[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




              EXAMINING PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-44

                               __________


         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary




                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
               
               


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-604                    WASHINGTON : 2023









                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ERIC SWALWELL, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           TED LIEU, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          J. LUIS CORREA, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                     MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, Chair

TOM McCLINTOCK, California           MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, 
CHIP ROY, Texas                          Ranking Member
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
KEVIN KILEY, California              VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             CORI BUSH, Missouri
WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          BECCA BALINT, Vermont

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
          AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff








                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                      Tuesday, September 19, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Mike Johnson, Chair of the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Louisiana     1
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from 
  the State of Pennsylvania......................................     3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     5

                               WITNESSES

Nick Tomboulides, Executive Director, U.S. Term Limits
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     8
David Primo, Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor, Professor of 
  Political Science and Business Administration, University of 
  Rochester
  Oral Testimony.................................................    10
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    12
Stephen Spaulding, Vice President of Policy and External Affairs, 
  Common Cause
  Oral Testimony.................................................    17
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    19
Thomas Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for 
  Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
  Oral Testimony.................................................    26
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    28

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution and Limited Government are listed below...........    82

A statement from Art Harman, Executive Director, Americans for 
  Term Limits, Sept. 19, 2023, submitted by the Honorable Mike 
  Johnson, Chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and 
  Limited Government from the State of Louisiana, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking 
  Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited 
  Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
    An article entitled, ``Warning: A `Convention of States' Is 
        Practicing to Rewrite the Constitution,'' Jul. 14, 2023, 
        The Nation
    An article entitled, ``A Second Constitutional Convention? 
        Some Republicans Want to Force One,'' Sept. 4, 2022, The 
        New York Times
    An Issue Brief entitled, ``A Dangerous Adventure: No 
        Safeguards Would Protect Basic Liberties from an Article 
        V Convention,'' Oct. 2021, American Constitution Society
    An article entitled, ``5 Reasons to Reject Any Constitutional 
        Balanced Budget Amendment,'' Apr. 29, 2019, The Center on 
        Budget and Policy Priorities
    An article entitled, ``Tax Cuts Are Primarily Responsible for 
        the Increasing Debt Ratio,'' May 27, 2023, Center for 
        American Progress
    An article entitled, ``Constitutional Balanced Budget 
        Amendment Poses Serious Risks,'' Mar. 16, 2018, Center on 
        Budget and Policy Priorities
    An article entitled, ``Term limits would upend Congress as we 
        know it,'' Sept. 16, 2023, The Washington Post

                                APPENDIX

A statement submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
  Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited 
  Government from the State of Texas, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mike Johnson, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from 
  the State of Louisiana, for the record
    A statement from Kurt Couchman, Senior Fellow, Fiscal Policy 
        for Americans for Prosperity, Sept. 19, 2023
    An article entitled, ``A well-crafted budget amendment can 
        succeed,'' Jan. 20, 2017, The Hill







