-year business 

cycle. 

Our fourth witness is Congressman Bobby Scott. Representative 

Scott was first elected to Congress in 1992 and currently rep-
7 

resents Virginia’s 3rd Congressional District. He is a Member of 

the Judiciary Committee and serves as the Ranking minority Member on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security 

and Investigations. 

Our final witness on this panel is Congressman David 

Schweikert. Representative Schweikert represents Arizona’s 6th 

Congressional District and is serving his second term in Congress. 

He is the sponsor of H.J. Res. 10, a balanced budget amendment 

which requires the annual Federal budget to be balanced and requires a super majority to raise taxes, the debt ceiling, and for the 

Federal Government to spend no more than 18 percent of GDP in 

any fiscal year. 

I just want to welcome you all here, and we are going to begin 

our testimony now. And I would ask that each witness would summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay 

within that time, there is a timing light on your table. Some of you 

have seen it before. When the light switches from green to yellow, 

you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony, and when the 

light turns red, it signals that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

As is customary, Members will not be asked to stay to answer 

questions, and I would like to thank my colleagues sincerely for 

participating in this hearing. And I will first recognize Representative DeFazio. And I welcome all of the Members of the House participating on this panel. Mr. DeFazio? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PETER DeFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will 

deviate from my prepared remarks, but I have submitted them for 

the record. 

I strongly supported the balanced budget amendment in 1995. 

And we have heard criticisms of what could occur under a balanced budget amendment. Well, let us think about what would 

have occurred had that not failed by one vote in the Senate and 

had gone to the States and been ratified. 

Today we would be paying off the last of our national debt. 

We would have much more capability of dealing with concerns 

that I have regarding our crumbling infrastructure and other 

pressing needs of this country because we would not be burdened 

with high annual interest payments and concerns about ongoing 

and large deficits. 

The world would have been different in that, yes, the 2001 tax 

cuts could still have passed because we were in surplus at that 

point in time. But the 2003 tax cuts would have required a super 

majority to pass because we were already in deficit spending. We 

were in military conflict authorized by Congress in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we had not declared war. That is one of the defects, 

I believe, in H.J. Res. 2, although I have supported it as the best 

option out there. I think that we could improve on it. I would say 

that if we are going to deviate from a balanced budget, it should 

be under only a declaration of war. Other military conflicts should 

be paid for within the annual process, and that I think would both 

give a President and the Congress a bit more opportunity to reflect 
8 

before launching foreign adventures that are very expensive in 

terms of both lives and in terms of our Federal resources. 

Secondly, I think we could improve upon it, and Ranking Member Conyers raised legitimate concerns about Social Security. We 

should set Social Security aside, and it should be required under 

a balanced budget amendment to have 75-year actuarial balance 

within its own resources. Those resources could neither be borrowed by nor otherwise appropriated by the Congress, and it could 

not be used as an offset to the rest of the budget to make it look 

balanced. But Social Security itself should be put on a course of 75- 

year actuarial balance. And I have legislation otherwise pending 

that would do that. It has been scored by the Social Security actuaries. 

And then the debt limit. Again, I believe a defect of H.J. Res. 2 

is that it requires a simple majority to deviate from a balanced 

budget in a time of military conflict, not war, but then goes further 

to require that you have a three-fifths vote to raise the debt limit. 

One could see a situation in which we have an urgent military situation oversees, but it is not a war. A simple majority of the House 

votes to break the balanced budget cap, but then later in the year, 

we would be confronted with the need for a three-fifths majority to 

deal with the debt limit. I believe that those things should be 

equivalent, and that is a further problem. 

But, my experience is I came here opposed to a balanced budget 

amendment, and after I had gone through two budget cycles and 

watched particularly the debate over the mobile missile and the 

Midgetman missile, both proposed, very expensive systems. Congress in those days had real debates. We would debate the DOD 

bill for weeks. We had days of debate over that. We had votes on 

it. And in the end, Congress decided, well, it is a choice between 

a Midgetman and a mobile missile. We will do both because there 

was no concern for the cost, and people did not want to decide between the two. We need to make those tough decisions. Day in, day 

out, we need to make tough decisions. You cannot pretend you can 

balance the budget without revenues, and you cannot pretend that 

we can spend in deficit forever. 

So I believe that we need a well thought out constitutional 

amendment to require a balanced budget in order to make Congress do its job. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:] 
9 
10 
11 
12 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. 

Congressman Coffman for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MIKE COFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my written remarks 

for the record. 

I think any balanced budget amendment to the United States 

Constitution is, I think, the greatest thing that the Congress of the 

United States can do to change the political culture in Washington, 

to improve, to reform Washington, D.C. by stripping the power 

away from the Congress to continually spend money that we do not 

have as a country. The vast majority of State and local governments throughout the United States have a requirement for a balanced budget, and I think having a requirement like that promotes 

bipartisanship by virtue of requiring all parties to come together at 

the end of the day and decide what the priorities of government are 

given the resources that are there. 

I think we have a limited window of opportunity in which to 

change the trajectory of this country in terms of its growing debt 

and the problems that will come from that. And I think we are 

going to be pressed fairly soon when interest rates normalize. They 

are artificially low now. I think we are spending—last fiscal year, 

we spent $221 billion on servicing our debt. And once interest rates 

normalize, that amount is going to dramatically grow and crowd 

out other programs of Government. 

I think that the cost of doing business in the United States is already very high when we talk about taxes, when we talk about the 

regulatory burdens. I think it has denied young people that are 

coming into the workforce now economic opportunities that folks 

like me had, and placing an additional burden of debt on them and 

future generations beyond that I think is very unfair. 

I think a balanced budget to the Constitution has to encompass 

all spending, only to exclude that which is necessary in the event 

of a declaration of war where the country is at war. But outside 

of that, I think the Congress of the United States has to make 

tough choices in terms of spending. 

I remember the President of the United States coming to House 

Republicans, a meeting behind closed doors, to talk about the debt 

situation a while back, and I remember him saying that he really 

did not think it was all that bad when you look at debt-to-GDP ratios historically like in 1945, that it really was not that out of line 

where we are today. But if you look at 1945, the last year of the 

Second World War, the minute that the war was over practically 

in August 1945, you get a very steep decline in Federal spending. 

If you look at our spending right now, the vast majority of it is 

essentially now what we call mandatory spending, and that is entitlement spending, if you will. What Congress does is plants the 

seeds in terms of defining eligibility for a specific program, then 

whoever meets that criteria is funded. We do not argue that in annual appropriation bills. And so right now in the last fiscal year, 

59 percent of all spending was in the mandatory category, 6 percent interest on the debt, 17 percent non-defense discretionary 
13 

spending, 18 percent defense spending. And what we see moving 

forward is that mandatory spending is going to grow and it is going 

to crowd out the rest of the spending. 

We have a limited window of opportunity in terms of time. We 

can make really minor changes now that will make very significant 

changes down the road in terms of the trajectory of spending and 

of debt. When we look at recent programs like the Medicaid program, the expansion of Medicaid, we could, I think, have a more 

effective program, cost-effective program by delegating more power 

to the States in terms of the administration of that program. I 

think Washington tries to do too much, and I think in the effort 

of doing that, does not do a lot of things very well. And I think we 

can rely more on States to do that. 

I think again if we look at Greece and what has happened to 

them where they have had to make really draconian decisions, 

given their debt-to-GDP ratios, I think we are clearly not there yet. 

We are headed in that direction. We have got to change the trajectory of spending. And again, I think we can make modest changes 

now that will make dramatic changes down the road. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coffman follows:] 
14 
15 
16 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Coffman. 

And we now recognize Mr. Amash. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JUSTIN AMASH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. AMASH. Thank you, Acting Chairman Franks, Ranking Member Conyers, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity 

to be here. 

I would also like to thank Chairman Goodlatte, who is walking 

in right now, for his leadership on this issue. 

We all understand the Federal Government’s budget problems, 

but we also recognize how difficult it is to prioritize responsibly 

without knowing that our work will ultimately matter. Building 

consensus, forging compromises, and taking tough votes are difficult if they can be undone easily. 

That is why I support amending the U.S. Constitution to require 

balanced budgets. We should be cautious about changing the Constitution, however, and a BBA in particular must be carefully 

drafted. 

First, it must be clear, simple, concise, and general. Most of the 

Constitution establishes broad principles and we fill in the details 

with legislation. 

Second, it must be narrowly tailored. A balanced budget amendment should not impose substantive policy such as requiring a 

super majority to raise taxes or capping spending as a percentage 

of GDP. A balanced budget amendment should require overall 

spending and revenue to match up. That is it. 

Keeping it focused is good politics too. Constitutional amendments require the support of two-thirds of both houses of Congress 

and 38 State legislatures. They must be bipartisan to succeed. 

It also has to be workable. Michigan’s budget must balance every 

year. In the Michigan House, we had quarterly budget meetings to 

adjust programs as spending and revenue estimates changed. It is 

too much uncertainty. 

In addition, we need flexibility to address emergencies. A BBA 

needs a safety valve that is tight enough to avoid abuse but loose 

enough to be usable. 

Finally, a reasonable path to balance is vital. Many reforms start 

with small savings and build over time. Establishing the necessary 

trust and confidence grows gradually too. 

I would like to turn to the proposal I have introduced, H.J. Res. 

24. It meets the standards I have mentioned and has substantial 

bipartisan support. 

I call H.J. Res. 24 the Business Cycle Balanced Budget Amendment because it balances over the business cycle instead of every 

year. Spending is based on the rolling average of revenue from the 

3 prior years. Policies stay predictable not only because averaging 

tames revenue fluctuations but also because it does not rely on estimates that can shift. 

It lets Congress choose any level of government spending and 

revenue. Lower taxes with a smaller government providing fewer 

services is possible, as is a larger government providing more serv-
17 

ices with higher taxes. I think you can guess which approach I prefer. The only non-option is perpetual deficits. 

It lets fiscal policy be countercyclical. When a recession hits, 

spending is still based on the pre-recession boom years. This mechanism allows for temporary deficits. As the economy recovers, however, spending begins to incorporate the recession-year revenue, 

producing small surpluses in the good years. 

Setting spending this way provides the predictability and stability I have mentioned while also letting revenue changes feed into 

spending quickly. 

The idea is to focus Congress on structural balance and longterm prioritization instead of on constant tinkering. Deficits from 

recessions and emergencies are offset by surpluses in good years. 

As for the safety valve, emergency spending requires a two-thirds 

vote in Congress, the normal constitutional super majority. Conversations I have had with Democrats and Republican Members 

suggest that it is the right standard. 

The Business Cycle BBA allows a full decade to reach balance 

after ratification. As I said, setting national priorities and realizing 

savings takes time. It lets us phase out deficits faster, of course, 

but a smoother transition might be worth taking a little longer. 

The Business Cycle Balanced Budget Amendment has strong bipartisan support. Republican cosponsors have included members of 

the Republican Study Committee and the Tuesday Group. Democratic cosponsors have been members of the Blue Dog Coalition, the 

New Democrat Coalition, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. 

The Business Cycle Balanced Budget Amendment may be the 

BBA with the broadest support. Only 6 of the 14 Democrats that 

cosponsored it last Congress voted for the balanced budget amendment that was brought to the floor. Additional Members told me 

they would vote for the Business Cycle BBA if it came to the floor. 

