A BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

CRS Report for Congress
A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment:
Procedural Issues and Legislative History
August 5, 1998
James V. Saturno
Specialist on the Congress
Government Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT
This report examines the recent legislative history of proposed constitutional amendments
to require a balanced federal budget. It provides a detailed description of committee andthth
floor consideration during the 104 and 105 Congresses, as well as a brief account of
previous consideration, and a list of recent hearings and committee reports on the subject.
This report will be updated as legislative actions occur. For additional background
information; see CRS Report 97-379 GOV, A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment:
Background and Congressional Options. This report supercedes archived Issue Brief
97013, A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Procedural Issues and Legislative
History.



A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment:
Procedural Issues and Legislative History
Summary
One of the most persistent political issues of recent years has been the federal
budget of the United States and its deficit. Since the 1930s, dozens of proposals have
called for laws or constitutional amendments that would require a balanced budget
and/or limit the size or growth of the federal budget or of the public debt. The
accumulation of large deficits since the 1970s has heightened the feeling of some
policymakers and other observers that the Constitution should be amended to require
the federal government to balance revenues and expenditures.
The chief debate has been on the necessity of making such a requirement a part
of the Constitution, but other questions have arisen as well. How would such a
requirement affect the balance of power between the President and Congress? If
Congress and the President failed to pass a balanced budget, how would the re-
quirement be enforced? Should there be exceptions or circumstances when the
requirement would not be enforced?
In the 104th Congress, the House Republican leadership placed a balanced
budget constitutional amendment on the agenda as part of its “Contract with
America.” The House passed H.J.Res. 1, as amended, by the necessary two-thirds
majority (300-132) on January 26, 1996. However, votes in the Senate on a balanced
budget amendment fell short of achieving the necessary two-thirds majority vote on
two occasions — March 2, 1995, 65-35; and June 6, 1996, 64-35.
Consideration of a balanced budget constitutional amendment has been renewed
in the 105th Congress. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on S.J.Res. 1
on January 17 and 22, 1997, and ordered it reported on January 30. The Senate
began debating the measure on February 5, 1997, and on March 4 it was defeated
when it fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority, 66-34. In the House, consider-
ation in the 105th Congress has not advanced as far. After hearings by the Judiciary
Committee (on February 3, 1997) and the Budget Committee (on February 5, 1997),
the Judiciary Committee began a markup of H.J.Res. 1 on February 5, but recessed
without coming to any conclusion. No further action has been taken.
While the debate on a balanced budget amendment has continued, both
Congress and the President have also worked towards the goal of achieving a
balanced budget. The combined effect of the growth of the U.S. economy and efforts
to restructure spending and revenues is a Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
projection that the federal budget is expected to be balanced in 1998 and is likely to
remain so for several years. On February 2, 1998, President William Clinton
submitted the first proposed balanced budget since 1970. Subsequently, both the
House and the Senate adopted concurrent resolutions on the budget, projecting a
surplus.



Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Background and Analysis...........................................1
Congressional Consideration in the 105th Congress........................2
Congressional Consideration in the 104th Congress........................5
House Action.................................................5
Senate Action.................................................7
Earlier Congressional Consideration...................................8
House Consideration, 97th- 103rd Congresses.........................9thrd
Senate Consideration, 97- 103 Congresses.......................10
Congressional Procedures for Considering a
Balanced Budget Amendment...................................11
Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment Proposalsth
in the 105 Congress, 1997-1998................................12
Chronology of Actions on Proposed Balanced Budget
Constitutional Amendments, 1936-1996..........................13
Select Bibliography...............................................14
Congressional Hearings........................................14
Congressional Reports.........................................15
CRS Reports................................................15
Other Sources................................................15