 
              EXAMINING PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

                              ----------                              


                      Tuesday, September 19, 2023

                        House of Representatives

        Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Mike Johnson 
of Louisiana [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Johnson of Louisiana, 
Jordan, McClintock, Kiley, Hageman, Hunt, Fry, Scanlon, Nadler, 
Cohen, Jackson Lee, and Balint.
    Also present: Representative Moran.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The Subcommittee will come to 
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time, and we may well have to do that. We're 
expecting the vote series to be called in the next \1/2\ hour. 
I'm told that there are five votes in the series. So, if you do 
the math maybe 50 minutes or so that we'll break. We're going 
to do the best we can because we want to be good stewards of 
all your time so we appreciate you being here.
    We welcome you to today's hearing on proposed 
Constitutional Amendments. Without objection, our colleague, 
Mr. Moran, on the Full Committee will be able to participate in 
the hearing today.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Sunday, as we all know, was Constitution Day in America. A 
great celebration because it was on September 17, 1787 that our 
Nation's Founders signed the Constitution that they had drafted 
during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
    The Constitution was a new and ambitious experiment in 
self-governance. It still is that. It stood the test of time. 
and we're now 236 years into this experiment.
    It is the oldest and shortest Constitution the world has 
ever known. It laid the foundation for our country to be the 
freest, most powerful, most successful Nation in history. It is 
the envy of the whole world. It is the model for everyone.
    A key part of the Constitution is Article V, of course, 
which establishes two mechanisms to amend it. The Founders 
viewed the ability to amend the Constitution as one of its most 
important features. It has been that.
    At the convention, Elbridge Gerry argued that, ``The 
novelty and difficulty of the experiment requires periodical 
revision.'' George Mason similarly acknowledged that, ``better 
to provide for them in an easy, regular and Constitutional 
way.''
    Of course, we've used Article V, that process, to amend the 
Constitution 27 times since 1787, most recently in 1992. Some 
of these amendments articulate and protect the most cherished 
rights of Americans. It's sad for me to say this, but we really 
do need those protections more than ever today arguably because 
our most fundamental rights have recently come under 
unprecedented attack.
    According to a recent Federal Court decision, upheld by the 
Fifth Circuit here about a week ago, the Biden Administration 
has engineered what the District Court called, ``arguably the 
most massive attack on free speech in the United States 
history'' with its censorship schemes with the big tech 
platforms online.
    We have liberal Democratic Governors like Newsome, Lujan 
Grisham, and Whitmer, who are devising new ways seemingly to 
trample on our Bill of Rights.
    Among other things, the First Amendment, as we know, 
protects our rights to free speech in association, and it 
prohibits the establishment of a national church, like they had 
the Church of England, while carefully preserving the vibrant 
expression of faith in a public square and the free exercise of 
religion.
    The Second Amendment secures our right to protect ourselves 
and our families with firearms.
    The three amendments adopted near the end of the Civil War 
moved us closer to fulfilling the promissory note of our 
Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and 
endowed with the same God given rights. Our national ideal is 
expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, forming a more 
perfect union.
    Many other Constitutional Amendments have been proposed 
over the years but never adopted. The provisions of Article V 
create a very difficult process to change the Constitution and, 
of course, that is by design. They didn't want it to be done 
arbitrarily.
    The two mechanisms to amend are very straightforward. An 
amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses 
of Congress and then be ratified by three-quarters of the State 
Legislatures or an amendment may be proposed by two-thirds of 
the States in a convention called for that purpose. That 
amendment must then be ratified by three-quarters of the State 
legislatures or three-quarters of the conventions called in 
each State for ratification.
    Today, no such convention has ever been called, but efforts 
have been underway in recent years to do so.
    The witnesses before us today will speak about the process 
for proposing amendments and specific proposed amendments as 
well. We'll hear about a proposed amendment introduced by 
Representative Ralph Norman to impose term limits on Members of 
Congress.
    I will say parenthetically many of us here agree with that 
idea, and I have joined in legislation for years to urge that 
change.
    We will also hear about the Balanced Budget Amendment, 
which would impose a measure of fiscal discipline that Congress 
has lacked in recent decades. I certainly agree with that very 
sensible idea as well.
    I thank our witnesses for appearing here today, and we look 
forward to the discussion on these important issues.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her opening statement.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chair. I thank our witnesses for 
sharing their expertise and views on Article V of the 
Constitution today. I look forward to an interesting 
conversation about the methods provided by the Founders for 
revision of the Constitution because, of course, in their 
wisdom our Founders recognized that neither our Constitution 
nor our Union were perfect at their inception, and it was 
important to provide for the continual improvement of both.
    Article V provides the means for revising the Constitution, 
but requires extraordinary action by Congress and the States to 
make changes to that foundational document and our national 
government, deliberately placing the process of amending it 
above the fray of day-to-day politics and factionalism.
    The ordinary and traditional process for amendment under 
Article V requires two-thirds of each House of Congress to pass 
an amendment and three-quarters of the States to ratify it. 
That is what we've done in this country at critical moments in 
our history to propose amendments, whether through the initial 
Bill of Rights, amendments expanding suffrage and civil rights, 
affirming the Federal Government's power of taxation or 
clarifying the order of Presidential succession.
    Our colleagues across the aisle have called this hearing to 
highlight some amendments which they would like to make to the 
Constitution, but which have failed to gain traction over the 
years. I will discuss them briefly in a moment.
    The secondary and more troubling purpose of this hearing is 
to normalize the idea of a Second Constitutional Convention, 
which is being actively promoted in some Republican circles. 
Article V also provides for Congress to call a Constitutional 
Convention if two-thirds of State legislatures petition 
Congress for such a convention. Three-quarters of the States 
would then have to ratify any revisions made by such a 
convention. Beyond this, neither the Constitution nor history 
provide much guidance.
    Although some will argue today that the push for a 
Constitutional Convention is a grassroots movement, it's 
actually an astroturf effort, fueled by dark money to promote 
an extremist agenda. Essentially being unable to gain the 
popular support to amend the Constitution in the traditional 
manner, some right-wing factions are now seeking to convene a 
convention to remake the Constitution to their liking, opening 
the door for the erasure of fundamental civil liberties and 
upending, potentially, our Constitutional order.
    At a moment when our national politics are so riven by 
partisanship that Congress cannot even muster the votes to fund 
the government, this seems to be a very dangerous idea. 
Convening a Constitutional Convention is unchartered territory 
that raises many questions.
    How do we count petitions for an Article V Convention? Who 
gets to select delegates or determine their qualifications? 
Will the number of delegates be proportional to the population 
or similar to the electoral college, be based on the number of 
States regardless of their populations? Who even gets to decide 
the answers to these or other procedural questions?
    It also raises alarms that this right-wing call for a 
Constitutional Convention seeks to capitalize on the efforts of 
the National Republican Party to capture the majority of State 
legislatures through the red-map strategy over the last 15 
years.
    Today our Republican colleagues seek to highlight two 
particular changes to the Constitution, which they would like 
to impose, either through amendment or a Constitutional 
Convention, a Balanced Budget Amendment and term limits for 
Members of Congress and the Senate. They've been pushing 
unsuccessfully for those amendments for decades, even when they 
controlled both Houses of Congress.
    The reason why they have not succeeded thus far is that 
while superficially appealing, once one dives into the details, 
most people decide that these ideas, if implemented, would 
actually undermine our democracy and tangibly harm Americans' 
basic well-being.
    One of the reasons a Balanced Budget Amendment is so 
unpopular, is that it would slash critical social safety net 
programs that millions of Americans depend on to support 
themselves and their families, such as Social Security Medicare 
or Medicaid, SNAP, unemployment insurance, and veterans' 
benefits. It's not just those social safety net programs that 
would be at risk.
    Federal Deposit Insurance and Military Retirement Funds 
would be imperiled under a Balanced Budget Amendment, anything 
funded by drawing on savings accumulated in prior years would 
be prohibited. Of course, it would hamstring the Federal 
Government, its ability to respond in cases of a national 
emergency.
    A Balanced Budget Amendment is essentially a gimmick. We 
don't need a Balanced Budget Amendment to balance a budget. In 
fact, Congress has balanced the Federal budget as recently as 
the 90's without any amendment. It does require Congress to be 
responsible about both the revenue it collects and the spending 
it authorizes.
    When those proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment do so 
while being unwilling to require wealthy corporations and 
billionaires to pay their fair share, they make clear that they 
are only interested in balancing the budget at the expense of 
the middle class and vulnerable Americans.
    Finally, a quick word about term limits because I know 
others will speak about this as well. We do already have term 
limits. They are called elections. Voters should decide when an 
elected official's time in office is over, and shame on them if 
they are not exercising their right to do so. Rather than 
binding future voters through a Constitutional Amendment, we 
should redouble our efforts to promote civic engagement, making 
it easier, not harder, for eligible votes to participate.
    I thank our witnesses for being here and look forward to 
their testimony.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the Ranking Member, and I 
will call on the Chair of the Full Committee, Chair Jordan, for 
his opening statement.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the Chair for convening this hearing 
and for the good work he and the Committee are doing on a 
number of issues and our witnesses. I would just say it seems 
to me there are 33 trillion reasons why we need a Balanced 
Budget Amendment. Every State has to balance their budget, 
every county, every city, every township, everybody has to 
balance their budget except the one entity that has the $33 
trillion debt.
    So, maybe we should just have a Balanced Budget Amendment 
to the Constitution and just tackling this huge, huge problem 
and maybe one of the ways to help in that effort is to limit 
the terms of the politicians who created the $33 trillion debt. 
That seems pretty common sense to me.
    The good folks I get the privilege of representing back in 
the Fourth District of Ohio, my guess is the vast majority of 
them would say that's pretty common sense. So, I appreciate the 
witnesses who are here today, the fact that we're talking about 
these issues, something that I think needs to happen and should 
have happened a long time ago. With that I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the Chair. Without 
objection, all other opening statements will be included in the 
record.
    We'll now introduce today's witnesses. Mr. Nick Tomboulides 
is the Executive Director of U.S. Term Limits, a nonprofit 
organization that advocates for term limits at all levels of 
government. He's a graduate of the University of Connecticut 
with a degree in economics.
    Dr. David Primo is the Ani and Mark Gabrellian Professor of 
Political Science and Business Administration at the University 
of Rochester. He's also a senior affiliate scholar at the 
Mercatus Center. He's an expert on fiscal policy in the budget 
process and has authored several books on the topic, including 
``Rules and Restraint: Government Spending and the Design of 
Institutions.'' I haven't read that, but I want to.
    Mr. Thomas Jipping is a Senior Legal Fellow in the Edwin 
Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage 
Foundation. His research focuses on the Constitution, the 
political process, the courts, and other issues. Prior to 
joining the Heritage Foundation, he served for 15 years on the 
staff of Senator Orrin Hatch.
    Mr. Stephen Spaulding is the Vice President for Policy and 
External Affairs at Common Cause. He previously served as a 
staff member in Congress, including the House Administration 
Committee and the Senate Rules Committee, and served as a 
Special Counsel to FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel.
    We welcome our witnesses, and we thank you all for 
appearing today especially under these sorts of unique 
circumstances.
    We will begin by swearing you in, and I will ask you to 
rise and raise your right hand.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of perjury 
that the testimony that you are about to give is true and 
correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief 
so help you God?
    Let the record reflect the witnesses have answered in the 
affirmative.
    So, you know that your written statement is entered into 
the record in its entirety. So, because of that, we ask you to 
summarize your testimony in five minutes. You all have done 
this before, but the microphone in front of you has a clock and 
a series of lights. When the light turns yellow, you should 
begin to conclude your remarks. When it turns red, your time 
has expired. Mr. Tomboulides, we will begin with you. Oh, 
sorry, yes, push that button there for me.
    Mr. Tomboulides. All right. All good?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Very good.