We need to balance our budget and end the downward spiral into 

debt. I am convinced that it will take a constitutional amendment, 

and congressional support already exists for the right proposal. We 

need the confidence that our return to fiscal responsibility and sustainability will endure. That is why I support a well-crafted balanced budget amendment. 

Thank you again for having me here today. I look forward to continuing to work with all of you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Amash follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

Mr. GOODLATTE [presiding]. Thank you, Congressman Amash. 

Congressman Scott, welcome to your own Committee. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

VIRGINIA 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Conyers. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the idea of a socalled balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. 

Reducing our deficit and balancing our budget is a goal for every 

Member on this panel, and I worry that we get distracted by the 

title of these amendments without having any serious discussion 

about whether the proposed provisions will actually help balance 

the budget. If we are going to balance the budget, it is going to require some tough votes on the budget, and many of those votes will 

be career-ending votes. 

One of the first votes I cast as a Member of Congress was on the 

Clinton 1993 budget. It included tax increases and spending cuts, 

all of which were unpopular, but that is how you get to a balance— 

spending cuts and tax increases. Not one Republican voted for it. 

Vice President Gore had to break the tie in the Senate. And when 

the 218th vote was cast in the House by then Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, the Republicans did not say ‘‘way to go,’’ 

but ‘‘you have got to go’’ and chanted ‘‘bye-bye, Marjorie.’’ That vote 

was used to defeat her and 53 other House Democrats the following 

year. But that is what happens when you vote for a budget that 

actually goes into balance. Some Members are going to lose their 

seats. 

Needless to say, the 1993 vote was a tough vote, but it created 

millions of jobs. The Dow Jones Industrial average more than tripled and led to the first balanced budget in a generation with surpluses on track to have paid off the entire debt held by the public 

by 6 years ago. That is how you balance the budget. Tough, careerending votes, not with titles to constitutional amendments. So rather than discuss the title, we should be discussing the provisions 

and whether the provisions of the legislation will help pass responsible legislation or even hurt. 

The fact is that many proposed constitutional amendments will 

make it all but impossible to pass serious deficit reduction similar 

to the Clinton budget. Such provisions, for example, that require a 

three-fifths vote of both houses or a super majority to enact new 

revenues. Now, let us talk arithmetic. If you are going to balance 

the budget, raising taxes will help balance the budget. Requiring 

a super majority may be good policy for some Members for some 

reasons, but suggesting that it will help balance the budget is absolutely absurd. 

Most of the proposals require the budget not in balance can be 

passed by a three-fifths vote by the whole number of the House and 

Senate. Every budget we considered this year was not in balance 

the first year. So all of the budgets would have required a super 

majority to pass. The Ryan budget only passed with 219 votes. It 

should be obvious that serious deficit reduction will be harder to 

pass with a three-fifths super majority than a simple majority. And 

let us note that these constitutional amendments do not strip away 
24 

Congress’ right to go into deficit. They just provide a three-fifths 

vote to pass what in likelihood will be any budget that we are 

going to consider. And so it is clear that the provisions—when we 

ask the question of whether the three-fifths majority is likely to 

pass a fiscally responsible budget or fiscally irresponsible budget, 

we have got to note that once you go into the budget requiring a 

three-fifths vote, there is no limit to how irresponsible you can be. 

Now, the evidence on this is clear. The 2013 fiscal cliff deal, 

which permanently extended most of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax 

cuts, got a three-fifths vote, notwithstanding the fact that it added 

$3.9 trillion to the deficit. Incredibly most of the no votes in going 

$3.9 trillion further in the ditch—most of the no votes were no because the tax cut was not big enough. 

And so some of the proposals even require a super majority to 

spend more than a certain percentage of the GDP. Eighteen percent is one proposal. The GDP has not been below 18 percent since 

Medicare was passed. So if you pass that provision, there will be 

significant pressure on Social Security and Medicare, and you could 

cut Social Security and Medicare to shore up the program. You can 

cut on a simple majority, but to save it with new revenue, you need 

the super majority. That might make sense if your goal is to cut 

Social Security and Medicare, but to save them, that is not such 

a good idea. 

Many proposals require a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. Anybody that was around the last time we raised the debt ceiling ought to know that is not a good idea. 

Finally, I would note that the provisions found in these proposals 

are not what is in State budgets. In testimony before this Committee in 2011, one former Governor testifying on behalf of balanced budget amendments acknowledged that none of the proposals in the constitutional amendments before the Committee at 

that time were in his State constitution, no three-fifths required to 

pass a budget, no super majority to raise taxes, no three-fifths requirement to borrow money, no total balance without an exception 

for capital spending. He had been testifying about the title, not the 

provisions in any of the proposals before us. Mr. Chairman, we 

should not be distracted by misleading titles, but we should notice 

that the provisions of the proposals before us would drastically encumber an already difficult process to responsibly reduce the deficit. 

Balancing the budget is a good idea, but we have got to recognize 

that it often requires tough, career-ending votes. The provisions in 

these balanced budget amendments will not make such votes more 

likely, will in fact make passage of responsible budgets less likely, 

and will make our fiscal situation even worse. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Congressman Scott. 

Congressman Schweikert, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DAVID SCHWEIKERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. I appreciate 

the opportunity to be here and actually share and actually listen 

to my fellow colleagues. 

Fellow Members, I have only been here 31⁄2 years, and I am 

growing to believe that we operate in a mathematical bubble that 

is filled with delusion. 

In 9 fiscal years, 78 percent of our spending will be in the mandatory category. Nine fiscal years. That means what you and I get 

to vote on in the discretionary will be down to 22 percent in 9 fiscal 

years. Fourteen percent of that mandatory spending is going to be 

in interest. Twenty-two percent will be in discretionary. Fourteen 

percent will in interest, and that is assuming that interest rates 

stay within their historic mean. 

Understand how fragile we are making our republic by what is 

going on right now. And if you truly, truly care about the social 

contracts of Social Security, Medicare, walking into that type of fragility from a financial standpoint is malfeasance if not misfeasance. 

This is the reality we are up against. 

In my resolution, we have actually gone in H.J. Res. 10—we have 

actually tried to deal with some of the realities. And one of the realities we have to accept is the spending lobbies we all face. How 

do you move into a balanced budget world when we will have so 

many pressures put upon us, as actually Representative Scott even 

spoke to? Do we do what is easy? Do we say we will push this to 

the States and make that part of their burden? Do we create special categories? Do we game parts of the system? How do you design a balanced budget amendment that deals with the realities of 

the structures we have created around us? 

In my balanced budget, I have tried to address both human nature, the structures we are in, the mandatory spending, and our 

entitlement obligations. How do you reach out and have the States 

have a voice? How do you reach out and make sure that each Member, when we start to game the definitions of what is balanced and 

what is not, that each one of you will have the right to have a 

cause of action? 

One of the reasons for creating each of these layers within my 

balanced budget amendment is trying to think forward to what our 

world will look like, what our budgets will look like, what this 

country’s fiscal situation will be when the pressures from both the 

spending lobbies, our entitlement obligations with the demographic 

curve that is ahead of us, and at the same time, trying to find a 

way to actually keep our promise, keep a constitutional amendment 

functioning. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will submit in writing much 

more detailed comments. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schweikert follows:] 
29 
30 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Congressman Schweikert. 

And I want to thank all the Members on the panel for their testimony. And as I indicated or Mr. Franks indicated earlier and as 

is customary, the Members will not be asked to stay and answer 

questions. So thank you all for your contribution and for your participation today. And you are excused. 

And we will now welcome our distinguished second panel today. 

We will give the clerk a moment to reset the table. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We want to welcome our panel. 

If you will all rise, and as is customary, we will begin by swearing in the witnesses. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect 

that all the witnesses responded in the affirmative. 

And I will now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness on this 

panel is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President of American Action Forum. 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin has served as the sixth Director of the nonpartisan 

Congressional Budget Office, the Chief Economist for the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, and as a commissioner on the 

congressionally chartered Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. 

Prior to his public service, he held academic positions at Princeton, 

Columbia, and Syracuse Universities. 

Our second witness is Henry Aaron, the MacLaury Senior Fellow 

in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution. Dr. Aaron served 

as Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare during the Carter administration, and from 1967 to 1989, was a professor of economics at the 

University of Maryland. He is a member of the board of the Center 

on Budget and Policy Priorities and on the Advisory Committee of 

the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. 

Our final witness is David Primo, a professor at the University 

of Rochester and a senior scholar at the Mercatus Center at George 

Mason University. He received his doctorate in political science 

from Stanford University. His research focuses on American politics, Government spending, and campaign finance. Dr. Primo has 

authored or co-authored several journal articles and policy reports, 

as well as three books, including Rules and Restraint: Government 

Spending and the Design of Institutions. 

I would ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony 

in 5 minutes or less. And to help you stay within that time, there 

is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green 

to yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When 

the light turns red, that is it. You are done. Your time has expired. 

And we hope you will honor that timing. 

And we will begin with Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, Ph.D., 

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ACTION FORUM 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Committee. It is a privilege to be here today to discuss the balanced budget amendment. 

In my written testimony, I make four points that I will summarize briefly. 
31 

Point number one is there is a real problem that needs to be addressed. The U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. 

Point number two is that around the world, fiscal rules embedded in constitutions and other legal frameworks have been a successful strategy for dealing with such problems. 

Point number three is you can think of the balanced budget 

amendment as one type of fiscal rule, and its characteristics are 

consistent with successful rules. 

And then the last point is there are a number of traditional concerns about implementation of a constitutional amendment regarding military emergencies, economic distress, and recent versions of 

most BBAs’ attempt to address those. 

Let me say a little bit about each. 

Point number one. You have already heard from the first panel 

characterizations of the U.S. fiscal outlook. You can look at the 

most recent Congressional Budget Office 10-year projection or the 

long-term budget outlook that they just put out, and what you see 

is a dire fiscal outlook. We have a temporary respite for a year or 

2, and then we see an unending rise in mandatory spending. We 

see a continuous rise in the interest costs of servicing the debt. We 

see debt-to-GDP ratios on an unending upward spiral. And this picture overwhelms even a return to above traditional levels of revenue in the United States. The upshot is that we run tremendous 

economic risks with this budget outlook. We could ultimately see 

a sovereign debt crisis if we do not change course, and I believe we 

will begin to see consequences for economic growth much sooner, 

perhaps even now, as global investors recognize that we are on an 

unsustainable trajectory. 

The second point is that fiscal rules have helped. There is a PewPeterson Commission report that I reference in my written testimony that looks around the globe and looks at places like the Netherlands and Sweden where they have adopted these kinds of rules, 

and they essentially solve the problem that Congress with the best 

of intentions often passes rules. We have seen it in the U.S. We 

have the sustainable growth rate mechanism in Medicare, and 

every year we override the rule. We have had PAYGO rules, and 

we override the PAYGO rules. We have had caps. And right now, 

we have caps again on discretionary spending. And it will be my 

forecast that a future Congress will break those caps. It is very difficult for Congress to tie its own hands. The fiscal rules stop that. 

The features that work in fiscal rules, the things to look for is 

they have to directly address the problem. The second thing they 

have to do is they have to link between what the Members of Congress, the policymakers, do and the fiscal rule outcome, a clear connection so you can see actions and results. And the third, it has 

to be transparent to the public and they have to buy into this. 

What does the balanced budget amendment look like from this 

perspective? Clearly, our previous fiscal rules have not worked. 