A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment:
Procedural Issues and Legislative History
Most Recent Developments
In each of the past several Congresses, the House or the Senate or both have
considered proposals for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal
budget. In the 105th Congress, the Senate has considered one such proposal (S.J.Res.
1), but the measure failed (66-34) to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority vote
on March 4, 1997. Shortly afterwards, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry
Hyde commented that he did not see any current momentum for further consideration
of a balanced budget amendment in this Congress.
Although there has been no legislative action in 1998, the debate on a balanced
budget amendment has continued. Both Congress and the President have worked
towards the goal of actually achieving a balanced budget. The combined effect of the
growth of the U.S. economy and efforts to restructure spending and revenues is a
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projection that the federal budget is expected
to be balanced in 1998, and is likely to remain so for several years. In addition, on
February 2, 1998, President William Clinton submitted the first proposed balanced
budget since 1970. Subsequently, both the House and the Senate adopted concurrent
resolutions on the budget, projecting a surplus.
Background and Analysis
The debate over the relative benefits of a balanced budget, as well as the
accompanying debate over a constitutional amendment solution, has been spurred in
recent years partly by a concern that commitment to an annually balanced federal
budget has been largely abandoned. Balanced budgets enjoyed a long history of
acceptance as a part of an “unwritten constitution,” like political parties and the
President’s cabinet. However, since the 1930s, and especially since the Kennedy
Administration, federal budget deficits and surpluses have come to be “managed” as
an aspect of fiscal policy. Additionally, because the federal government has not
ended a fiscal year in surplus since FY1969, and the size of the annual deficits has
increased dramatically since FY1982, some observers feared that the practical pursuit
of a balanced budget has been abandoned. Nevertheless, the revival of the balanced
budget as a political goal and the call for a constitutional amendment to require its
realization reflect its status as one of the most persistent political issues of recent
years, especially during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administrations.
The previous experience of some Members of Congress in state governments,
where there are various requirements for a balanced budget, and the increasing level



of the federal deficit made the idea of mandating a balanced budget in the
Constitution more popular. Both Presidents Reagan and Bush expressed strong
support for this position, though neither submitted or presided over such budgets. On
March 16, 1994, President Clinton sent a letter to Congress in which he stated his
opposition to a constitutional amendment, despite his overall support for the goal of
deficit reduction.1 This distinction was drawn again when on February 4, 1997, in
his State of the Union message, President Clinton stated that he believed it “unwise
to adopt a balanced budget amendment that could cripple our country in time of crisis
later on ...” and submitted an FY1998 budget on February 6, 1997, that included a
projected balanced budget for FY2002. The budget for FY1999, submitted by
President Clinton February 2, 1998, included a projected balanced budget for each
fiscal year between FY1999 and FY2008.2
Congressional Consideration in the 105th Congress
On January 17, 1997, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing addressing
the balanced budget constitutional amendment issue. Four days later, on January 21,
Senator Orrin G. Hatch introduced a proposed amendment to the Constitution to
require a balanced budget by the beginning of FY2002, and each year after that
“unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress” voted to waive
the requirement. The measure was sponsored by 62 Senators. At least five
additional supporters were needed for it to reach the two-thirds majority required for
approval.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a second hearing on the issue on January
22 and reported S.J.Res. 1 without amendment on January 30 (S.Rept 105-3). Six
amendments, including two substitutes, were offered during the committee’s
deliberations, but all were rejected. The proposed substitutes (offered by Senators
Dianne Feinstein and Robert Torricelli) addressed three issues: if and when Social
Security should be exempted; whether there should be a capital budget; and under
what circumstances the balanced budget requirements would not have to apply. The
four amendments that were considered separately addressed the following issues: (1)
the Kennedy amendment called for the Social Security trust fund to be excluded from
balanced budget calculations; (2) the Leahy amendment would have stricken the
supermajority requirement for raising the debt limit; (3) the Durbin amendment
would have required a majority of the whole number in each house to approve tax
expenditures; and (4) the Feingold amendment would have required ratification by
the states within three years. As reported, S.J.Res. 1 consisted of the following
provisions:


1 U.S. Congress, House, A Communication from the President of the United States,
Transmitting a Letter in Writing to Reaffirm His Opposition to the Proposed Balanced
Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (H.J. Res. 103), H.Doc. 103-223,rdnd

103 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, March 17, 1994).


2 For more information on the pros and cons of a balanced budget constitutional amendment
see: U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, A Balanced Budget
Constitutional Amendment: Background and Congressional Options, by James V. Saturno,
CRS Report 97-379 GOV (Washington: March 20, 1997).

Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for
that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of
Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by
a rollcall vote.
Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not
be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide
by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress
a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year, in which
total outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a
majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal
year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may
be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military
conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security
and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole
number of each House, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate
legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States
Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include
all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of
debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with
the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.
On February 4, 1997, a unanimous consent agreement was propounded to begin
consideration of S.J.Res. 1 on the Senate floor the following day. On February 5, the
Senate began debate on the measure and began consideration of amendments the
following day. Action on amendments to the measure was as follows:
!Durbin amendment to allow waivers of the balanced budget requirement for
cases of economic emergency — tabled, 64-35, on February 10;
!Wellstone amendment to establish a policy whereby spending for education,
nutrition, and health programs for the poor should not be disproportionately
affected by the effort to achieve a balanced budget — tabled, 64-35, on
February 11;
!Dodd amendment to modify the language concerning waivers of the balanced
budget requirement for threats to national security — tabled, 64-36, on
February 12;



!Byrd amendment to strike reliance on estimates under the provisions of the
amendment — tabled, 61-34, on February 24;
!Reid amendment to exclude Social Security from the amendment’s
requirements — tabled, 55-44, on February 25;
!Feinstein substitute to allow the amendment’s requirements to be waived for
military or economic emergencies or natural disasters, to exclude Social
Security, to allow for the creation of a capital budget, and to allow the debt
limit to be raised by majority vote — tabled, 67-33, on February 26;
!Torricelli amendment to allow the amendment’s requirements to be waived
by majority vote for military or economic emergencies, and to provide for a
separate capital budget — rejected, 37-63, on February 26;
!Dorgan substitute to allow for the amendment’s requirements to be waived by
majority vote for military or economic emergencies and to exclude Social
Security — tabled, 59-41, on February 26;
!Boxer amendment to allow federal assistance to states and localities for
emergency relief to be excluded from the amendment’s requirements —
tabled, 60-40, on February 26;
!Graham/Robb amendment to strike provision limiting application of Section

2 to debt held by the public — tabled, 59-39, on February 27;


!Feingold amendment to require ratification by the states within three years —
tabled 69-31, on February 27;
!Feingold amendment to allow the use of an accumulated surplus to balance
the budget for a subsequent fiscal year — tabled, 60-40, on February 27;
!Leahy (for Kennedy) amendment to provide that only Congress shall have
authority to enforce the amendment — tabled, 61-39, on February 27;
!Bumpers motion to refer the joint resolution to the Budget Committee with
instructions that it be reported back with the Bumpers/Feingold substitute
language (which would make the balanced budget requirement a part of the
Congressional Budget Act rather than the Constitution) — tabled, 65-34, on
February 27;
!Hollings/Specter/Bryan amendment to add provisions relating to campaign
finance — withdrawn on February 27.
!Conrad (for Rockefeller) amendment to limit reductions in outlays for
Medicare — withdrawn on February 27.



On February 27, a unanimous consent agreement was reached to provide for a
final vote on March 4. On that day, the measure was defeated when it failed to
achieve the necessary two-thirds majority, 66-34.3
A House companion measure, H.J.Res. 1, was considered by the House
Judiciary Committee at a hearing on February 3. The committee began a markup of
the measure on February 5 but recessed without reaching any conclusion. Also on
February 5, the House Budget Committee held a hearing on the issue of a balanced
budget amendment.
On June 5, 1997, the House and Senate approved H.Con.Res. 84, a budget
resolution showing a path to a balanced budget in FY2002. That same week, House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde commented that he did not see any current
momentum for further consideration of a balanced budget amendment.4
Congressional Consideration in the 104th Congress
House Action
In the 104th Congress, the new Republican leadership in the House placed a
balanced budget constitutional amendment on the agenda as part of its “Contract with
America.” On January 4, 1995, Representative Joe Barton and others introduced
H.J.Res. 1, a constitutional balanced budget amendment consistent with the
“Contract with America”; the resolution was referred to the House Judiciary
Committee. The committee held two days of hearings, (on January 9 and 10), and
reported the measure with amendments on January 11 (H.Rept. 104-3). On January
24, the House Rules Committee reported H.Res. 44 (H.Rept. 104-4), providing for
the consideration of H.J.Res. 1 and H.Con.Res. 17 (relating to the treatment of Social
Security under any constitutional balanced budget amendment).
According to the measure’s chief sponsor, Representative Michael Flanagan,
H.Con.Res. 17 required “Congress to leave the Federal Old Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Trust Fund alone when it is forced
to comply with the balanced budget amendment.” The precise effect of the
amendment, however, was a point of contention during debate. Nevertheless, the
House passed the resolution on January 25, by a vote of 412-18.5


3 See vote no. 24 in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, March 4, 1997, p.
S1920.
4 Eric Pianin, “Budget Amendment Languishes,” Washington Post, June 8, 1997, p. A8.
5 Representative Michael Flanagan, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 141, Jan. 25, 1995, p. H619; H.Con.Res. 17, approved by vote no. 40, Ibid., p.
H628.