                 STATEMENT OF NICK TOMBOULIDES

    Mr. Tomboulides. Thank you again. Each year Gallup does a 
poll where they ask Americans how much confidence they have in 
16 different social institutions. At the very top of the list 
is small businesses. Seventy percent of Americans have 
confidence in those.
    The lowest-rated group is the U.S. Congress. Only eight 
percent of people trust Congress. It's also no shock, of 
course, that 83 percent of Americans support term limits. That 
includes huge majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and 
independent voters.
    So, if 83 percent of us want term limits, why is it not yet 
the law of the land? Because the permanent political class 
thinks the American people are wrong. They think we are 
unsophisticated. They think we are not smart enough to decide 
this issue.
    I couldn't disagree more. I think the American people can 
see exactly what is happening here. In the real world, we are 
surrounded by change, by progress, and by evolution. Technology 
doubles every year. The only thing that never changes and never 
adapts is Congress.
    You probably saw the story about the two ancient frozen 
mummies. Mexico calls them space aliens. Here we call them 
Senators. A third of our Senate is 70 or older, including 
several Members who were born before or during World War II. Of 
course, because of the seniority system, the older you are, the 
more power you have.
    In the real world, when a powerful person is showing 
obvious mental decline, the people around them do what is best 
for that person. Washington is not the real world. It is a 
fantasy world where you get ahead not by speaking the truth, 
but by groveling to those above you. If you fall in line and 
vote with leadership, you get to keep your seat for life.
    We are always told that Members of Congress are hard at 
work protecting our democracy, protecting it from Presidents, 
former Presidents, the Supreme Court and so on.
    One Member of this Committee even wrote a book about that. 
In reality, there is nothing less democratic than a 
Congressional election. Over the last 20 years, House 
incumbents have had a 94 percent reelection rate. The Senate 
numbers aren't much better. Last year, 100 percent of Senators 
were reelected. That doesn't happen because people are thrilled 
with their Congress Members. Come on. It happens because the 
ruling elite have rigged the system in favor of incumbents.
    I will give you an example. In just the last few months, I 
have received a stack of full color mail brochures from my 
Member of Congress. I assume everybody in the district got one. 
On the back in fine print, it says paid for by the taxpayers.
    So, he spends a million bucks in public funds to tell us 
that he's against wasteful spending. You can help me figure 
that out. The bottom line is he is campaigning on the 
taxpayer's dime. If someone wanted to challenge him, they would 
have to raise money the old-fashioned way from real donors. So, 
you can see how the deck is stacked.
    Where does all the big money go? It flows to incumbents, 
through the power of PACS, lobbyists, and special interest. 
Incumbents raise roughly 10 times more money than their 
challengers. That is to say nothing of all the other advantages 
they hold like free media, name recognition, and a staff of 20 
people who are basically a government-funded campaign team.
    This very Committee has held hearings where politicians 
have asked, is Mark Zuckerberg too powerful or is Elon Musk too 
powerful? I think it's time we started asking, is Congress too 
powerful?
    Look what's happening to Google right now. When a private 
business uses its power to eliminate the competition; it's 
called a monopoly. It gets fined and maybe even shut down. When 
a Member of Congress does the same thing, they get reelected. 
It's a double standard.
    So, the game has been rigged. As a result only about 15 
percent of Congressional elections are actually competitive. 
Our most senior Members run with phony opposition, similar to 
how Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping managed to stay in power.
    Is it any surprise voter apathy is reaching record highs, 
and people are increasingly saying, I don't feel like my vote 
matters. I don't have faith in our elections. We need to fix 
this.
    A Constitutional Amendment for term limits is the only way 
forward. It will create open seats, lower the barriers to 
entry, and provide us with a citizen legislature as our 
Founders intended.
    It has to be a six-year limit in the House and a 12-year 
limit in the Senate because that is what the American people, 
your employers, demand.
    Fortunately, 112 Members of the House have signed a pledge 
to support this specific term limits amendment and nothing 
longer. If the bill gets amended to a longer limit, voting for 
it would be breaking that pledge.
    I believe this upcoming vote on term limits will be a 
defining moment for our country. The ball is in your court. You 
get to decide how history will remember you.
    Will you be remembered as the rich men North of Richmond, 
as the punch line to every joke, as the people with an eight-
percent approval rating that nobody can stand or will you be 
remembered as the modern day George Washington? When Washington 
had the opportunity to become a king, he said, ``no'' because 
he believed in this country, and he trusted in its people. He 
knew there was a time to step aside and let new leaders emerge. 
For our generation, now is that time.
    Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
    [The statement of Mr. Tomboulides follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Tomboulides.
    Professor Primo, you may begin next.