This would have the advantage of being embedded in the Constitution, much more difficult for any Congress to override. The process 

for getting rid of a constitutional amendment is very long. So once 

it was there, it would be hard to override it. There is a clear link 

between budgets passed in Congress and the fiscal rule. They have 

to balance. That is very easy to understand. It addresses the prob-
32 

lem, which is not emergency spending that has been piling up or 

recessions that have been piling up. The problem is sustained rises 

in mandatory spending. This would focus on the long-term path in 

a systematic way. And it is a process of ratification whereby House, 

Senate, 38 States, Republicans, Democrats would generate the education that would make it transparent to the public about what 

this rule was. And so it has those characteristics. 

The last point is simply that there are many people who express 

what I view as legitimate concerns about this being overly restrictive in times of national emergency, either military or economic. 

And there are a variety of proposals to allow super majorities in 

the House and the Senate to override the balance requirement in 

those circumstances. These strike me as good things for the Committee to think hard about because these contingencies will arise 

in the future. There is no way to avoid that, and you want to have 

anticipated them in the design of the balanced budget amendment. 

So to summarize, I do not think everyone starts out thinking 

about economic and budgetary policy with the idea that we should 

amend the Constitution to have a balanced budget. But I have 

ended up there because it is a strategy that has been successful 

around the globe. The strategies we have employed in the United 

States have not worked, and I think we should build on what we 

know about other countries’ success here in the United States. 

I thank you and I look forward to the chance to answer your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtz-Eakin follows:] 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Dr. Holtz-Eakin. 

Dr. Aaron, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF HENRY J. AARON, Ph.D., BRUCE AND VIRGINIA 

MacLAURY SENIOR FELLOW, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Mr. AARON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking 

Member, Committee Members. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

this morning. 

Balanced budget amendments have been around for a long time 

because they appeal to a universally accepted virtue of fiscal responsibility. Still, I believe that Congress should not send House 

joint resolutions 1 or 2 to the States for ratification for at least five 

separate reasons. 

First, deficits are sometimes beneficial, and that is not just during declared wars, but also during economic slowdowns. If either 

H.J. Res. 1 or 2 had been in effect during the recent financial crisis, they would have required either that taxes be increased or 

spending cuts in ways that would have intensified unemployment 

and hammered GDP. The constitutional amendments proposed in 

these resolutions would have become automatic destabilizers 

threatening perverse tax and expenditure policy that would raise 

unemployment and destabilize financial markets unless avoided by 

super majority votes. To require a super majority vote to avoid perverse policy is folly. Even if a super majority were eventually 

achieved, recession-fighting actions would be delayed by many 

months. 

Second, requiring a super majority to raise the debt ceiling or to 

run a deficit is a veritable summons to political extortion by an intransigent minority. Two-fifths of either house could block action 

unless its pet plans were enacted. This threat has no political allegiance. It could be wielded on behalf of small Government or large 

Government, lower taxes or higher taxes, lower spending or higher 

spending. 

Third, the deficit and debt ceiling provisions of H.J. Res. 1 and 

2 would prevent access to Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance funds when needed to sustain benefits unless the rest of 

the budget was not just balanced but was in surplus unless, that 

is, three-fifths of the whole membership of both houses agreed to 

sustain pensions for the elderly and disabled. A similar problem 

could stymie important Government activities vital to combat financial panic just when they are most needed. 

Fourth, a Congress constrained by the limits of H.J. Res. 1 or 2 

but anxious to accomplish some agreed objective would inevitably 

resort to all manner of devices that would circumvent those limits 

in ways that led to inefficient Government. Spending could become 

tax credits, seeming to lower both spending and revenues, or unfunded mandates on State governments. No one who is interested 

in honest Government should encourage elected officials to find devious ways to accomplish objectives that are geared to them. 

Finally, Mr. Goodlatte, I must note that just 3 years ago you proposed an earlier version of H.J. Res. 1 to limit Government spending to 18 percent of economic output. Now you propose a limit of 

20 percent of economic output. That is $345 billion a year more 

than the limit you proposed just 3 years ago when you would have 
41 

made such spending a violation of the Constitution. Perhaps—just 

maybe—at some future date, in light of new and better information, you might change your mind again. Legislation, not a constitutional amendment, should be used to implement spending limits that can change so much and so fast, as you have changed your 

mind on how much the Federal Government should be allowed to 

spend. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aaron follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Dr. Aaron. And since you have referenced me, I will take the opportunity to correct you immediately. 

My position has not changed. 

Mr. AARON. I have a copy of H.J. Res. 1 that was presented to 

the House that—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. That was amended in Committee. 

Mr. AARON. Okay, fine. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. That was not amended by me changing the bill. 

It was amended by the—— 

Mr. AARON. I stand corrected. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. Consensus of this Committee. 

Thank you, Dr. Aaron. 

Dr. Primo, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID PRIMO, Ph.D., ANI AND MARK 

GABRELLIAN PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER 

Mr. PRIMO. Thank you very much. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking 

Member Conyers, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

inviting me here today to discuss the need for a constitutional 

amendment to help achieve credible and sustainable fiscal reform. 

My three-part message today is simple. First, the current budgetary status quo is simply unacceptable and must change. Second, 

the short-run focus in politics, combined with this institution’s prerogatives with respect to rules, make achieving this change in the 

form of durable, long-term reform an elusive goal. Third, a constitutional amendment, if properly designed, can create the pathway for Congress to do what is needed to place the United States’ 

fiscal finances on firm ground. 

So, first, why is a change in fiscal course necessary? Well, as we 

have already heard today, we have made promises to current and 

future generations that we have no hope of fulfilling given current 

revenue streams. Just to throw out another number, the U.S. 

Treasury estimates that the national debt will approach 250 percent of GDP by 2080. Now, for the record, I do not believe this estimate. Not worth the paper it is printed on. Now, it is not that I 

dispute the Treasury’s calculations. It is just that the Government’s 

finances, the U.S. economy, or both will implode long before we 

ever get to that point. This estimate and long-term projections from 

the Congressional Budget Office and others send a clear message: 

the current path is not sustainable. 

So what do we do? Well, to get on a stable fiscal path and stay 

there, Congress needs to act quickly and credibly. The solutions, 

which must include some reform to entitlements, will not be easy 

to implement. As all of you know all too well, short-run pain for 

long-run gain is a difficult sell politically. What is worse, the longer 

Congress waits to act, the more difficult reform will be. Financial 

advisors tell us that the earlier we start saving for important goals 

like retirement or our children’s education, the easier it will be to 

achieve those goals. Well, while the Federal Government’s budget 

is different than a household’s budget in many ways, in this case 

the analogy is apt. 

Now, even if these political hurdles can be overcome, Congress 

faces still another obstacle. Itself. Congress, unlike a corporation, 

cannot write a contract that binds future Members. This is true 
50 

with respect both to substantive reforms like changes to entitlements and process reforms like budget rules. What Congress does 

today a future Congress can undo tomorrow. 

And this is where the Constitution comes in. A well-designed 

constitutional amendment would place permanent, truly enforceable limits on Congress’ ability to tax and spend. Just as importantly, it would create an environment under which the question 

for Members would no longer be whether to fix the Nation’s problems but rather how to do so. 

The promise of a constitutional rule as an enforcement mechanism lies in its durability, but this durability is also a peril. Bad 

rules can be locked in just as good rules can be. While there are 

many ways to structure a constitutional amendment, there are certain features that all worthwhile proposals should possess. 

First, a constitutional amendment needs to be flexible to account 

for major disruptions like war. At the same time, the amendment 

also needs to be precise to prevent illegitimate end runs around its 

provisions. It needs to clearly define spending and revenue, for example, and specify how those figures will be calculated. I do not believe these definitions should be left to implementing legislation. 

That is when the mischief might set in. 

Finally, the amendment should account for economic ups and 

downs by setting targets or limits based on a multiyear period on 

long-term economic performance. A key advantage of this smoothing approach is fewer sudden changes to Government programs. 

Of course, nothing is perfect, and as we have seen today, skeptics 

of constitutional budget rules criticize them in several ways. 

First, they point to specific design flaws such as requirements 

that a budget has to be balanced year in and year out. These sorts 

of critiques reinforce the need for careful rule design, but they do 

not support outright rejection of constitutional reform. 

Others worry about U.S. Supreme Court overreach if it is given 

the authority to adjudicate disputes over the amendment. These 

concerns about Court enforcement can be addressed by limiting 

remedies and clarifying which parties have standing. Moreover, the 

clearer you make the balanced budget amendment or other constitutional budget rule, the less leeway the Court will have in interpreting it. 

Finally, some analysts claim that process reform cannot force a 

consensus where none exists. Yet, this is precisely the point of a 

constitutional budget rule, to force change when change makes— 

when politics makes change difficult. 

In closing, amending the U.S. Constitution is a serious step for 

the country and one fraught with political and procedural challenges. We are unlikely to achieve credible, long-term budget 

changes, however, without such a drastic measure. 

Thank you again for inviting me here to testify today. I welcome 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Primo follows:] 
51 
52 
53 
54 

———— 

See Appendix for supplemental material submitted with this statement. 
55 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you all for your testimony. 

I will begin with the questioning and I will begin with a quote 

from the person who I attribute raising the alarm bells about debt 

and who I think would very much agree with our concern. This is 

not a new idea at all. In 1798, just 9 years after our Constitution 

took effect, Thomas Jefferson said, ‘‘I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution; I would be willing to 

depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our 

government . . . , I mean an additional article taking from the 

federal government the power of borrowing.’’ 

Later in 1821, he said there does not exist an engine so corruptive of the Government and so demoralizing of the Nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies 

from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us. 

In a letter to James Madison at the time of the writing of our 

Constitution or shortly thereafter, he said, then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in 

its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts 

and encumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. 

For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would 

belong to the dead and not to the living generation. To preserve the 

independence of the people, we must not let our rulers load us with 

perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and 

liberty or profusion and servitude. 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin, Members of Congress have been proposing a 

balanced budget amendment for decades, and amendments passed 

the Senate in 1982 and the House in 1995. How does the Federal 

Government’s fiscal outlook today compare to 1982 or 1995 when 

those balanced budget amendments passed one house of Congress? 

What is the danger of waiting another 30 years to adopt a balanced 

budget amendment? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. The fiscal picture is considerably worse in two 

very specific ways. The first, the level of debt is much higher even 

relative to GDP, and the second, the majority of spending is now 

in the mandatory programs not the discretionary programs. And so 

year-to-year changes are much harder to accomplish at this point 

in time. And the baby boom has now retired. The future is here in 

terms of the demographic shift. So I would say that our fiscal outlook is immeasurably worse than at those points in time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. You are the former head of the CBO and are a 

longtime observer of Federal budget policy. In your experience, 

have you seen any statutory caps, goals, or cuts that have had the 

same type of long-term effect in getting Federal deficit spending 

under control that a balanced budget amendment could have? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. No. As I noted in my testimony, the U.S. does 

not have a budget. It often does not have budget resolutions in either the House or the Senate. There is nothing that makes discretionary and mandatory spending and taxes add up in any systematic way. A balanced budget amendment would accomplish that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Dr. Primo, for decades the Federal Government has run deficits 

during good economic times and bad, and in both Republican and 

Democrat administrations despite the fact that Americans overwhelmingly believe the deficit is a problem. What is the cause of 
56 

this systemic deficit spending and how would a balanced budget 

amendment address the problem? 