On January 25 and 26, the House considered H.J.Res. 1, before passing it with
the necessary two-thirds majority by a vote of 300-132,6 making it the first proposed
balanced budget amendment to be approved by the House. Adoption followed
consideration of six substitute amendments, which were selected from 44
amendments inserted in the Congressional Record between January 13 and January
20, pursuant to a notice issued by the House Rules Committee. Two of these
substitutes were adopted during the debate. The first would have required a
three-fifths vote to increase tax revenues (offered by Representative Barton and
identical to a Judiciary Committee amendment offered during markup). It was
adopted 253-171.7 This action was superceded, however, when the House adopted
a second substitute by a larger majority. The chief difference in the second approved
substitute was that it would have required a majority of the House rather than a super
majority, to approve tax increases, (offered by Representative Dan Schaefer). This
substitute was adopted 293-139.8
The major features of H.J.Res. 1, as passed by the House on January 26, 1995,
were the following:
!total outlays could not exceed receipts, unless a deficit is allowed by a
three-fifths roll call vote in each house (261 Members in the House and 60
Members in the Senate);
!the limit on debt held by the public could only be raised by a three-fifths roll
call vote in each house;
!the President was required to submit a budget reflecting a budgetary balance;
!no bill to increase revenue could become law unless approved by an absolute
majority vote in each house (218 Members in the House and 51 Members in
the Senate);
!the requirements could be waived only in the event of a declared war or
declared imminent and serious military threat;
!all receipts (except borrowing) and all outlays (except for the repayment of
debt principal) were covered; and
!Congress was required to enforce the article by appropriate legislation.
Additionally, H.J.Res. 1 provided an effective date of FY2002, or the second year
after ratification, whichever was later.


6 See vote no. 51 in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, Jan. 26, 1995, p.
H772.
7 See vote no. 41, Ibid., p. H713.
8 See vote no. 49, Ibid., p. H770.

Senate Action
Following passage of H.J.Res. 1 in the House, several Democratic Senators
voiced concern about passage in the Senate without also producing a detailed plan
for deficit reduction and released a letter to Majority Leader Robert Dole to that
effect signed by 41 Democratic Senators. During consideration of S. 1 (Unfunded
Mandates Act) on January 26, 1995, the Senate adopted two amendments expressing
the sense of the Senate concerning the treatment of Social Security under a
constitutional balanced budget amendment.9
The Senate version of the balanced budget amendment, S.J.Res. 1, was
introduced by Majority Leader Dole, and others, on January 4, 1995, and referred to
the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee held one day of hearings on January

5, before reporting S.J.Res. 1, without amendment, on January 23 (S.Rept. 104-5).


After H.J.Res. 1 was passed by the House, the Senate agreed by unanimous consent
on January 27, to begin deliberation using the House-passed version as the vehicle
for consideration on the following Monday, January 30. The Senate debated the
proposal on January 30 and 31, and February 1 and 2, before the first amendments
were offered on February 3.
As in the House, the issue of a detailed plan arose. On Friday, February 3, an
amendment was offered by Senator Thomas A. Daschle, the so-called
“right-to-know” amendment. It required that a blueprint be established showing the
planned course of deficit reduction and elimination befofe the proposed constitutional
amendment could take effect. After debating the amendment on February 3, 6, and
7, the Senate voted on February 8 to table a motion by Senator Daschle to commit
H.J.Res. 1 to the Judiciary Committee with instructions that it incorporate the
Daschle amendment (231) into the resolution and then report back the amended
resolution. The Daschle motion and amendment were effectively killed when the
motion to table was agreed to by the Senate, 56-44.10
The second major issue to be addressed by the Senate was the budgetary status
and treatment of Social Security under a balanced budget amendment. The issue was
formally raised when Senator Harry Reid offered an amendment on February 8 to
exclude the receipts and outlays of Social Security from a balanced budget
requirement. The Reid amendment (236) was debated on February 8, 9, 10, 13, and
14, before being tabled by the Senate, 57-41.11 Previously, the Senate had agreed by
voice vote to a motion by Majority Leader Dole to commit the measure to the Budget
Committee with instructions that the committee report back the resolution forthwith,
and report to the Senate as soon as possible a plan for achieving a balanced budget