                    STATEMENT OF DAVID PRIMO

    Mr. Primo. Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Scanlon, and 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
discuss the urgent need for a Constitutional Amendment that 
restrains the Federal budget.
    My three-part message today is this. First, the Federal 
budget outlook is grim and threatens the economic future of the 
United States.
    Second, Congress is constitutionally incapable of tying its 
own hands, making it difficult for legislators to implement 
durable changes to the Federal budget.
    Third, a Constitutional Amendment restraining the budget, 
if well designed, would provide the foundation for credible and 
sustainable fiscal policy.
    My first point is going to take us back in time to 2011. 
When I first testified on this subject back then, the Nation's 
fiscal problems were receiving significant attention from 
Congress, the White House, credit rating agencies, and the 
American public.
    Regrettably, this window of opportunity for reform shut 
before meaningful changes occurred. The result, Federal debt 
held by the public when I testified in 2011 was $9.7 trillion, 
about 60 percent of GDP at the time. Today, that debt held by 
the public stands at $26.2 trillion and is basically equal to 
the size of our economy.
    The debt storm budget experts like me have been predicting 
is here, and it is going to intensify. The Congressional Budget 
Office projects that debt levels might reach 181 percent of GDP 
in 30 years if Congress fails to act.
    Unchecked debt growth is going to have enormous 
consequences on the economy, interest payments on the debt, and 
ultimately, it is going to produce a fiscal crisis. The current 
fiscal path is unsustainable and threatens of well-being of 
Americans, especially those in future generations.
    To get on a stable fiscal path and stay there, Congress 
needs to act quickly and credibly. So, why hasn't it?
    Well, that takes me to my second point. Congress is its own 
worst enemy when it comes to fiscal policy. Congressional 
reelection motivations make it tempting for lawmakers to leave 
difficult decisions about programs like Medicare for tomorrow. 
Politically, it seems there is never a good time to deal with 
the budget crisis.
    Now, even if the political hurdles facing budget reform are 
overcome, and that's a big if, Congress faces yet another 
problem. Specifically, Article I, Section 5, of the U.S. 
Constitution which reads, in part, ``Each House may determine 
the rules of its proceedings.''
    The reality is, Congress cannot write a contract that binds 
itself to a future course of action. This is true with respect 
to both substantive reforms, like reforms to Medicare, and 
process reforms, such as changes to budget rules. What Congress 
does today, a future Congress can undo tomorrow.
    In my third and final point, I propose a solution to this 
quandary, a well-designed amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 
Such an amendment would place permanent, truly enforceable 
limits on Congress' ability to tax and spend. In doing so, it 
would create an environment under which the question for 
Members would no longer be whether to fix the Nation's 
problems, but how to do so.
    So, what should an amendment look like? In my remaining 
time, I will sketch three broad principles for budget rule 
design.
    First, the amendment should account for the economic ups 
and downs that we observe by setting spending limits or targets 
based on multiyear period of economic performance, thereby 
accounting for fluctuations that we will see naturally over 
time in the economy. This smoothing approach has been adopted 
to much success in countries like Germany and Switzerland.
    Second, the amendment should be flexible enough to account 
for major disruptions like a war or a pandemic and at the same 
time should be stringent enough to prevent end runs around its 
provisions. A large super majority voting threshold for 
emergency waivers would go a long way in that regard ensuring 
that funding for true emergencies would still be available.
    For instance, the CARES Act, which passed in the early days 
of the pandemic, a time of true emergency, could have been 
enacted even if a Constitutional Amendment were in force at the 
time.
    Third, concerns about U.S. Supreme Court involvement in 
enforcing the amendment should be addressed by eliminating 
remedies and clarifying which parties have standing. The one 
thing we don't want to do, reject the entire enterprise of a 
Constitutional budget rule as some skeptics have done based on 
critiques of specific proposals.
    In closing, the United States is in precarious fiscal 
health, necessitating the serious step of amending the U.S. 
Constitution. To be clear, the amendment process is fraught 
with political and procedural challenges, but a well-designed 
Constitutional Amendment will help the country achieve credible 
and sustainable budget reform.
    While successes in budgeting have occurred on occasion, 
these successes have almost always been short-lived. A 
Constitutional Amendment can help make future budget agreements 
durable and reduce political uncertainty.
    In the absence of a Constitutional Amendment, I fear it 
will take a fiscal crisis before Congress acts. Nobody wants 
that. Thank you again for allowing me to testify, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Primo follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Professor Primo. Ms. 
Spaulding, I'll ask you to go next. You all are probably the 
buzzer means we have votes that started. We have 20 minutes to 
get there so we will squeeze these two in if that is OK with 
everybody and then we will race, break, and we will come back.
    So, Mr. Spaulding, go ahead.

                 STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SPAULDING

    Mr. Spaulding. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member 
Scanlon, distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to testify this afternoon.
    Our Constitution has endured for 234 years not because it 
is perfect, but because it is a constant work in progress. 
Despite its famous first three words, ``we the people,'' the 
Constitution long excluded the people who make up the backbone 
of our Nation, including people brought here in chains and 
counted as three-fifths of a person in the very charter that 
promised the blessings of liberty.
    Yet, through the hard work of generations of our fellow 
Americans, our Constitution has gradually expanded freedom, 
equality, and made our union more perfect, but there is a long 
way to go.
    Pursuant to Article V, the Constitution has been amended 27 
times in our history and each time, Congress has sent proposed 
amendments to the States after they passed both houses by two-
thirds. This process gives certainty and stability to our 
system.
    The alternative way would require Congress to convene 
Constitutional Convention if two-thirds of the States petition 
it to do so. There are at least three reasons why convening a 
Constitutional Convention is unsound.
    First, even if it is purportedly called to address a single 
issue, there are no rules to limit the scope of a convention to 
protect us from big, permanent changes to our Constitutional 
rights that could set our country back.
    Second, there is an extraordinary risk that secretive 
wealthy special interests, the same ones that pump millions of 
dark money into our elections, will use a Constitutional 
Convention to further stack the deck and bake their proposals 
into the Constitution.
    Third, it puts at grave risk the rights and freedoms that 
are enshrined in our founding charter.
    Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe said such a convention 
would mean, ``putting the whole Constitution up for grabs.'' 
The late Justice Antonin Scalia said, ``[he] certainly would 
not want a Constitutional Convention.'' Whoa! Who knows what 
would come out of it?
    Article V provides no rules for how a convention would 
work. Who sets the rules? Who enforces the rules? Can it be 
limited to a single subject? How would the delegates be chosen? 
Will the convention be one person, one vote, sort of like the 
House or one State, one vote sort of like the Senate? Could the 
convention--or I should say two votes in the Senate but equal 
representation of the States in the Senate.
    Could the convention require a super majority to propose 
amendments? If each State gets one vote, should it still 
require delegates who represent a majority of the population to 
support an amendment that gets proposed?
    The point is there are no settled answers to these 
questions, and now is not the time to experiment with the 
Constitution.
    A convention would undoubtedly attract intense lobbying 
efforts from special interest groups and powerful people who 
want to shape the outcome. The influence of unlimited big 
special interest money and political pressure on the 
convention's delegates would lead to amendments that serve 
narrow interests rather than the common good.
    An intense lobbying effort is already underway to open the 
Constitution up. One group, the American Legislative Exchange 
Council, or ALEC, has been particularly active in this effort. 
Although ALEC is organized as a charity, it is underwritten by 
major corporations and brings corporate lobbyists and State 
legislators together to write model laws that are then 
disseminated throughout the country and State Houses.
    ALEC and other big money groups have been working hard to 
pursue an effort to convene a convention with a goal of writing 
a Balanced Budget Amendment into the Constitution. If this is 
added, it would harm the economy, force cuts to key programs 
that protect our health and safety, and destabilize our ability 
to respond to crises like armed conflict or the next pandemic.
    Most proponents of a Balanced Budget Amendment assert that 
28 States have called for that convention, leaving them six 
short of the necessary 34 that they need.
    Considering the times, we live in with the government on 
the brink of a shutdown, trust in government is at near record 
lows. While a Constitutional Convention is a route that the 
Constitution authorizes, there are deep disagreements over how 
a convention would work, who would write the rules, how those 
rules would be enforced, and how the convention could be 
manipulated by those special interests I mentioned who have 
already shown a willingness to stack the deck against the 
people. When the stakes are as high as they are at this moment, 
too many people would question the legitimacy of whatever came 
out of that convention, which would invite chaos.
    We all want things to improve in our country, and the 
Constitution is not without its imperfections. Its enduring 
strength lies in its ability to adapt and evolve through a 
carefully structured amendment process. At a time of unlimited 
money and politics and extreme gerrymandering using this 
untested, risky process is the wrong way to make those 
improvements. The responsible path is to follow that of those 
who came before us that worked for the 27 amendments added to 
the Constitution. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Spaulding follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Spaulding. Mr. 
Jipping, you may begin.
    Mr. Jipping. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Press that button for me again.