Mr. PRIMO. The challenge that legislators face is that going home 

to your district and saying that you have balanced the budget, if 

it means that you also have to tell your district that a program was 

cut or you had to make some hard choices on Medicare or Social 

Security, it is just a very difficult sell to make politically. So it is 

always much easier to say we will balance the budget tomorrow. 

Today let us preserve this program that my constituents care a lot 

about. 

The deficit is this amorphous thing to most Americans. Even 

though they do support balancing the budget, if you start asking, 

you know, do you support cutting Medicare, do you support even 

adjusting Medicare—forget about cuts. Most people are not talking 

about cutting Medicare, just talking about reducing the increase in 

growth. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So if you are required to make the tough decisions, it is actually easier for Members to take those tough—— 

Mr. PRIMO. The balanced budget amendment or any sort of constitutional budget rule essentially gives politicians cover. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Is that the experience of the States? Do State 

experiences with balanced budget amendments offer us any insights into the feasibility of a Federal balanced budget amendment? Forty-nine out of fifty States have such a requirement. 

Mr. PRIMO. Absolutely. The States are models of fiscal responsibility compared to the Federal Government, and that is due in part 

to the fact that they face many more constraints, including balanced budget rules. Now, things are not perfect at the State level, 

but the U.S. Federal Government would be in much better shape 

if it had the same profile that the States had in terms of fiscal responsibility. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Dr. Aaron, since 1960 the Federal Government has run a budget 

deficit in all but 6 fiscal years. That is 6 out of 54 that we balanced 

the budget. Obviously, previous attempts to control spending have 

not offered a long-term solution. Do you have a suggested enforcement mechanism to prevent the Federal Government from regularly running annual budget deficits that have led us to a $17.5 

trillion national debt? 

Mr. AARON. I think there is no substitute for responsible leadership and courage by Members of Congress. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Agreed, but 49 out of 50 States have this supplement to their courage. 

Mr. AARON. 49 out of 50 States are beholden to Standard & 

Poor’s and Moody’s. They are the disciplines which require balance 

and fiscal responsibility among the States because if they fail to do 

so, they pay a very high price. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. You do not think that same economic law applies to the Federal Government? 

Mr. AARON. Not at all, as we have seen very clearly. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I have seen the—— 

Mr. AARON. The Federal Government is borrowing at close to a 

0 interest rate today despite these deficits, many of which I share 

your concern about, let me emphasize. And I want to see a program 
57 

to bring the budget under control over the long haul, as well as you 

do. But the fact of the matter—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, the House has passed budgets the last 3 

years that lead to balance. The Senate has not done so. The President has not proposed one. What is it that will force them to look 

at the economic reality? 

And I would agree with you that you cannot balance the budget 

every year, and I would agree with you that sometimes incurring 

debt is a good idea. The very man that I admire and cited here borrowed money to purchase the Louisiana Territory with the approval of the Congress. So there should be exceptions, obviously, 

but that does not mean the exceptions should swallow the rule, 

which is what I think is happening to us here in recent generations. 

Mr. AARON. Was there a question in there? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I just want to know if you agree with that statement or not. 

Mr. AARON. I am not sure which part of it, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. Well, my time has expired. 

And so we will turn to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Let me make a short statement and ask 

a couple of questions. 

I take issue with the fundamental premise of this hearing. 

Since 2010, deficits have been on a sharp downward path from 

10 percent of GDP in the first post-Bush budget set by this Congress when Bush was still President to 4 percent of GDP in 2013. 

By next year, the deficit will fall to about 2 percent of GDP, less 

than the average of the 4 decades from 1969 to 2008, and stay 

there probably at least to 2018. 

From my point of view, the deficit has come down too far, too 

fast. It has held down economic progress, and I wish our deficit 

were a little higher than it is now. But 2-3 percent of GDP is fine 

because at that level, your national debt, assuming a reasonable 

economic growth rate, is not increasing relative to the size of the 

economy at all. 

We are not facing any immediate escalation of the deficit. In fact, 

the exact opposite is true. The deficit is reasonably under control 

now. 

I have a number of questions for Dr. Aaron. 

First, if we pass the balanced budget amendment, aside from the 

fact that it would prohibit us from doing anything to recover from 

recessions, it would have turned the 2008 recession into a depression, and so forth because you cannot take any countercyclical 

moves, what would the effect on Social Security and Medicare be 

of a balanced budget amendment? 

Mr. AARON. Well, currently—let us break Social Security up into 

its two component pieces, disability insurance and old age and survivors’ insurance. 

As we speak, the disability insurance program is dipping into its 

trust fund, selling off securities in order to sustain current benefits. 

If the disability insurance fund were barred from doing that, as it 

would be if there were a debt ceiling because when the disability 

insurance fund cashes in the bonds by selling them into the Treas-
58 

ury, the Treasury then has to sell them to the general public, and 

the debt limit in this proposal applies to debt held by the public. 

So that transaction would be foreclosed. And unless there was a 

three-fifths majority of the whole membership of both houses—— 

Mr. NADLER. Which would mean 40 percent could blackmail the 

rest of the country. 

Mr. AARON. I am sorry? 

Mr. NADLER. Which would mean that 40 percent could blackmail 

the rest of the country. 

Mr. AARON. Precisely. Unless that vote was forthcoming, disability insurance benefits would have to be cut by about 20 percent 

this year. 

Currently Social Security is still running a cash flow surplus 

counting its interest income, but starting in 2022, it too would 

be—— 

Mr. NADLER. The balanced budget amendment, to make it short, 

would make it impossible under a lot of circumstances to pay Social 

Security as envisioned. 

Mr. AARON. That is correct. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Second, 49 of the 50 States have balanced budget amendments. 

New York passed one in 1847. I was not there to vote for it. Is it 

not true, though, that these balanced budget amendments all refer 

only to operating budgets and permit borrowing for capital budgets 

and that the proposed balanced budget amendment on the Federal 

level is completely different because it would say in effect that unless you have an extraordinary vote for an emergency, you cannot 

borrow money for any purpose, capital or operating? 

Mr. AARON. The State balanced budget requirements differ in 

many respects. Some of them are only prospective. The budget has 

to be balanced going into the year, but in fact, it can be in deficit. 

As you mentioned, borrowing for capital purposes is frequently permitted. And the fact of the matter is every State of the Union has 

substantial debt outstanding. Their ability to service that debt as 

evaluated by the bond rating houses varies widely, and it is that 

discipline that holds them—— 

Mr. NADLER. But a balanced budget amendment on the Federal 

level would, in effect, say that except for extraordinary circumstances like a war or a three-fifths vote, you cannot borrow 

money for any purpose. 

Mr. AARON. Beyond whatever the ceiling is set in the law. 

Mr. NADLER. No. You cannot borrow money—— 

Mr. AARON. That is right. If it is a balanced budget, then you 

cannot borrow for any—— 

Mr. NADLER. You cannot borrow money. Does that make any economic sense at all? 

Mr. AARON. I think the key point here is that the Federal Government has responsibilities that require a measure of flexibility 

from year to year. Embedding in the Constitution hard and fast 

rules, however cleverly crafted, is going to create very serious obstacles to sound policy under all kinds of different situations. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Let me just make one observation before my time runs out. I 

agree with the Chairman when he said that Congress cannot enact 
59 

laws to bind our successors. That is correct, and thank God for 

that. We should not bind into the Constitution things that bind our 

successors except for fundamental liberties and the means of getting things done, a process, how Government operates. But specific 

economic doctrines, which we may agree with today but we may 

find in 30 or 40 years that people disagree with, should not be 

bound into the Constitution. As one of the Justices said, the Constitution does not enact the laws of Herbert Spencer into the Constitution, for those who remember 19th economists, and we should 

not enact the doctrines of 20th or 21st century economists or of 

ourselves into the Constitution to bind our successors who may find 

that they disagree, and they should have the freedom—our successors 20, 30, 40, 70 years from now should have the freedom to 

make their own decisions. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, good to have you with us this morning. 

Dr. Primo, let me ask you a question. If the Federal Government 

does not change its course on deficit spending, what will the effect 

be on discretionary spending? 

Mr. PRIMO. The effect on discretionary spending will essentially 

be to crowd it out even more than it is already being crowded out. 

As already discussed, in 5-10 years, discretionary spending will 

comprise an even smaller share of the budget than it currently 

does, and if things do not change, in 30 or 40 years, there is basically going to be no room in the budget for discretionary spending. 

Mr. COBLE. Anyone else want to be heard on that question? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I think this is a very important issue in the 

following sense. The discussion about binding the future is a serious consideration, but the way mandatory spending is set up, we 

are binding the hands of future voters, future Congresses to have 

no flexibility to enact national priorities of their own because they 

will have to honor these mandatory spending commitments. And 

that is a serious restriction on their ability to run this country. 

Mr. COBLE. Dr. Aaron? 

Mr. AARON. I think it is important to recognize that we do face 

in all likelihood the need to take measures either to raise taxes or 

cut spending in order to prevent excessive deficits in the future. 

But I want to emphasize the uncertainty here. The Congressional 

Budget Office in 2002 projected that the 2012 budget would be in 

surplus by $600 billion. In 2012, in fact it was in deficit by more 

than $1 trillion, a swing of $1.6 trillion. The Congressional Budget 

Office has removed from its estimates of Medicare spending in just 

the past 2 or 3 years a total of $1 trillion in anticipated Medicare 

and Medicaid spending over the next decade. We are talking here 

about projections as though they were hard facts. They are not. 

They are the product of assumptions that we are currently making. 

They are subject to change because of different economic circumstances and because of legislative actions that can be taken by 

you people who are on this Committee. They are not a binding constraint that is a reality that is going to occur with absolute certainty. These projections may turn out to be as serious as the ad-
60 

jectives that Mr. Holtz-Eakin and Mr. Primo have used; they may 

not. And as we get more information, we should react through the 

legislative process to respond to the reality on the ground, but we 

should not treat projections of spending in 2040 or 2050 or 2060 

as hard realities that are already here with us. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Dr. Aaron. 

This has been touched earlier, but let me revisit it with more detail. Some argue that Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid 

will be cut if we do, in fact, adopt a balanced budget amendment. 

What conversely will happen to these programs if we do not adopt 

a balanced budget amendment or some other permanent fiscal 

rule? Dr. Primo, do you want to start it? 

Mr. PRIMO. Sure. If we do not adopt some sort of constitutional 

rule, eventually these programs will get fixed, and they will get 

fixed because Congress will not have a choice. We will face a crisis 

situation where the U.S. debt will be so high that creditors will lose 

faith in us. We take for granted right now that our dollar—our 

debt will always be held in good esteem by the rest of the world, 

but things change and crises happen overnight in the world of finance. And this idea that we should not be concerned about longrun projections because they might not come true is like saying you 

should not bother saving for retirement because you might not live 

to retire. 

The fact is that if we do not do anything, we will have to make 

choices down the road with respect to Medicare and Social Security, but they are going to be far harder than they would be if we 

made them today. And that is, I think, the real central message, 

is that there is no pressure to act on Congress until a crisis hits 

in the absence of a constitutional rule. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Doctor. 

Before my red light illuminates, anyone want to be heard further 

on this? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I just want to say that as someone who directed the Congressional Budget Office, I am painfully aware of the 

uncertainty that comes with these projections, and I understand 

that. But you have to think then about what is the risk management strategy of a Congress or a nation? Do you want to error on 

the side of these numbers turning out to be even worse than they 

are? Or do you want to take measures that get them under control? 