9 See consideration of Senate amendments 190 and 196 (to amendment 190), Ibid., pp.
S1557, S1583-S1599.
10 See vote no. 62 in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, Feb. 8, 1995, p.
S2307.
11 See vote no. 65 in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, Feb. 14, 1995, p.
S2592.

without affecting Social Security receipts or payments. A Dole amendment to that
motion (238) established its final language and was agreed to, 87-10.12
After the Reid amendment was disposed of, the Senate considered and rejected
several other amendments on February 14 and 15. On February 16, the Senate voted
on a motion entered by Majority Leader Dole to invoke cloture and limit further
consideration of the resolution. That motion failed to achieve the necessary
three-fifths majority, 57-42.13 Later that same day, however, the Senate agreed by
unanimous consent to limit further consideration and to provide for a final vote on
the measure on February 28.14 In addition, two cloture votes scheduled for February
22 were vitiated. Consideration of amendments and motions to refer with
instructions continued on February 22, 23, 24, 27 and 28.
On February 28, the Senate agreed to an amendment offered by Senator Sam
Nunn. The Nunn amendment (300, as modified) added language limiting judicial
authority to interpret or enforce the proposed constitutional amendment to situations
specifically authorized by law. The provision was agreed to, 92-8.15 After finishing
consideration of all amendments and motions, the Senate recessed on February 28
and March 1, without taking a final vote on adopting the proposed constitutional
amendment, as amended. On March 2, 1995, the Senate fell short of the necessary
two-thirds majority, 65-35.16 Majority Leader Dole changed his vote to the
prevailing side (against the amendment) for the final tally in order to take advantage
of Senate Rule XIII and enter a motion to reconsider the vote at a later time. The
Senate agreed by unanimous consent to the motion to reconsider on June 4, 1996.
After debating the proposal on June 5 and June 6, H.J.Res. 1 failed to achieve the
necessary two-thirds majority, 64-35.17
Earlier Congressional Consideration
The proposal for a balanced budget constitutional amendment has consistently
been an issue in Congress in recent years. Because proposed constitutional
amendments are under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees, these committees have been in the forefront of the debate. The Senate


12 See vote no. 63 in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, Feb. 10, 1995, p.
S2453.
13 See vote no. 74 in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, Feb. 16, 1995, p.
S2778.
14 The remaining amendments and motions to be in order were enumerated in Ibid., p.
S2820.
15 See vote no. 87 in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, Feb. 28, 1995, p.
S3276.
16 See vote no. 98 in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, March 2, 1995, p.
S3314.
17 See vote no. 158 in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 142, June 6, 1996, p.
S5903.

Judiciary Committee has conducted hearings on a balanced budget amendment on at
least 25 days extending back to the 84th Congress, and has reported nine joint
resolutions between the 97th and 105th Congresses. The only proposed balanced
budget amendment to be reported prior to that time did not receive floor
consideration. The measure had been referred jointly to the Senate Appropriations
and Judiciary Committees by special arrangement by unanimous consent. Although
the Appropriations Committee reported the proposal back to the Senate (S.J.Res. 61,
S.Rept. 154, 80th Congress), the Judiciary Committee took no further action.18
The House Judiciary Committee has held hearings less often (in the 100th and
105th Congresses), but the House has considered a proposed constitutional
amendment on five occasions — in the 97th, 101st, 102nd, 103rd, and 104th Congresses.
Other committees that have held hearings include the House Budget Committee
(102nd Congress), the Senate Budget Committee (102nd Congress), the Senate
Appropriations Committee (103rd Congress), and the Joint Economic Committee
(98th and 104th Congresses).
House and Senate consideration of proposed constitutional balanced budget
amendments in previous years has touched on myriad issues. Some of the most
prominent are: super-majority requirements for raising taxes, the budgetary treatment
of the Social Security trust funds and capital expenditures, the role of the judiciary,
and enforcement generally.
House Consideration, 97th- 103rd Congresses
House consideration in the 97th, 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Congresses came after
the discharge process was used to force consideration (although in none of these
cases was the discharge procedure, by itself, used for considering the proposed
amendment). In the House, past practice has been to consider a series of alternate
balanced budget amendments in the form of a series of substitutes. In the 97th, 101st,
102nd, and 103rd Congresses, these were considered in Committee of the Whole under
a king-of-the-hill amendment structure, where the last version to receive a majority
vote would be the version reported back to the House (and would require a two-thirds
majority vote for final approval). In the 104th Congress, this was modified to a
so-called queen-of-the-hill process, in which the version receiving the greatest
majority in Committee of the Whole would be the version reported back to the
House. On each occasion that the House has considered a proposed balanced budget
amendment, it has been considered over a period of one or two days.19
In the 97th Congress, the House considered two alternatives, the proposed
measure itself and one substitute that would have required the President to submit a
balanced budget and for Congress to adopt a statement of receipts and outlays in
which “total outlays are no greater than total receipts,” but not require the year to end
with the budget actually balanced. The substitute was rejected, and the measure