                  STATEMENT OF THOMAS JIPPING

    Mr. Jipping. Thank you, Mr. Chair. President George 
Washington first published his farewell address to the American 
people 227 years ago today, September 19, 1796, in the 
Philadelphia Daily American Advertiser. He explained that the 
Constitution can be changed only by ``an explicit and authentic 
act of the whole people.''
    That Act, defined in Article V of the Constitution, is 
ratification by three-quarters of the States of a proposed 
amendment in the manner Congress has specified and within a 
deadline that Congress has set.
    Under Article V, amendments may be proposed by two-thirds 
of Congress or by a convention called by Congress on 
application of two-thirds of the States.
    Each of the 33 proposed amendments in American history has 
come from Congress. The States have ratified 27. Four proposed 
without a ratification deadline are pending before the States. 
Two, the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment, and the 1978 District of 
Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, expired when their deadlines 
passed with insufficient State support.
    Congress has three powers in the Constitutional Amendment 
process, proposing amendments, setting the mode of 
ratification, and according to the Supreme Court in Dillon v. 
Gloss, imposing a ratification deadline.
    Congress proposes an amendment by passing a joint 
resolution with two parts, a proposing clause containing 
procedural rules, such as the mode of ratification and any 
ratification deadline, and the text of the proposed amendment.
    Congress has proposed 10 amendments with a ratification 
deadline, placing it in the joint resolution's proposing clause 
of five and in the proposed amendment's text for the rest. The 
validity of a ratification deadline depends on Congress' 
authority to set one, not on where Congress chooses to put it.
    The Biden Administration's Justice Department agrees. Last 
year it defended the archivist of the United States against a 
lawsuit by Illinois and Nevada trying to force him to certify 
the 1972 ERA as the 28th Amendment.
    The Justice Department's brief in Illinois v. Ferriero 
noted that, ``Members of Congress did not ascribe any 
substantive difference to the two types of deadlines,'' and 
that substantial historical practice supports Congress' 
authority to decide where to place a ratification deadline.
    Turning to the alternative way to propose amendments, in 
the 1787 convention that produced the Constitution, the framers 
sought to give the States a way to initiate amendments before, 
by compromise, they gave that power to Congress.
    An Article V Convention is an interState convention. What 
the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has described 
as a ``servant of the legislature'' rather than an independent 
body. Its powers, therefore, are defined by the States and 
expressed through their applications for a convention.
    In deciding whether it must call it an Article V 
Convention, Congress must be guided by the fact that the 
framers did not want Congress to interfere in the convention 
process.
    A February 1993 House Judiciary Committee report reviewed 
many of the questions that Congress must consider in that 
light, including whether convention applications that specify a 
particular subject may be counted with those that do not, 
whether applications that specify different subjects may be 
counted together, whether applications must be worded 
identically or be relatively contemporaneous, and whether 
States may rescind or withdraw an application before the two-
thirds threshold is reached.
    Current campaigns for an Article V Convention appear to be 
taking steps to minimize conflicts over these issues. The 
convention of States, for example, advocates that States pass 
an identical application limited to proposing amendments that 
would impose fiscal restraints on the Federal Government, limit 
the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and limit 
the terms of office for its officials and for Members of 
Congress.
    I have included with my written statement a new legal 
memorandum published by the Heritage Foundation last Friday 
that discusses many of the issues that I've touched on today in 
the context of the 1972 ERA.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I 
look forward to answering your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Jipping follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Jipping. All of 
you, votes have been called on the floor. So, the Subcommittee 
will stand in recess until immediately after votes. I 
appreciate your patience.
    [Recess]
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. All right, this Subcommittee will 
come to order, we want to thank the witnesses again for your 
patience. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with 
questions.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hunt, 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Hunt. I would like to delegate my time to Mr. Moran 
from Texas, please.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. When 
I came to Congress last year, this year, I viewed our out-of-
control spending as one of the greatest threats to our economic 
freedom. Our country's prosperity relies heavily on our ability 
to grow and innovate, which we can do when we have our fiscal 
house in order. Well, we have a bloated national debt of 33 
trillion and growing. It's not the fault of just one party, 
it's both.
    Consider these statistics from just the past few 
administrations. During the Obama administration we added eight 
trillion dollars plus to our national debt. Which at the time, 
he took over was just South of 12 trillion. Then under 
President Trump, another eight trillion dollars was added to 
the national debt. Since then, President Biden has added 
approximately 3\1/2\ trillion to the national debt.
    Now, today, we sit at close to 33 trillion in national 
debt. As a result of our fiscal mess, I introduced the 
Principles-Based Balanced Budget Amendment, which is House 
Joint Resolution 80 earlier this year. We've been working 
closely with Americans for Prosperity on the language of this 
issue. This Constitutional Amendment, which is written in a way 
that is meant to be flexible, comprehensible, meaningful, and 
frankly able to be passed, and to be ratified, will allow 
Congress to affirm the principles of maintaining a balanced 
budget without overriding any of the policymaking power.
    The core text of the amendment and the primary principle 
reads simply this way. Expenditures and receipts shall be 
balanced, which may occur over more than one year. In fact the 
total text of this proposed amendment is just two paragraphs. 
It also allows for emergency spending with two-thirds approvals 
from both chambers. It allows Congress to decide how to balance 
the budget, whether it's structural or biennial, and gives 
Congress flexibility to change the design of the implementing 
legislation.
    The BBA serves as a foundation for Congress to implement 
detailed legislation over time that meets the moment. 
Washington has racked up a pretty hefty bill over the past 20 
years, and now families and businesses are experiencing 
rippling inflation and soaring interest rates as a result. They 
balance their budgets, why can't we? Increased debt leads to 
decreased freedom.
    Regardless of the statutes that would underline this 
Constitutional Amendment that would put in place those things 
that need to happen to make it a reality, we cannot ignore this 
any further. Mr. Primo, you mentioned in your opening remarks 
that quote, ``Congress is constitutionally incapable of tying 
its own hands.'' At present, I agree with you, but I'd like to 
change that with my proposed Constitutional Amendment.
    You testified before this Committee in the past in favor of 
a Balanced Budget Amendment in 2017, do you think it's need 
more now than it was then, and if so, why?
    Mr. Primo. Frankly, I go back, and I look at my old 
testimony, and I was talking with the concerns I had then about 
the national debt, and then I look at where we are now. If I 
was concerned then, I'm even more concerned now. I just don't 
see a path forward for Congress to, again, act on its own to 
balance the budget, or even come close to balance in the 
absence of some external constraints.
    One of the things you always hear is Congress can balance 
the budget any time it wants. Well, empirically, we can look 
back in history and see that at least in the last few decades, 
that really doesn't happen anymore.
    Mr. Moran. Without a Constitutional Balanced Budget 
Amendment, do you think Congress really will reign in spending 
the way it needs to, and get its house in fiscal order?
    Mr. Primo. Unfortunately, just looking at the track record 
of Congress on lots of other issues, it often will take a 
crisis before meaningful action occurs. Some people say crisis 
is a great opportunity for action as the saying goes, but I 
actually think that's a really terrible time to make 
legislation and make decisions because you're under the gun.
    Mr. Moran. In your opinion, how does the national debt pose 
a concern long term for future generations of American 
taxpayers, and in terms of our daily lives, how is it going to 
impact us if we do not plot a new course and make this change 
now?
    Mr. Primo. Well, as the national debt continues to grow, 
interest payments obviously are going to increase, especially 
if we continue to see a high interest rate environment. What 
that means is that a greater share of the government spending 
will be to paying interest on the debt, which of course means 
that less funds can be spent on other things that are important 
to Americans. In addition to that, eventually we're going to 
start to see an effect of the national debt in economic growth.
    Of course, low growth is a huge problem for societies, 
because it means that we won't have the level of prosperity we 
could otherwise have as a country.
    Mr. Moran. Many programs such as Medicare and Social 
Security are captivating a whole lot of our annual spending. Do 
you think that these important programs should be considered 
when we are balancing our budget each year?
    Mr. Primo. I just don't see a way to not tackle the entire 
budget if the goal is to have long term fiscal responsibility. 
I think the key to remember is that the claim is well, you 
never can touch Medicare, you never can touch Social Security, 
but the math just doesn't work out if you don't consider how 
you're going to reform those programs. They need to be changed.
    Mr. Moran. Dr. Primo, I appreciate your time and appreciate 
your perspective, and agree that we need to tie the hands of 
Congress moving forward, plot a new course, get on a fiscally 
sane course to balance our budget over the next decade. Thank 
you for your time.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full 
Committee, the gentleman from New York for five minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Spaulding, how would 
a Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget 
undermine Social Security spending, military retirement 
benefits, and other important public service programs?
    Mr. Spaulding. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. There have been a 
variety of Balanced Budget Amendments that have been considered 
by Congress, but among the many troubling results would be that 