Or do you want to just count on something good happening? And 

I worry about a strategy like that. 

The second thing I will point out is the one thing that is not uncertain is that people get older 1 year at a time, and the fundamental driving force in the Federal budget for a long time has been 

the demographic shift, and despite the fact that there was no uncertainty, the problem was not dealt with. So I do not think uncertainty changes some of the dynamics here. 

Mr. COBLE. I see my red light is illuminated. Dr. Aaron, do you 

want to briefly respond? 

Mr. AARON. I agree completely that uncertainty does not remove 

the importance of taking actions in light of possibilities. But that 

does not argue for embedding your actions in the Constitution. It 

argues for the Members of this Committee and of this House and 
61 

of the entire Congress of taking the farsighted steps legislatively 

necessary to deal with those steps. 

As Mr. Nadler suggested, one can argue about whether the current budget situation if we should have a larger or smaller deficit. 

I tend to agree with him on that point. But I think everybody on 

this Committee and I am sure all three of us agree that legislative 

action to lower the future deficits that the Nation probably will encounter now would be desirable legislation. So passing legislation 

today, if the compromise is a mix of spending cuts and tax increases—I do not know what the mix would be, but taking action 

now to place in the laws changes in policy that will forestall the 

deficits we fear in the future, that is the responsibility of legislators. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. COBLE. I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think we 

can all agree that we are in a fiscal mess. Some of us actually cast 

tough votes that cost many of our colleagues their seats when they 

voted for the 1993 Clinton budget. Fifty-four Democrats lost their 

seats as a direct result. When President H.W. Bush tried to do 

something about the deficit, that was a major factor in his failure 

to win reelection. So I think we can all agree that we are in a fiscal 

mess. 

Now, all of our witnesses seem to assume that the constitutional 

amendment might actually help without discussing the exact provisions in the legislation and how it will help or not, ignoring the fact 

that if you can actually do something, somebody is going to have 

to cast some career-ending votes. 

Now, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, you went to great lengths to show how we 

can break the rules willy-nilly. In there, in all of these provisions, 

a three-fifths exemptions, where you get a three-fifths vote, you can 

ignore everything? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. There is absolutely I think in any sensible balanced budget amendment provision for emergencies. 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. Three-fifths. Now, you have been around long 

enough. It is easier to get a three-fifths vote for a bunch of tax cuts 

or a simple majority to vote for a budget that will end the careers 

of a substantial portion of whichever caucus votes for it? It is obviously easier to get a three-fifths vote like the $3.9 trillion—— 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I will leave it to the professionals on the politics of that. 

Mr. SCOTT.—$3.9 trillion in the ditch we passed. And the only 

reason it did not get—the only reason—it got more than threefifths. The only reason it did not get more because half the people 

did not think it was big enough. 

Dr. Primo, you talked about the State budgets. We pointed out 

that the State budgets have a capital exemption. Can you point to 

any provisions found in H.J. Res. 1, 2, or 10 that are found in most 

of the State constitutional amendments called balanced budget? 

Mr. PRIMO. You are asking just to clarify do any of the proposals 

at the Federal level include separate capital budgets? 
62 

Mr. SCOTT. You said the States—their governments have balanced budget amendments. A simple question. What in H.J. Res. 

1, 2, or 10 can be found in State governments, in most of the State 

government constitutions? Governor Thornburgh, when he was 

here, could not think of one. 

Mr. PRIMO. In my research on State balanced budget rules, I 

have found that rules that are well designed and are enforced by 

courts that are accountable to the people under certain conditions 

actually have lower spending than States with rules that are not 

as well designed. So there is variation in the rules, and I think that 

is a key message. 

Mr. SCOTT. I take that as a no, you do not find any of the provisions in H.J. Res. 1, 2, or 10 that are found in most State constitutions. 

Mr. PRIMO. Well, the State governments also cannot declare war, 

and so, you know, it stands to reason that the amendments are 

going to be different. 

Mr. SCOTT. I think I have made my point. None. 

Dr. Aaron, Social Security can be fixed. Everybody knows we are 

on an unsustainable trajectory on Social Security and Medicare. 

You can fix it using arithmetic one of two ways. You can add revenues. You could cut benefits. If these amendments are passed, is 

it not true that you could cut benefits on a simple majority, but to 

save them or shore them up with revenues, you would need a super 

majority? 

Mr. AARON. I believe the rules in these resolutions apply to aggregate spending and to the debt level. If you wanted to raise benefits when the budget was balanced without raising taxes, that 

would create a deficit and would, thereby, require a three-fifths 

vote. You could cut benefits by a simple majority. You could not, 

however, cut revenues by a simple majority if it would throw the 

budget into deficit. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, but you could cut taxes on a simple majority, but 

to raise taxes, you would need on most of these proposals a super 

majority. 

Mr. AARON. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. In fact, if you cut taxes 1 year and figured out that 

was a stupid thing to do and wanted to go back and fix it, you 

would need a super majority to get it back. 

Mr. AARON. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you say a word about if there is a question of 

whether the budget is in balance or not, what the courts would do 

with that question? 

Mr. AARON. I am not a lawyer, and I confess I have not thought 

about that. But if I were a Member of this House, I would be acutely concerned about the prerogatives of the legislature and very anxious to make sure that those were not impeded by the interference, 

if you will, of the judicial branch in what are genuinely legislative 

responsibilities. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, could I recognize a group that is in 

the audience? G.R.O.W. from Richmond. If you could just wave 

your hands. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. They are learning all about balancing the budget today. 

Mr. FRANKS [presiding]. I doubt that. 
63 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FRANKS. But we welcome you all here today very warmly. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Holtz-Eakin, you know, sometimes I wish engineering paradigms could be applied in these kinds of discussions. 

Mr. Einstein said that ethical axioms are found and tested not so 

differently than scientific axioms. That which stands the test of experiment or experience is the truth. 

Now, we have a lot of experience with budgets, and I am always 

amazed that we do not look at that. If we did that in engineering 

where we ignored the laws of thermodynamics, we would be blowing things up every time we turned around. These things—we 

know that they are so consistent that over time we can put people 

on the moon by adhering to them and working within those parameters. And yet, throughout history, we have seen a real experiment 

here. The States have balanced budget amendments, and we always hear all of the terrible possibilities that might occur if the 

Federal Government had to do the same thing that every family in 

America does, that every State has to do. Somehow it is going to 

bring these untold disasters. 

Let me ask you. Do you know in any significant instance where 

the requirement of States to balance their budget has brought 

about or manifested some of these disasters that my friends on the 

left have articulated? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. No. In my study of State balanced budget 

rules, I would echo what Dr. Primo said, which is there is a lot of 

difference in the rules and there are differences in outcomes, but 

no disasters that come from having such rules. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, again, my friends on the left seem to think 

that we can repeal the laws of mathematics if we all get a good 

enough vote here. But those are stubborn things. 

Let me change to you, Dr. Primo. Again, one of the comments, 

again, my friends on the left suggest, is that the social network of 

programs that we have here, Social Security, Medicare—these 

things will be vitally threatened by a balanced budget amendment. 

I guess I have a two-part question. 

What do you think threatens those programs today and in the future the most? 

Mr. PRIMO. I think what threatens those programs the most is 

not doing anything today to fix them. The longer we wait, the harder it becomes. And the Treasury, just very quickly—if we wait 10 

years to make changes on Medicare, Social Security, and other programs, we are going to have to make a sacrifice that is 20 percent 

bigger. If we wait 20 years, it is going to be 50 percent bigger. So 

the point is if we start today, we will be in a much better situation. 

And passing a balanced budget amendment today or another constitutional budget rule today will force Congress to start moving toward fiscal responsibility. Right now, it is very easy to say, oh, you 

know, the deficit is down in the last few years. Let us just wait a 

few years. That is always the answer in Washington. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I could not possibly—I am in violent agreement with you. 

But let me ask you then does it not stand to reason that one of 

the very most important things that we could do to save Social Security and some of our programs to protect the social fabric of the 
64 

country as they are ostensibly put in place to do—would that not 

be one of the most important things we could do, to pass a balanced budget amendment? 

Mr. PRIMO. A constitutional budget rule will force Congress to 

have an important discussion about how we can design Medicare, 

Social Security, and other social programs to be sustainable into 

the future. The problem I have been seeing in the debate over 

these programs is that some Members will say, you know, we will 

talk about Medicare and Social Security as they exist today as 

though they can stay like that forever. Something has got to 

change, and the question is are you going to let circumstances 

change those programs for you or are you going to act and change 

them proactively so that we can create programs that are sustainable over the long run. That is the choice facing the Congress. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, once again, I agree with you. But you postulated that one of the things that threatens these programs, the Social Security and other programs like it, are the fact that we are 

not sufficiently motivated to act now to deal with them so that they 

can project and actuarially come out in a way down the road that 

is sustainable. And you have also suggested that one of the greatest mechanisms to vitiate that problem is a balanced budget 

amendment. So I just would like to suggest that if we really care 

about things like Social Security, if we really care about the fiscal 

solvency of the United States, if we really do not want to end up 

like Greece where people were rioting in the streets because of 

some of the cuts that they had to do, then I would suggest that a 

balanced budget amendment might be something to be considered. 

Dr. Holtz-Eakin, do you have any—I saw you move your head. 

Do you have any thoughts on that? And then I will yield back here. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Well, I concur with the concern over the fiscal 

outlook. 

I just want to have a point of clarification in this discussion. Social Security will be cut. When the disability fund exhausts, disability benefits will be cut down to whatever revenues are coming 

in. When the retirement fund exhausts, Social Security will be cut 

across the board. So there is nothing about a balanced budget 

amendment that changes the future for that program. It is going 

to be cut because Congress has failed to enact a sustainable Social 

Security program. So this notion that somehow it is only endangered by a fiscal rule that makes the rest of the budget add up is 

just wrong. 

Mr. FRANKS. But there may be a difference in cutting it reasonably or cutting it precipitously because of a—— 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I concur with that. At least cut it reasonably. 

Mr. PRIMO. Just 10 seconds. Whatever changes we need to make, 

if we make them today, they will be less painful. I think that is 

the key message. 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. So a balanced budget amendment is the 

perfect political anesthetic. All right. 

So now I would turn to Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to apologize to the witnesses for not being able to be with them for the full 

period of this important hearing. 
65 

But Social Security taxes could be covered and not cut by merely 

raising the Social Security tax. Is that not correct, Dr. Aaron? 

Mr. AARON. Yes. I was going to comment on the previous discussion, which seems to me to be wrong in a number of respects. 

First of all, a balanced budget amendment would require no action whatsoever with respect to Social Security, which is currently 

running a surplus and accumulating additional reserves. The program does, indeed, face a long-term projected deficit, and I fully 

agree with Professor Primo that early action to close that projected 

deficit is desirable in order to phase in changes gradually. 

But the observation you just made, Mr. Conyers, is also correct. 