18 See Congressional Record, vol. 93, May 6, 1947, pp. 4555-4557.
19 For additional detail on consideration in the 97th - 103rd Congresses, see: CRS Report 97-
379 GOV, A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Background and Congressional
Options, pp. 18-23.

subsequently failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority, 236-187.20 In the
101st Congress, the House considered two substitutes for a balanced budget
amendment; it rejected one substitute that would have limited the rate of growth of
federal revenues, but approved a minor modification of the measure offered by its
chief sponsor. Again the proposal failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds
majority, 279-150.21 In the 102nd Congress, the House considered four substitutes.
The first would have limited expenditures to 19% of gross national product (GNP)
and provided the President with an item veto; the second would have limited the rate
of growth of federal revenues; and the third would have exempted Social Security
from the provisions of the amendment. All of these were rejected, but the House
again approved a substitute that was a minor modification of the measure offered by
its chief sponsor. The measure failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority,

280-153. 22


In the 103rd Congress, the House considered four substitutes. Two of these (the
first limiting expenditures to 19% of GNP and providing the President with an item
veto, the second exempting Social Security from the amendment’s provisions and
establishing a separate capital budget) were rejected in Committee of the Whole.
One substitute that would have limited the growth of federal revenues was rejected
in Committee of the Whole, in which territorial delegates and the Resident
Commissioner from Puerto Rico were allowed to vote, but later approved in the
House, where the vote was limited to Representatives. This approval, was later
superseded when the final substitute was approved, making minor changes to the
effective date of the amendment. The proposal, however, failed to achieve the
necessary two-thirds majority, 271-153.23
Senate Consideration, 97th- 103rd Congresses
Consideration of proposed balanced budget amendments in the Senate has not
been as structured as House consideration. In each of the Congresses in which the
Senate has considered a proposed balanced budget amendment, a number of issues
have been raised separately, in the form of floor amendments, but complete
substitutes have typically not been considered.
The Senate has considered a proposed amendment on the floor in the 97th, 99th,
and 103rd Congresses. In the 97th Congress, the Senate considered S.J.Res. 58 on the
floor over a period of 11 days and approved the proposal, 69-31.24 In the 99th
Congress, the Senate considered S.J.Res. 225 on the floor over a period of eight days,


20 See vote no. 387 in the Congressional Record, vol. 128, Oct. 1, 1982, p. 27255.
21 See vote no. 238 in the Congressional Record, vol. 136, July 17, 1990, p. 17819.
22 See vote no. 187 in the Congressional Record, vol. 138, June 11, 1992, p. 14468.
23 See vote no. 65 in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 140, March 17, 1994, p.
H1497.
24 See vote no. 288 in the Congressional Record, vol. 128, Aug. 4, 1982, p. 19229.

but the measure failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority, 66-34.25 In the
103rd Congress, the Senate debate focused on S.J.Res. 41, modified to include a
provision limiting the authority of the judiciary to enforce a balanced budget
amendment, and a substitute proposed by Senator Harry Reid that would have
exempted Social Security and capital expenditures from the balanced budget
requirement and provided for its suspension in times of economic recession.
Considered on the floor over a period of six days, the Reid substitute was rejected,

22-78,26 and S.J.Res. 41, as modified, failed to achieve a two-thirds majority, 63-37.27