it would essentially render it unconstitutional to spend 
reserves, and spend reserves on Social Security benefits, on 
military benefits. Because the proposals that have been before 
this Congress have limited expenditures to revenues brought in 
the same year.
    That would require significant and severe changes to Social 
Security, and a whole host of other programs that ensure 
security, and it's a bad idea.
    Mr. Nadler. Isn't Social Security premised on the idea of 
prepaying?
    Mr. Spaulding. Precisely. So, when you are going to limit 
expenditures only to revenues that have come in that year, the 
way Social Security is set up, it would require cuts to Social 
Security. That's not the only challenge with a Balanced Budget 
Amendment. What it's doing is putting fiscal policy into the 
Constitution. It would put Congress in a straitjacket. It would 
make it exceedingly difficult to respond to economic crises, to 
recessions, to armed conflict, and to a pandemic as I mentioned 
earlier.
    That is not the way our Constitution is designed. It would 
also put judges, and jurists, and attorneys in a strange 
position where they would be refereeing debates that should be 
happening here in the Article I branch of government, and not 
over in Article III, and having jurists weigh fiscal policy. 
So, for a whole host of reasons, the Constitution is not the 
appropriate place to be debating fiscal policy.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Spaulding, do the States or the 
Congress have the authority to mandate limits on the scope of 
an Article V Convention, such as limiting discussion to a 
single subject or amendment?
    Mr. Spaulding. No, and that is one of the concerns, if not 
the top concerns. There are no rules. The language in Article V 
about convening a Constitutional Convention is incredibly 
spare; it just says Congress convenes a convention. There's a 
whole host of questions that I included in my written testimony 
that I touched on at the oral portion of the testimony, but 
there are no rules, there are no answers.
    That's why jurists from across the ideological spectrum 
have expressed serious concern about how a convention would 
work. To answer your question, ultimately there is no 
enforceable way to ensure that the convention only considers a 
single subject.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Spaulding. Last month a far-
right group convention of States organized a so called 
simulation of an Article V Convention. The mock convention 
resulted in, among other things, the adoption of a limitation 
of Congress' power to regulate interState commerce, which would 
negatively impact numerous areas of public policy, including 
the continued viability of Federal civil rights laws like the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other laws that prohibit 
discrimination in public accommodations.
    In your view, would an Article V Convention be more likely 
to threaten, or to protect Americans' individual and civil 
rights?
    Mr. Spaulding. Well, the convention of States, and the 
organization that has been pushing this amendment, and the 
organization that has been pushing this amendment, and has been 
getting a number of States to call for this convention is 
calling for a radical rewrite of the commerce clause to do 
exactly what you are talking about. To significantly, and 
severely undermine civil rights laws, laws that protect 
workers, laws that protect our environment, laws that protect 
our health, safety, and security.
    So, I think it is a significant, major risk, given that 
this is one of their top priorities, is a significant rewrite 
of the commerce clause.
    Mr. Nadler. Would you say that the rewrite or limitation of 
the commerce clause would take us back a long way through the 
Articles of Confederation?
    Mr. Spaulding. I think it would take us way back, who knows 
how far back. In ways that we have settled this question. It is 
extremely dangerous, and if you look at the whole host of 
things that came out of their mock convention, that was among 
their top priority. They also would posit that a simple 
majority of States could rescind any act of Congress, the 
President, or a Federal agency.
    There's a whole host of other provisions that they are 
pushing for a convention, that again, has no rules.
    Mr. Nadler. That does sound like the Articles of 
Confederation, which the framers found highly inadequate, which 
was you had the Constitutional Convention of 1787. My time is 
expired, I thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California for five 
minutes.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Jipping, I introduced a call 
for a Constitutional Convention for a balanced budget when I 
was in the State assembly close to 40 years ago now. The 
arguments against it came from the right, but they were exactly 
the same arguments we're hearing from Mr. Spaulding, and the 
Democrats that well, you have no idea, a runaway convention, 
there's no way to limit it, it could go out of control.
    Isn't it true that a Constitutional Convention has no more 
power to change a punctuation mark on the Constitution than the 
U.S. Congress has held every single day that it has sat for 
nearly 250 years? In either case, the product, whether it comes 
from Congress or a convention, has to be ratified by three-
quarters of the States.
    Mr. Jipping. That's a critical point that hasn't been heard 
here today much, and that is the ultimate stop gap of both 
methods of proposing amendments. Is that three-quarters of the 
States have to ratify it.
    Mr. McClintock. That's the ultimate check. Dr. Primo, I 
share your desire for a Balanced Budget Amendment, but the 
process you outlined seems to me to be attempting to 
micromanage our affairs into times that we can't foresee; 
meaning defining classes of spending and revenue, specifying 
what constitutes an emergency, multiyear accounting periods, 
fluctuations in economic performance, the smoothing approach, 
whatever that means.
    The beauty of the American Constitution is in its 
simplicity and its humility. In crafting a Balanced Budget 
Amendment, it seems to me we need to maintain these qualities. 
We shouldn't be attempting to tell future generations 
specifically how they should manage their revenues and 
expenditures. What is a balanced budget? Isn't it simply a 
budget that doesn't require us to borrow? If that's the case, 
why don't we just say so?
    That's the essence of the amendment that Thomas Jefferson 
advocated. Instead of trying to define fiscal years, outlays, 
expenditures, revenues, emergencies, triggers, sequestrations 
and so on, I hope we could just consider 27 simple words. The 
U.S. Government may not increase its debt except for a specific 
purpose by legislation adopted by three-quarters of the 
membership of both houses of Congress.
    That's sort of an amendment, what would naturally require 
both a balanced budget, and a prudent reserve to accommodate 
fluctuations in revenues, and routine contingencies. It trusts 
that three-quarters of the Congress will be able to recognize a 
genuine emergency when they see it, and that one-quarters of 
Congress will be strong enough to resist borrowing for light or 
passing reasons.
    That is actually my House Resolution Nine. What's your 
opinion of that approach?
    Mr. Primo. Thank you for the question. So, my focus is that 
in fact--or the way I would think about it is my--the proposal 
I have where you sort of allow for a smoothing approach is 
actually placing less of a restraint on Congress to follow the 
Rules of the Constitution, if you will. In other words, it's 
saying to Congress that you need to have some flexibility.
    That you may not have perfect balance year in and year out, 
and it would be impractical to call everything an emergency. 
So, if you required three-quarters vote to exceed the--
    Mr. McClintock. Well, if you can't borrow, you're rather 
forced to do that, and that's the whole point of the amendment, 
is to force the Congress to live within its means, but not tell 
it how to do that. I would commend that for your consideration. 
Mr. Tomboulides, the Founders considered term limits for 
Members of Congress, they explicitly rejected them. I was only 
one of two sitting Members of the California Assembly to 
endorse legislative term limits in 1990 in California, it was 
Prop. 140.
    It set a six-year limit on the assembly at the time. I 
thought it was going to encourage more goal-oriented Members to 
be much more skeptical of the bureaucracy, much more resistant 
to the legislative leaders. As karma would have it, I left the 
assembly in 1992, and the term limits had had no practical 
effect. I returned in 1996 when they had had complete effect, 
and the differences that I saw were absolutely jarring.
    They achieved the opposite of their intended effect. 
Instead of arriving in the legislature contemplating their 
political mortality, Members simply arrived contemplating their 
next political move. They had no experience in State 
government, so they were far more dependent on the bureaucracy. 
Since their term was limited, they were far more dependent on 
the leadership since it was limited, for their next political 
move.
    Prior to term limits, Members on the Committees often had 
far more experience in the subject matter than the 
bureaucracies appearing before them. Term limits stripped the 
Legislative Branch of this advantage. It shifted enormous 
influence from the Legislative Branch to the bureaucracy. 
Before term limits there was a sense of loyalty to the 
institution and the process. After term limits, there weren't 
any.
    I would just urge you and my conservative colleagues who 
mistakenly believe that term limits are going to improve the 
Legislative Branch, please, please look to States like 
California that succumbed to that siren song, and ask yourself 
if you really want to send the Congress in that direction.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time is--
    Mr. Primo. May I respond to that?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Go ahead, yes, we'll let you 
respond.
    Mr. Primo. Yes, so you mentioned the framers of the 
Constitution, they were actually quite divided about whether we 
needed term limits for Congress or not--
    Mr. McClintock. They rejected them.
    Mr. Primo. Not all of them, Benjamin Franklin supported 
them--
    Mr. McClintock. No, the majority of them rejected it for 
very good reasons. Among them, according to Madison--
    Mr. Primo. That may be true, but--
    Mr. McClintock. That someone approaching a term limit would 
become far more interested in their self-interest rather than 
in the Nation's interest, that's just human nature.
    Mr. Primo. When Thomas Jefferson--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Let me interrupt, because we're 
going to have votes called again soon, and I don't want to 
leave anybody hanging. We'll get back to that.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Vermont for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It seems to me that a lot 
of the momentum behind the efforts to hold an Article V 
Convention is based in extreme frustration with our current 
system, and I certainly understand that frustration with the 
democratic process and worries that our priorities often are 
not in the right place. I would just mention, I'm extremely 
frustrated that we're on the brink of yet another government 