It is not the case that benefits have to be cut. Taxes could be increased. And in that connection, I would report a survey taken and 

released by the National Academy of Social Insurance trying to 

find out what public attitudes were about Social Security. The majority view of those surveyed was that benefits should be increased 

and taxes raised enough not only to cover the cost of those added 

benefits but also to close the projected financing gap that we now 

confront. So if that poll is reasonably accurate—and I have no reason to impugn it—if that is the case, then the view of the American 

public is not that benefits must be cut, but that the program 

should be put on a sound financial footing and benefits should be 

at least sustained. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Primo, do you have any notion of what cuts might be required to effect a constitutional amendment such as being discussed here today? 

Mr. PRIMO. The specifics of the changes that would need to be 

made to programs I think is properly the purview of the Congress. 

Without a doubt, changes need to be made, but many of those will 

not necessarily be cuts but rather reductions in the increases in 

growth of spending. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I feel a little bit better about your response. 

Let me see if Dr. Holtz-Eakin can help me here. Do you concede 

that there may be cuts necessary if this amendment were to be 

adopted, sir? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. The budget is badly out of balance. So mechanically one of two things is going to happen. Spending, projected 

spending in particular, will have to be lower or projected taxes and 

taxes will have to be higher. 

I think an important feature about the reality of how this would 

happen, if the Congress were to pass it and send it to the States, 

is it would take years for ratification to occur. That is a good thing 

from two perspectives. Number one, it would require a lot of public 

education about what is going on, and it would happen as a byproduct of the ratification process. Number two, everyone in this 

chamber at that time would be watching the day approach when 

things had to add up, and they would have to anticipate that. And 

rather than doing it in a single year in an abrupt and, quite frankly, damaging fashion, it would be done in a smooth fashion over 

time. And I think that is the right way for Congress to approach 

the problem. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 
66 

Let me turn again to Dr. Aaron. Proponents of a balanced budget 

amendment claim that because States and families are required to 

balance their budget, the Federal Government should be required 

to do so too. Is this analogy a little bit overworked or maybe inept? 

Mr. AARON. Well, in response to a prior question about State balanced budget amendments, Professor Primo mentioned that the 

Federal Government has responsibilities that States do not have 

like the ability to declare war. But they have another responsibility 

that is different from the States and that is to combat recessions 

partly through fiscal policy, partly as a responsibility of the Federal 

Reserve system. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin’s statement about the gradualism with which 

spending could be cut might be true in the run-up to ratification. 

It emphatically is incorrect with respect to the cuts that would be 

triggered by a balanced budget amendment during a recession. 

Revenues fall. Spending would have to be cut then or taxes increased unless, again, there was a three-fifths majority of the entire membership of Congress to waive those requirements. Those 

cuts could be very, very abrupt. 

And as I said in my testimony, they create a possibility of ransom by intransigent minorities seeking enactment of their pet proposals. And I really think that is a danger that Members on both 

sides of the aisle should take very seriously because I think it is 

quite possible that one could get such efforts made either on behalf 

of conservative or on behalf of liberal policies that cannot command 

majority support but that could be weapons during a fiscal crisis. 

Mr. CONYERS. I think the balanced budget amendment is still no 

better an idea than when Newt Gingrich brought it to our attention 

in 1994 in the Contract with America. 

And I thank you all for your observations, and I yield back any 

balance of my time that may be remaining, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BACHUS [presiding]. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I appreciate your being here, your testimony. 

I have been contemplating what one of my friends across the 

aisle had said earlier, that we should not be put into the Constitution things that bind our successors. And then when I contemplated every one of the amendments to the Constitution, they 

do exactly that. They bind our successors, and thank God they do. 

If those amendments did not bind our successors, we would have 

no right to due process. We bound the government. You cannot go 

after us. You cannot get our personal property, our records without 

due process unless, of course, you are the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Government getting our medical 

records now under Obamacare, the NSA getting all our emails and 

phone logs. But I digress. 

I would suggest we are binding future generations right now. We 

are binding our successors, forcing them to pay for things they got 

no benefit from. We are the generation that is engorging ourselves 

with things we cannot pay for and the future generations will be 

bound to pay for. 

I was one of four Republicans that voted against the balanced 

budget amendment not because I do not support it. I have been for 
67 

it as far back as I can recall in college and high school when we 

had debates over it. But what I have found since I have been in 

Congress is if we do not put some kind of bind on ourselves, our 

successors are going to be bound to an extent that is untenable. We 

need a spending cap because to have a balanced budget amendment without a spending cap forces ever higher and higher taxes 

because we do not do a good job of cutting, and that higher and 

higher taxes gets us into the Laffer curve, which I do believe is 

supported by evidence in economics. If you charge a 0 percent tax, 

you get 0 revenue. You charge a 100 percent tax, you get 0 revenue 

because nobody will work if every dime goes into the Federal 

Treasury. So somewhere in between is a maximum effective rate. 

When you go over that rate, you begin to get less revenue. You kill 

the economy. 

And it was Thomas Jefferson that said the natural progress of 

things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. As yet 

our spirits are free. Our jealously is only put to sleep by the unlimited confidence we all repose in the person to whom we all look to 

as our President. After him, inferior characters may perhaps succeed and awaken us to the danger which his merit has led us into. 

Washington was selfless. We have not done so well since then. 

We need to bind ourselves. 

So I would ask you, having just seen Obamacare now limiting 

seniors, as the President himself said at a town hall, we probably 

need to tell the senior you are better off getting a pain pill than 

a pacemaker that saves your life because we have got to cut costs. 

Why? Because we have engorged ourselves with a massive amount 

of government workers in health care. 

So I think we have got to have a cap on spending as part of a 

balanced budget, and I would like to ask each of you whether you 

agree or—I am not asking whether you agree or disagree with the 

spending cap. But if you were forced to provide a mechanism for 

putting a cap on spending, what would it be? Dr. Holtz-Eakin? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Well, if you were going for a spending cap, I 

think it would have two important characteristics. First, it would 

be a comprehensive spending cap. I do not think you should pick 

particular categories in the budget and single them out in advance. 

It should be applied equally. Second, it should be measured relative 

to the size of the economy or perhaps the economy per capita so 

that it adjusts to the capabilities to support the Government automatically. And I think those are the two key pieces. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Like GDP? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Sir? 

Mr. AARON. I am not willing to play the game. I believe this—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Sir, this is not a game to me. This is a matter of 

life, of freedom for my children. I do not consider it a game. 

Mr. AARON. I apologize for using the wrong word. But I am not 

willing to—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. So I thank you. 

Our last witness please. 

Mr. AARON [continuing]. What I think would be—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Sir, I had a specific question. I am looking for 

ideas for caps on spending. 
68 

Mr. PRIMO. I have some hesitation about putting a specific cap 

on spending—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I understand that. 

Mr. PRIMO [continuing]. Only for the reason that over time, you 

might want to deviate slightly from that, but there are ways to 

deal with that particular issue. But regardless of that point, in 

terms of how you design it, you need to be very specific about how 

you are defining terms within the context of the amendments. Let 

us say you want to use GDP as a metric. The amendment would 

need to be very clear about how we are going to define those numbers. Otherwise, I am willing to bet any amount of money, my retirement savings, that Congress will write implementing legislation 

that will define the cap in such a way that they can ignore the cap. 

And so I think the rule design there is essential. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So no proposal. Just be careful. All right. Thank 

you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson from Georgia is now recognized. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

This balanced budget amendment has more to do with spending 

than it does with raising revenue. And so it is really an attempt 

to ensure that Government spending remains low. Therefore, taxes 

can remain low. Now, who pays taxes? Not the wealthy because 

they are the ones with all of the lobbyists up here in Washington, 

D.C. to get their tax loopholes inserted in our tax code, and that 

is what makes our tax code so unfair is because the middle class 

and the working people are the ones that are paying the taxes and 

the wealthy, the vulture capitalists and the like, end up paying 

zero taxes. I know that General Electric Corporation got tax refund 

checks of billions of dollars. 

So we are not collecting taxes from the wealthy, those who can 

most afford to pay. So, therefore, without the money from the 

wealthy paying their fair share and the middle class paying the tax 

bill for things like the war in Iraq and Social Security, Medicare, 

Medicaid, transportation, FDA, EPA, all of the workings of Government, the IRS, these things that America has been able to provide 

some degree of prosperity to Americans, all Americans—these institutions, these agencies are being dismantled because of costs. And 

a balanced budget amendment would just usher along this period 

where you had less Government, Government that would only be 

in place—Federal Government be in place to deal with the wars 

that we decide we want to create and handle off the books. 

Under a balanced budget amendment, we would not have been 

able to fund the cost of the Iraq War on these contingency operations budgets that we arrive at and they are not paid for. Is that 

not correct, Mr. Holtz-Eakin? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Most of the balanced budget amendments 

would have required some sort of vote to declare war and have a 

special ability to borrow to fund operations of that type. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So when it comes to war, you would be able to 

somehow defeat the balanced budget amendment, but not in a situation where there was a catastrophe, let us say, a drought like the 

dust drought back in the 1920’s and 1930’s and there was a need 
69 

for programs to help put people back to work, help people who 

could not find jobs. You could not do that under the balanced budget amendment. Correct? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. You would have to cut other spending or raise 

taxes to do it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. So you can spend it for the military, but you 

cannot spend it on the people. 

How would we actually implement a balanced budget amendment, should we be so unfortunate that it would pass, Mr. Eakin? 

You are the economist, and that is why I am kind of focused on 

you as opposed to you, respectfully, Mr. Primo. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. It would fall to the Congress and the Administration. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Practically how could you implement a balanced budget amendment in this day and time? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I am not sure I understand what the question 

is, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I mean, you vote for it. You are advocating 

for it. We vote for it. We pass it. It gets sent to the States. They 

pass it. Boom. It is the law. Now, how do we implement it? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. As I said earlier, I think the key would be if 

it were to pass the House, the Senate, go to the States—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. How do we—— 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I am trying to answer, sir. 

You would begin to recognize, as States ratify it, that this was 

in fact going to be a binding constraint on future operations of the 

Federal Government. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. How do we implement it? Now, you are filibustering me, and we do not filibuster over here in the House. 

They filibuster over in the Senate. I am just trying to get a straight 

answer. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I may be answering it poorly, but I am answering. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. How do we implement the balanced budget 

amendment? What are we going to do? Stop some expenditures. 

Are we going to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, just 

cut that out and start paying for the military only? How does it 

work? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I could not possibly answer that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, do you have any idea, Mr. Primo, how it 

would work? Do you have any idea whatsoever? 

Mr. PRIMO. So I do have a background in economics, by the way, 

and it is telling that you wanted to focus on the economics and not 

the political science of this because it is the political science of this 

that is equally important. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But do you not think this balanced budget amendment is rooted more in politics as opposed to economic theory? 

Mr. PRIMO. A balanced budget amendment is rooted in economic 

theory, but the implementation would be political. And that is the 

key. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, tell me how it would be implemented since 

you have stepped up to the plate. How would you implement a balanced budget amendment? 
70 

Mr. BACHUS. The gentleman’s time has expired, but I will let him 

respond. 

Mr. PRIMO. This is an important debate to have because I think 

we have been seeing—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. You are filibustering me now. 

Mr. PRIMO. I am trying to answer your question. 

Mr. BACHUS. Let him answer the question. 

Mr. PRIMO. I do not have to answer the question. That is your 

choice. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Because you all do not let Mr. Aaron speak, I am 

just treating you like they have treated Mr. Aaron. 

Mr. BACHUS. I was going to let Mr. Primo answer that last question of yours. We are over about 10 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Please do, sir. Please do. 