In addition, during the 102nd Congress, the Senate considered an amendment that
would have stricken the language in an unrelated bill and replaced it with a proposed
balanced budget constitutional amendment. The amendment was withdrawn when
two attempts to invoke cloture failed by identical votes of 56-39.28
Congressional Procedures for Considering a
Balanced Budget Amendment
The basic process for consideration of any amendment to the Constitution is
outlined in Article V. This provision grants Congress the ability to propose
amendments to the states “whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it
necessary.” This means that both the House and Senate must pass a joint resolution
proposing a constitutional amendment by two-thirds majorities. Unlike other joint
resolutions, such measures are not submitted to the President for his signature.
Instead, the Constitution specifies that they be submitted to the states for ratification.
If the proposal is ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states, it is certified by the
archivist of the United States and becomes a part of the Constitution.
Except for the requirement for two-thirds majorities in each house,
congressional procedure for considering a joint resolution to amend the Constitution
is the same as for any other proposed legislation. Some procedural points are worth
noting, however. For example, the required two-thirds majority is two-thirds of those
voting, a quorum being present, and not two-thirds of the entire membership (which
is 290 in the House and 67 in the Senate). Also, this requirement applies only to the
vote on final passage (and on adoption of any conference report or second-chamber
amendment), not to any preliminary or ancillary matters. The precedents of the
House require only a majority vote for committee action (including action in
Committee of the Whole or by a conference committee), adoption of special rules
reported by the House Rules Committee, and adoption of any amendments. Similar
practices apply in the Senate. In addition, joint resolutions proposing constitutional


25 See vote no. 45 in the Congressional Record, vol. 132, March 25, 1986, p. 6124.
26 See vote no. 47 in the Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 140, Mar. 1, 1994, p.
S2089.
27 See vote no. 48, Ibid., p. S2158.
28 See vote no. 135 in the Congressional Record, vol. 138, June 30, 1992, p. 16986, and vote
no. 136 in the Congressional Record, vol. 140, July 1, 1992, p. 17321.

amendments cannot also include any provisions that are intended to be only statutory.
For this reason, provisions requiring administration or committee reports, clarifying
legislative history, or declaring congressional intent have been considered in the
Senate in the form of motions to refer the measure to a committee with instructions
that the committee report back the measure forthwith, unchanged, and that it also
report separately the instructed language. This action allows the Senate to consider
proposed constitutional amendments without having to incorporate clarifications or
congressional intentions directly into the proposals.
The drafting style of proposed amendments is also somewhat different from that
for statutory enactments. Proposed amendments rarely make explicit reference to any
other amendment or portion of the Constitution, even if the intent is to revise a
specific point. For example, Article I, Section 3 is superseded by the Seventeenth
Amendment (election of Senators), and Article I, Section 4 is superseded by the
Twentieth Amendment (meeting day for Congress), but in neither case does the latter
explicitly repeal the former. The only specific reference to another portion of the
Constitution in an amendment is in the Twenty-First Amendment, which repeals the
Eighteenth Amendment (prohibition).
The Constitution also provides a second method for proposing amendments,
though it has never been used. Article V of the Constitution specifically provides
that “on the application of two-thirds of the several states Congress shall call a
convention for proposing amendments.” A convention would not have the power to
amend the Constitution directly; any proposed amendment would still need to be
ratified by three-fourths of the states in the same manner as one proposed by
Congress.
Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment Proposals
in the 105th Congress, 1997-1998
H.J.Res. 1 (Schaefer)
Proposed amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget.
Introduced January 7, 1997; referred to Committee on Judiciary. Hearing held
February 3. Committee markup began on February 5, but recessed without taking
action.
S.J.Res. 1 (Hatch)
Proposed amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget.
Introduced January 21, 1997; referred to Committee on Judiciary. Hearings held
January 17 and 22. Reported without amendment (S.Rept. 105-3), January 30, 1997.
Consideration on the Senate floor began on February 5, and continued on February
6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 24, 26, 27, and March 4 measure failed to achieve the necessary
two-thirds majority, 66-34, on March 4.



Chronology of Actions on Proposed Balanced Budget
Constitutional Amendments, 1936-1996
06/04/96 —The Senate agreed by unanimous consent to a motion to reconsider
the vote on H.J.Res. 1 of March 2, 1995. Consideration continued on
June 5 and 6. The Senate failed to adopt the proposal, 64-35.

01/30/95 —The Senate began consideration of H.J.Res. 1 by unanimous consent.


Consideration continued on January 31, February 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 27, and 28. On March 2, the Senate
failed to adopt the proposal, 65-35.
01/25/95 —The House passed H.Con.Res. 17, 412-18, and began consideration
of H.J.Res. 1. Consideration continued the following day, and the
House passed H.J.Res. 1, as amended, by the necessary two-thirds
majority, 300-132.