shutdown because of the demands of a minority faction in 
Congress.
    So, we know that the blow everything up option doesn't 
work, and it often hurts regular Americans the most. I fear 
that an Article V Convention is uncharted, and in fact 
dangerous territory. Mr. Spaulding, can you explain the worst-
case scenario for an Article V Convention?
    Mr. Spaulding. The worst-case scenario is that it 
completely puts all our cherished Constitutional rights and 
civil rights completely up for grabs. Special corporate 
interests, the same corporate interests that are backing this 
effort right now through the American Legislative Exchange 
Council and others, would choose the delegates, would write the 
rules, could even rewrite the ratification rules.
    We've heard about how it would take thirty-eight States to 
ratify whatever comes out of this convention. That is not--the 
last time there was a Constitutional Convention, the 
ratification Rules in 1787 were rewritten in such a way. So, 
that is, for me, not a safe backstop. You don't start a fire, 
and hope that the fire department's going to come and put it 
out, that the 38 States are going to reject them, that could be 
rewritten.
    So, you have special interests putting our civil rights up 
for grabs, and completely tilting our founding charter even 
more in their favor and making those changes permanent.
    Ms. Balint. That's my concern as well. The Constitution, as 
you all know, is a bulwark to preserve important rights and 
liberties, and especially for folks on the margin. If you think 
about the attacks on the LGBTQ+ community right now across this 
country, would something like same sex marriage be at risk? 
Would it continue to be protected under the Fourteenth 
Amendment? Can we guarantee that if we were to hold a 
convention of the States?
    Mr. Spaulding. Absolutely not. I think all those cherished 
rights, marriage equality, the right to marry the person that 
you love, climate justice, racial justice, all these rights and 
freedoms that we are pursuing, and that we hold dear, that 
would all be up for grabs. Those Constitutional rights would be 
at risk of a major rewrite. The people that are backing--
    Ms. Balint. Yes, tell me more about that, let's just lay it 
out there.
    Mr. Spaulding. Some that are pushing for some of these 
amendments are quite hostile to the freedoms that have been 
expanding throughout our history. That is one of the goals, is 
to constrain those freedoms. If you explore sort of where some 
of that money is coming from, some of the interests that are 
backing these proposals, it's dangerous. It's why 240 groups 
have signed a statement opposing an Article V Convention.
    Because it would, as Professor Tribe said, ``put our 
Constitution up for grabs.''
    Ms. Balint. Do you think it's fair to say that an Article V 
Convention has the potential to follow unrepresentative 
processes, and could result in some very undemocratic outcomes?
    Mr. Spaulding. Absolutely. Again, the language is so spare, 
it just says that Congress is going to convene a convention. It 
doesn't make clear whether people are going to be equally 
represented, or whether States are going to be equally 
represented. So, is it going to further empower States that 
represent a small minority of this country, or is it going to 
empower people? How are Delegates going to be chosen?
    Again, as I brought up in my opening statement, we're at a 
time of extreme gerrymandering. One group that is pushing the 
convention of States, it is their view, notwithstanding the 
text of the Constitution, that States would write those rules, 
and that States would set the rules. It would be one State, one 
vote. That State legislators would choose who is going to go to 
this convention. I don't know where they're getting that from, 
that is not in the text of the Constitution.
    All the more reason that this process would not be nearly 
as democratic and people powered as some are positing.
    Ms. Balint. I really appreciate that. In the last 30 
seconds here, I know a Balanced Budget Amendment is something 
that sounds great in the abstract, but often makes no practical 
sense for a modern Nation. Can you just speak briefly about 
your sense of what a Balanced Budget Amendment could do to the 
economy?
    Mr. Spaulding. Well, it would make it much more difficult 
to deal with economic crises, recessions, war, and pandemics. 
It would harm people in our country that depend on a government 
that is representing them, and is meeting their needs. So, all 
of that again, to put Congress in that kind of a straitjacket, 
and then to tell unelected judges that they're going to 
interpret, and rule on fiscal policy is not the way our system 
is designed.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you very much, Mr. Spaulding.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back, and 
the Chair, just for a moment, I ask unanimous consent that a 
statement from Americans for Term Limits on the history and 
utility of term limits be inserted in the record. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having this hearing 
today. Thank you for our witnesses for being here. When I was 
in the South Carolina General Assembly, I supported a joint 
resolution calling for an Article V Convention of States. This 
was just last year, it passed this resolution, and became the 
19th State in the country calling for that convention of 
States.
    Mr. Jipping, can you briefly describe the steps for 
amending the Constitution under Article V?
    Mr. Jipping. Either Congress or the convention you referred 
to can propose an amendment by a two-thirds margin. At the end 
of the day, nothing becomes part of the Constitution that's not 
ratified by three-quarters of the States. So, the logic that 
says you should not allow an Article V Convention to exist 
because of the theoretical possibility that it could propose 
something untoward would say you shouldn't allow Congress to 
propose any amendments because Congress could propose something 
that was untoward.
    The fact is, the Constitution belongs to the American 
people. They alone--this is why I started my opening statement 
with President Washington's farewell address. The Supreme Court 
actually held in 1795, a year earlier, they actually asked the 
question what is a Constitution? They said that the 
Constitution can only be changed by the authority that made it. 
So, we've seen lots of rewriting of the Constitution.
    People who say that this could happen by a very long and 
considered process involving a convention, the Supreme Court 
does it all the time. So, we have an illegitimate process if 
changing our Constitution through the Supreme Court. I worked 
for Senator Orrin Hatch, one of his predecessors as a Senator 
from Utah was on the Supreme Court, George Sutherland. He wrote 
there's a difference between an amendment, and an amendment in 
the guise of interpretation.
    Mr. Fry. So, if you look at this, there have been 
thousands, thousands of amendments proposed to the 
Constitution, and a handful of them have been adopted.
    Mr. Jipping. That's right, about over 12 thousand joint 
resolutions have been introduced in Congress to propose 
Constitutional Amendments. Congress has proposed 33 amendments.
    Mr. Fry. Right, and so to the point, I hear the sky is 
falling from the other gentleman earlier, like that we're going 
to somehow go backward in some way. To me, the only thing that 
could be proposed and ratified are things that are extremely 
popular with the American public, like a Balanced Budget 
Amendment, like term limits. These are the types of things that 
could rally the people to do that. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Jipping. Absolutely. The sky is not falling, I think if 
we had a dime for every time that was the argument against a 
particular position, the national debt would be lower than what 
it is. I think that nothing comes into the Constitution except 
three-quarters of the States ratify it. I don't know what the 
scenario is that would get three-quarters of the States to 
ratify some of the sky is falling proposals that have been 
suggested here.
    Mr. Fry. I agree with you. Professor Primo, can you talk to 
me, how many States currently require a balanced budget?
    Mr. Primo. Basically, every State requires a balanced 
budget.
    Mr. Fry. Right, and so every State has to comply with that 
requirement when they set out the budget. I know in South 
Carolina we have that. The budget cannot pass until it is 
certified that it is in balance with tax revenues, and what we 
are appropriating. So, States are doing these things, and 
States are doing OK, right? So, to borrow that logic, I mean 
how would that benefit the country?
    You talked about this with Mr. Moran earlier, but how would 
that with Mr. Moran earlier, but how would that benefit the 
country to have this on the Federal level?
    Mr. Jipping. What it does, there's a couple things it does. 
First, it sets the stage for how budget negotiations will 
proceed. It sets a framework for how Congress has to act with 
regard to spending. One of the things we've heard is that well, 
Congress won't be able to respond to emergencies if a Balanced 
Budget Amendment were to pass, but that's simply not the case.
    We saw the Congress come together at the beginning of the 
pandemic and pass the CARES Act nearly unanimously, basically. 
So, when you have true emergencies, the Congress comes 
together. In situations where you have pieces of legislation 
that add trillions of dollars to the debt as we saw a couple of 
years ago under conditions that weren't really an emergency if 
we take that term seriously, those bills wouldn't have passed 
under the Constitutional Amendment. So, you see that's exactly 
the kind of discipline Congress needs.
    Mr. Fry. Yes, but would it be surprising to know that in 
South Carolina that the budget is passed every year almost 
unanimously with both parties agreeing?
    Mr. Jipping. That would surprise me, I'll be honest.
    Mr. Fry. I mean section by section, you go through, but at 
the end it is completely bipartisan. Last question, if a 
Balanced Budget Amendment were to go into effect, how long do 
you think it would take to truly tackle the national deficit?
    Mr. Jipping. I think the optimal approach is to have a 
glide path to a balanced budget. Where you give Congress at 
least a decade, maybe even a little more to really bring the 
budget into balance. Because you can't go from sort of a piggy 
bank that just seems limitless to all of a sudden saying now, 
we're going to have a balanced budget next year, because that 
would lead to economic dislocation.
    That would cause many of the same economic harm that the 
current levels have potential to cause. So, glide path to 
balance, and then a smoothing approach once you actually get 
into balance.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have had an amendment 
for some years, this year it's House Joint Res. 77, that 
proposes an amendment limiting the pardon power of the 
President. When introduced in the previous Congress, some might 
have thought that it was aimed at Donald Trump, and indeed his 
actions did inspire it, but it's good for the goose, it's good 
for the gander, and I introduced it again this year so it would 
be effective with President Biden.
    One of the things it does is it makes clear the pardon 
power really hasn't worked as it should for several reasons.