Mr. PRIMO. So a smart way to implement any sort of constitutional rule would be gradually over time, as Dr. Holtz-Eakin has 

mentioned also. It is not like you say tomorrow, okay, we are going 

to go from a deficit of 2 to 3 percent and then all of a sudden we 

are going to go to 0 overnight. You do it gradually. You do it smartly. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How much time? 5 years, 10 years? 

Mr. PRIMO. And so what I have noticed is that those who disagree with a constitutional budget rule have a tendency to focus on 

specific provisions that they do not like and then use those as a 

way to sort of decimate the entire idea of a rule. The key is that 

you design the rules carefully. I have argued—and I am a supporter of a constitutional budget rule—that design matters, and I 

would rather see no rule than a badly designed rule. So if you have 

quibbles with—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. You have not told me anything, sir. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BACHUS. There is no time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. AARON. Mr. Bachus, would it be out of order for me to respond or do you want to move on to the next question? 

Mr. BACHUS. Go ahead. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are a generous Chairman. 

Mr. AARON. I think one way of posing the question of the gentleman is to ask what specifically would have been done had H.J. 

Res. 1 or 2 been in effect during the most recent economic slowdown. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that is a great question, sir. 

Mr. AARON. Let us talk some specific numbers. Revenues 

dropped to 14 percent of GDP. Spending was over 20 percent—23 

or 24 percent of GDP. Under those circumstances, H.J. Res. 1 or 

2 would have required a massive tax increase or massive spending 

cuts. It behooves those who support this amendment to give us an 

illustration of which programs they would have cut under those circumstances. And unless they are prepared to do that, it is hard to 

take this proposal very seriously. 

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Holtz-Eakin, you are the only one that has not 

been able to respond. But thank you. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. This is an important issue. It comes up a lot. 

So let me say a couple things about it. 
71 

Number one, a sensibly designed constitutional budget rule 

would have the provisions that in extreme economic distress, the 

Congress could run deficits. And so the worst case scenarios are not 

the right way to think about this. 

Then there is just a tradeoff. It has been the case that proponents have argued for running deficits as a way of managing 

business cycles. I would argue the historic record of our success in 

doing so has been quite poor. And the cost of attempting to avoid 

this kind of discipline has been chronic high deficits, chronic debt 

accumulation, and an endangerment of both our financial and economic futures. 

On balance, I think it merits going to the constitutional rule because it is better than what we have done, and that has been an 

excuse to run deficits in the name of doing better economic policy. 

But the policy has not been that good. It is a judgment call, and 

that is where I would come down. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

Mr. Marino, you have been very indulgent. Mr. Johnson took 10 

minutes. So we have some time. 

Mr. MARINO. And you know, the thing of it is I sat here to listen 

to Mr. Johnson, and then it is my turn and he takes off. I am going 

to have a discussion with him in a moment. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BACHUS. I liked the debate. 

Mr. MARINO. Gentlemen, I do recognize that you are all economists and experts and very well respected in your field. 

Dr. Aaron, I am not quite sure where you are coming from on 

an issue. You say that let us talk about right now about what we 

would do. There is no way that one could sit down right now and 

say what we could do. I have put together an economic plan concerning the balanced budget. I do support it. And that is where we, 

both sides and the Administration, have to take—probably it would 

take months, even maybe years to sit down and go through each 

Department, each agency because we have to talk about cutting 

significantly, increasing revenues, but cutting significantly in Departments and agencies would increase revenues. We have to talk 

about what impact creating more jobs would have on revenues coming in. So there are so many variables to this. 

But you know something? I am new to Congress. I am in my second term. And so I have not been privy to a time in Congress 

where we have had surpluses. Now, in my reading, since the Revolutionary War, we have always accumulated debt, and some people 

do not know the difference between debt and deficit. And we have 

had two Presidents at least in my lifetime that have had some surpluses, but when they left office, they still contributed to the debt, 

to the overall debt. 

If we cannot agree on something as simple as legislation that we 

are trying to pass even to create jobs, do you not think we need 

something to force us, to make us sit down and discuss the issues? 

Because if we have a constitutional amendment and we do not fulfill that, you can bet we are not going to be around in the next election because we have just forfeited our responsibility. 

There are 321 bills right now sitting in the Senate on Harry 

Reid’s desk that he refuses to take to the floor for a vote. Can you 
72 

imagine trying to sit down with that kind of mentality and reach 

an agreement? Do you agree with me, Dr. Aaron, that there are no 

indicators that the debt will not continue to rise in the future? 

Mr. AARON. I do expect the debt to continue to rise in the future. 

And in fact, recently I took a look at what the course of debt was 

over U.S. history. To my surprise, I discovered that we started the 

Nation with a sizable debt because Alexander Hamilton said that 

we should not defray obligations incurred during the Revolutionary 

War. 

Mr. MARINO. I understand that, but do not use up all my time 

now. Please get to the point. 

Mr. AARON. There was a period when we paid off the debt completely. 

Mr. MARINO. That was in 1833, 1834. 

Mr. AARON. Absolutely. 

Mr. MARINO. And then after that, boom, it skyrocketed again. 

Mr. AARON. Well, it rose a little bit. The Civil War—it rose a lot. 

Mr. MARINO. But let us talk about today, Doctor. Let us talk 

about the debt today. It is skyrocketing at an alarming rate. You 

did advise President Obama, and do you still advise the President 

on economic issues? 

Mr. AARON. No. I have not been an advisor to President 

Obama—— 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. I thought you were. 

Mr. AARON. I have been nominated for an advisory board, but 

that is all. 

Mr. MARINO. You should have been on that. 

You suggest that we do rationing. Why can we not do rationing, 

for example, in—— 

Mr. AARON. No, I do not suggest that we do rationing. 

Mr. MARINO. Did you not write an article which suggested—— 

Mr. AARON. I wrote a book. I wrote two books in fact on health 

care rationing. 

Mr. MARINO. Well, why can we not ration in conjunction with a 

balanced budget and preparing a framework? Like Dr. Primo says, 

we cannot jump into—today we do not have a balanced budget and 

tomorrow we do, and now it kicks into gear. There is so much that 

has to be done to prepare for that. 

The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraph 1 says we are 

supposed to pay debts. And we are getting to the point where we 

cannot pay debts because we are approaching $18 trillion of debt. 

Now, every Administration and every Congress over my lifetime is 

responsible for this. So now I am a Congressman and I am responsible for it. But I do not see an alternative here other than something forcing us absolutely by a constitutional amendment to take 

this seriously. Whether that involves a combination of matters, 

which I think it will be, raising revenues and cutting spending, 

what is your alternative other than that? 

Mr. AARON. My alternative is the sort of bipartisan collaboration 

that occurred during the 1990’s. 

Mr. MARINO. Have you not heard anything that I just said over 

the last 15 seconds about bipartisan? 

Mr. AARON. May I respond to your question, sir? 

Mr. MARINO. Yes, you may. 
73 

Mr. BACHUS. Yes, let him respond. 

Mr. MARINO. No. I am asking questions. He will have an opportunity. 

Did you not hear what I said a minute ago—— 

Mr. AARON. I heard you perfectly, sir. I am trying to answer. 

Mr. MARINO [continuing]. About 321 pieces of legislation on the 

Senate’s desk that they will not bring to the floor? Now, how? Tell 

me the secret. Tell me the secret to getting the Senate and the 

Democrats to agree to sit down and talk about this. 

Mr. AARON. Talk about what, sir? 

Mr. MARINO. Just what you said, just what you talked about. 

You wanted to make a response to—okay, this is the alternative to 

balancing the budget. We cannot even get them to sit down and 

talk about simple matters other than increasing the debt limit, 

which the President was opposed to when he was a Senator. So 

give me an example of how we are supposed to persuade someone 

like Harry Reid to sit down and talk. 

Mr. AARON. I am not going to try to provide political advice. 

Mr. MARINO. Well, then do not sit there and try to provide 

some—— 

Mr. AARON. I am trying to respond to you and—— 

Mr. MARINO. You are not responding. You are not responding to 

my question. You are not responding to my question. 

Mr. BACHUS. Gentlemen, I am going to give you plenty of time. 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that, but I am not 

going to be two-stepped here. This gentleman sat and tried to ridicule the Chairman on a piece of legislation. He did not do his research and he was wrong on that. 

Mr. BACHUS. I understand. And, Mr. Marino, you have got every 

right to ask questions. 

Mr. MARINO. Just answer my question, sir. How do you propose 

the Democrats and the Republicans getting together and reaching 

agreement on legislation other than a constitutional amendment? 

Mr. AARON. I do not see how a constitutional amendment does 

what you want. 

Mr. MARINO. You did not answer my question. Answer my question of how we are supposed to do that. 

Mr. AARON. Sir, if you wish to engage in the practices of a prosecuting attorney, I am not willing to respond—— 

Mr. MARINO. And if you wish to engage as a defendant to refuse 

to answer the questions, then I will. 

I see my time is up. I yield back. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

Now it is my turn I guess. I do not know where to start. 

What Mr. Marino—maybe another way to say it—and I will 

maybe start with Mr. Aaron. What would be one of your suggestions as an action to take to reduce the deficit? 

Mr. AARON. My response that I wanted to give before was that 

we have a case study of successfully dealing with the deficit. During the 1980’s, we had a deficit problem that was quite serious. 

Two successive Presidents, one Republican and one Democrat, successive Congresses controlled alternatively by Republicans and 

Democrats passed three deficit reduction bills that actually produced 3 successive years of budget surpluses and spending levels 
74 

that were actually below 18 percent of GDP at the end of the Clinton administration. Those surpluses occurred immediately after the 

failure of the balanced budget amendment to which reference has 

been made today. It was as if Congress was giving a real-life demonstration of the way in which responsible leaders of this Nation 

can and should behave and showing that it is not necessary to 

embed in the Constitution an amendment that is likely, in all 

forms that I have seen so far, to be subject to gaming or abuse and 

that would impose severe limits on congressional behavior during 

emergencies. 

I want to say I disagree strongly with what Doug Holtz-Eakin 

said before. It is not what Congress can do gradually over time if 

it has time to respond to the ratification of an amendment. It is 

how the amendment is going to affect policy during those unanticipated events when emergencies do occur. That is the risk that I see 

in the current H.J. Res. 1 and 2. 

Mr. BACHUS. All right. Let me ask all three of you this. You mentioned the actions that were taken actually under Carter and 

Reagan to try to stem expenditures and the Social Security disability fund. So I think all of you would agree that the projection 

is that it will bankrupt by 2016. 

Mr. AARON. Disability insurance, yes. Old age and survivors, 

sometime after 2030. We are going to get a trustee’s report I think 

early next week. 

Mr. BACHUS. Yes. But the projection now I think is 2016. So we 

are talking 2 years. So we all agree on that? 

Mr. AARON. For disability insurance. 

Mr. BACHUS. Yes, the Social Security disability insurance fund, 

trust fund. 

Now, that was really what Reagan and Carter addressed successfully. I mean, they did revise it. Now, there were some problems 

with it too. 

I took Brookings Institute, which you are familiar with. You are 

with Brookings Institute. They did a study on Social Security disability, saying it had to be addressed. One of the things they said— 

and this is the Center for American Progress in the Brookings Institute. While traditional medical causes of disability, cancer, 

stroke, heart attacks, and the like, have stayed relatively constant—those claims—Social Security disability benefits have exploded for people with musculoskeletal or mental disorders. They 

talked about that an applicant can have a subjective claim that he 

is in pain or mentally incapacitated and that sometimes that is 

enough to have a claim paid. In other words, I got back pain. I am 

depressed. 