01/23/95 —Senate Judiciary Committee reported S.J.Res. 1 (S.Rept. 104-5).


01/18/95 —House Judiciary Committee reported H.J.Res. 1 (H.Rept. 104-3).


04/17/94 —The House failed to adopt H.J.Res. 103, 271-153, a proposed
constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget.

02/22/94 —The Senate began consideration of S.J.Res. 41 (reported October 21,


1993, S.Rept. 103-163). Consideration continued on February 23, 24,


25, 28, and March 1. The Senate failed to adopt the proposal, 63-37.


06/24/92 —The Senate began consideration of an amendment to S. 2733 (a bill
to regulate government-sponsored enterprises) that would replace the
text of the bill with language for a balanced budget constitutional
amendment. Consideration continued on June 25, 26, 30, and July 1.
The amendment was withdrawn on July 1, when the Senate failed to
invoke cloture, 56-39.
06/11/92 —The House failed to adopt H.J.Res. 290, 280-153, a proposed
constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget.

06/09/92 —The House considered a bill under Suspension of the Rules (H.R.


5333), which would require the President to submit a balanced budget
and Congress to consider a concurrent resolution on a budget that is
balanced. The bill failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds
majority, 220-199.
07/09/91 —The Senate Judiciary Committee reported S.J.Res. 18, a proposed
constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget
(S.Rept. 102- 103).



07/18/90 —The House passed H.R. 5258, 282-144, to require the President to
submit a balanced budget and to require that each House consider a
balanced budget resolution.
07/17/90 —The House failed to adopt H.J.Res. 268, 279-150, a proposed
constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget.
03/25/86 —The Senate failed to adopt S.J.Res. 225, 66-34, a proposed
constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget.
10/01/82 —The House failed to adopt H.J.Res. 450, 236-187, a proposed
constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget and
limit tax increases.
08/04/82 —The Senate agreed to S.J.Res. 58, 69-31, a proposed constitutional
amendment to require a balanced federal budget and limit tax
increases.
07/10/81 —The Senate Judiciary Committee reported S.J.Res. 58, the first
proposed constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal
budget and limit tax increases to reach the Calendar of either chamber
(S.Rept. 97-151).
06/14/56 —The Senate Judiciary Committee held the first hearing on proposed
constitutional amendments to require a balanced federal budget.
05/06/47 —The Senate Appropriations Committee reported S.J.Res. 61, to
require a balanced federal budget, which was then referred to the
Senate Judiciary Committee (S.Rept. 80-154).
05/04/36 —Representative Harold Knutson introduced H.J.Res. 579, the first
formal proposal for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced
federal budget.
Select Bibliography
Congressional Hearings
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, hearings, 104th
Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 9 and 10, 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1995).
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Balanced Budget
Amendment, hearings, 104th Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 5, 1995 (Washington: GPO,

1995).



U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, The Balanced Budget Amendment,
hearings, 104th Cong., 1st sess., part 1, Jan. 20, 1995; part 2, Jan. 23, 1995; part

3, Feb. 16, 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1995).


Congressional Reports
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Balanced Budget Constitutional
Amendment, report to accompany S.J.Res. 1, 105th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 105-

3 (Washington: GPO, 1997).


—— Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, report to accompany S.J.Res. 1,

104th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 104-5 (Washington: GPO, 1995).


U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Balanced Budget Constitutional
Amendment, report to accompany H.J.Res. 1, 104th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept.

104-5 (Washington: GPO, 1995).


CRS Reports
CRS Report 97-379, A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Background
and Congressional Options, by James V. Saturno, March 20, 1997.
CRS Report 94-76, A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Economic
Issues, by William A. Cox, Dennis Zimmerman, and Donald W. Keifer, Jan. 30,

1997.


CRS Report 95-69, A Balanced Federal Budget: Major Statutory Provisions, by
Robert Keith and Edward Davis, Dec. 29, 1994.
CRS Report 97-226, Budget Enforcement Procedures: Application to Social
Security Revenues and Spending, by Robert Keith, Feb. 11, 1997.
Other Sources
“Reducing the Deficit: The Ongoing Balanced Budget Debate,” Congressional
Digest, vol. 76, no. 3, March 1997.
“Balancing the Federal Budget,” Congressional Digest, vol. 74, no. 2, Feb. 1995.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Balanced Budget Requirements: State Experiences
and Implications for the Federal Government, GAO Report AFMD-93-58BR
(Washington: March 1993).