NPR has said that—they have said that diagnoses that lend 

themselves to subjective manipulation—and this was in a study of 

disability—like back pain and mental illness have grown substantially. 

So we have got a Democratic witness, two Republican witnesses. 

Can we all agree that Social Security disability is probably as urgent a matter that needs to be addressed by this Congress now? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Agreed. 

Mr. PRIMO. Agreed. 
75 

Mr. AARON. I think it is the central issue in Social Security that 

needs attention now. 

Mr. BACHUS. And, you know, some people are saying, well, we 

might draw out of the retirement account. We might raise the Social Security tax. We have got to do something. 

And what bothers me about this is people that have legitimate 

problems, cancer, stroke, heart attacks, Lou Gehrig’s disease—if we 

just reduce everybody’s, we are not taking care of these claims that 

even NPR—if you saw that on TV, it was just—and I think Mr. 

Marino—that is part of his frustration and mine, is that this is 

something that bipartisanally we seem to agree that this thing is 

out of control. And it is going to go bankrupt in 2 years, and we 

do not do anything about that. 

Now, I think that is part of the reason why we are saying we 

cannot do the easy lifts. 

And one other thing. There have been two different studies— 

well, three or four, National Bureau of Economic Research. But in 

the last 40 years, while the claims have been going up, medical advances have made people healthier. So we ought to be coming 

down. 

Almost every study says now the aging population, but that only 

accounts for 13 percent of the claims due to that. The other are just 

an explosion, as NPR says, of disability claims on subjective evidence. 

Does anybody want to comment on that? 

Mr. PRIMO. I would just note that your concern about this particular aspect of Social Security—or the disability program is suggestive of why we need constitutional reform. We lurch in this 

country fiscally from crisis to crisis. Some of them are micro-crises, 

as the one you have just described. Others, as we saw a few years 

ago, were far more macro in nature. And in the absence of a constitutional rule, it is always easy to just do the small fixes or the 

temporary fixes or the fixes that might get you 10 or 15 years. But 

you do not fundamentally alter these programs. 

And we have heard a lot today about the various times in history 

where—sort of like a rainbow in the sky—we reached agreement 

and we got a balanced budget in, say, the late 1990’s. I mean, you 

had to hold onto that balanced budget tight because it disappeared 

awfully quickly. And in the absence of a constitutional rule, you 

can enact all the reforms you want legislatively. In the absence of 

constitutional reform, you might get a balanced budget for a year 

or 2. You might get a little bit of fiscal responsibility for a few 

years. And then you say, well, look, we are doing so well, we can 

afford to spend more. The phrase that would be used would be ‘‘invest more.’’ We have ‘‘room to invest’’ was a phrase that was used 

last week by a Senator in response to the new budget outlook. And 

so in the absence of constitutional reform, fiscal responsibility becomes a justification for further spending, which leads ultimately 

to fiscal irresponsibility. That is why we need constitutional reform. 

Mr. BACHUS. Dr. Aaron, you mentioned had we had a balanced 

budget amendment, we would not have been able to face the crisis 

we went through in 2008. And then you went on to say where we 

actually ramped up spending to $22 for every $14 would be a sim-
76 

ple way. For every $14 coming in, we were spending $22. But, you 

know, that is pretty scary in and of itself. 

Mr. AARON. It is very scary over the long run. 

I would like to respond on your observations about disability insurance because I think I share with you real concern about the 

current structure of the program. Like you, I believe important 

structural reforms to the program are necessary. It is hard to find 

a social insurance program more complicated and more fraught 

with real difficulties as to how it ought to be put together than disability insurance. That does not mean that there is any excuse for 

neglecting it. It is, rather, a reason why we should be turning to 

it now and addressing it in a serious way. 

But my point here is that a balanced budget amendment does 

not promote that discussion any more than the fact that you pointed to, which is that the trust fund is going to be depleted in 2 

years. The balanced budget amendment would have, in effect, a 

broad brush requirement of either cutting taxes or—pardon me— 

raising taxes or cutting spending. But when you are dealing with 

a program like disability insurance, you are dealing with something where you have to look at the administrative processes by 

which people are determined eligible or ineligible. You have to look 

at the facts that you just described of a change in the medical indications for why people get on the rolls. You need to look at the fact 

that people who are denied eligibility have earnings history that 

look pretty dismal. They do not go back to work. So these are really 

tough calls, and that is the reason why there is a real need for bipartisan collaboration to address this program. And I do not think 

that is advanced in a material way by the topic we are addressing 

today which—— 

Mr. BACHUS. You know, any Government program where you can 

qualify simply by saying I am eligible without any medical—— 

Mr. AARON. You cannot do that with disability insurance. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, you know, you cannot find a job within a certain area and you have subjective back pain. Now, this is according 

to Brookings Institute. 

Mr. AARON. I am not suggesting that this is a program without 

instances of abuse. It is hard to find them. The tax system has lots 

of instances of abuse. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, I am glad that NPR—I am just saying that 

would be an easy one. And I think that is why there is a general 

frustration here. 

Let me say this. Humphrey-Hawkins. I will close with this. Ben 

Bernanke, appointed by two Presidents. That is the Federal Reserve. And when he comes up here, he is hammered on keeping interest rates low and doing things like that and criticized. But he 

has come up here for 6 years, and I have asked him the same question. What do we do? And he said you have to have long-term 

structural changes in the entitlement programs, and if you do it, 

he says it will have immediate economic advantages. And he asked 

us to do that. It makes his job harder because of all this money 

we are borrowing from foreign countries. If he goes up on the interest rate, it is a problem. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin, or Doug, do you have any comment? Do you 

agree with him that we have to have—and he said it needs to start 
77 

yesterday with long-term structural changes to our entitlement 

program? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I do not think you would find any disagreement on this panel on that fundamental problem. Everyone I think 

has spoken pretty clearly with the importance of moving early and 

getting this under control. 

The disability insurance thing I think is the test of Henry Aaron’s preferred model, which is bipartisan structural reforms to 

these mandatory spending programs. And I would be thrilled, quite 

frankly, if that is the way that problem got solved and if that was 

a successful model for dealing with the budget outlook. I have come 

to the conclusion that in the brief instances when that has happened, we temporarily got some progress, but it slipped away 

quickly. And so you end up with a balanced budget not as a first 

choice but as an acknowledgement of reality. 

Mr. BACHUS. Almost every—American Cancer Society, all these 

liberal groups, conservative groups, Fox TV, CNN, MSNBC—they 

have all highlighted abuses in this program. And what happens, 

sooner or later, we are going to have to raise everybody’s taxes. We 

are going to have to reduce people that have terminal cancer, 

strokes, they are disabled, to pay for it. And with unanimous—almost—you know, not on just some of the minor things, but we cannot even do that. 

Mr. Schweikert said mathematical bubble of delusion. You know, 

Mr. Coffman was talking about entitlement spending at 59 percent 

of the budget. 

Mr. AARON. Mr. Bachus, this Nation is 230 or 240 years old. It 

has gone through some rough patches in which there was pretty intense partisanship and it was difficult to get legislation enacted. I 

urge you to take a longer perspective. We have gotten through this 

period with relative fiscal responsibility averaged over that period 

without a balanced budget amendment, and I might add the Constitution of the United States was enacted to succeed the Articles 

of Confederation which failed because it required three-fifths majorities. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, let me say this. Dr. Primo said this and I 

agree with him, and Mr. Scott said this. The wrong kind of balanced budget amendment where it starts requiring three-fifths and 

two-thirds could actually work against us. So we have to consider—— 

Mr. PRIMO. And there are ways to protect against that sort of 

concern that was raised earlier. For instance, if you want to allow 

for waivers of the constitutional rule, you could require that that 

excess money—you amortize the payments over 10 or 15 years. So 

it is not that that just goes into the debt and then we do not worry 

about it again. We say we are going to commit to paying that back 

within 10 to 15 years. So you are hamstringing future Congresses 

right there by building that in as part of the waiver. And so that 

is going to make legislators more hesitant to engage in that waiver 

because it is going to force cuts very close in the future because you 

are going to have to start paying that debt off essentially right 

away. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, one of the so-called ‘‘successes’’—I am using 

that word sarcastically—of Congress is to get around PAYGO or 
78 

caps. We have been very successful in that. you know, everything 

can be an emergency. 

I am going to recognize Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. Yes. I think the Ranking Member has a comment. 

Mr. CONYERS. I just have a unanimous consent request to enter 

into the record a letter to all the members from the Constitutional 

Accountability Center. 

Mr. BACHUS. And without objection, all Members’ extraneous material, including Mr. Conyer’s offer, will be accepted into the evidence. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
79 
80 
81 

Mr. BACHUS. Did you have a final comment, Mr. Marino? 

Mr. MARINO. Would you allow me a minute? 
82 

Mr. BACHUS. Yes. 

Mr. MARINO. To just make a statement. 

I had a telephone town hall last night and we took a little poll, 

certainly not scientific. But 80 percent of the people in my district, 

after I explained a little bit very briefly, support a constitutional 

amendment to balance the budget because they say we are not 

doing anything. 

And I have done a lot of work with children over my lifetime. I 

still believe with all my heart—and that is why I am here—that 

this is the greatest country in the world. Great people on both sides 

of this Committee and both sides of the aisle. But it just breaks my 

heart to see my constituents and hear of others—people are sick, 

physically sick, mentally ill. They do not want to get out of bed in 

the morning because of the shape this country is in. We have kids 

killing kids in Chicago and in Los Angeles and other big cities. We 

have children that are hungry. We have a lack of education in this 

country. We better get our act together because we are better than 

that. 

I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Alliance, and I travel the world and talk to the other 27 NATO members. What they 

say to me constantly is what is happening in the United States. We 

look to the United States for leadership. There is a void. And when 

I say leadership, I mean all of us. I mean the White House. I mean 

the Senate. I mean the House. All of us. 

So I apologize for my Sicilian temper getting the best of me, Dr. 

Aaron. There was no malice intent. You are a brilliant man. But 

it strikes a chord. I am frustrated and I get a bit passionate about 

where I want my children to be and my grandchildren to be and 

all other children in this country. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. BACHUS. And I think what we hear from our constituents— 

they are all scared. They are all frustrated, and they do not think 

this is going to end well. Like I think one of our congressional panelists pointed out, we did—you know, Mr. Aaron, you mentioned 

World War II. But we started paying that back as soon as the 

war—— 

Mr. AARON. Actually what happened was there was inflation and 

rapid economic growth. The debt did not go down. It shrank relative to GDP, but it continued to grow. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, we need rapid economic growth now. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Yes, we do. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you very much to all our panelists. We appreciate your testimony. We are frustrated and we need a few Sicilians when we get frustrated. We are going to have to have some 

Members of Congress that are very upset. So thank you for your 

testimony. 

This concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to all our witnesses for 

attending. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 days with which to 

submit additional written questions or additional materials for the 

record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(83) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
84 

Supplemental Material submitted by David Primo, Ph.D., 

Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor, University of Rochester 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 

f 
122 

Revision to the Prepared Statement of Henry J. Aaron, Ph.D., 

Bruce and Virginia MacLaury Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution 

f 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 

f 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 

f 
142 
143 

Æ