    (1) This particular revision would say the President shall 
not have the power to grant pardons or reprieves to him or 
herself.
    (2) To any member of their family up to the third degree, 
or spouse thereof. Any current or former Member of the 
President's Administration, any person who worked on the 
President's Presidential Campaign as a paid employee.
    (3) Any person or entity for an offense that was motivated 
by direct and significant personal interest of any of the 
foregoing persons.
    (4) Any person or entity for an offense that was at the 
direction or the coordination with the President.

    So, this would have affected Mr. Trump, it would affect Mr. 
Biden now, and who knows who it might affect after that, but it 
effects everybody.
    In my opinion, the President does not have the power now to 
pardon him or herself, but they shouldn't. The pardon power, 
that would put one person absolutely above the law, and I don't 
think they should be able to pardon any Member of their family. 
Whether it's their brother, whether it's their son, whether 
it's their daughter, that should be prohibited. It's just too 
inside baseball.
    With party people that are part of your administration, or 
people that are in your campaign, again, it's almost like 
pardoning yourself because they're your representatives. We saw 
Trump, of course, pardon Manafort, and what's the guy with the 
hats, Roger Stone, and several others, taking care of people 
and trying to keep them quiet. Mr. Spaulding, what do you think 
about limiting the pardon power in these ways or any other 
ways?
    Mr. Spaulding. I would certainly, Mr. Cohen, be interested 
in reviewing the language. Given the breadth and scope of the 
pardon power, no question that we were on the brink, we saw 
abuse of the pardon power. For all the examples you just gave, 
close associates of the former President, his recent interview 
just over the weekend, continuing to dangle this concept of a 
self-pardon merits serious consideration.
    I think outside of the Constitutional Amendment process, 
there is pending legislation, the Protecting our Democracy Act, 
which would also ensure more transparency into the pardon 
process, and would ensure that you have the information that 
you need as a Member of Congress to provide effective 
oversight, and to further understand how the pardon power is 
being used or abused.
    Mr. Cohen. I think Mr. Flynn was pardoned too if I remember 
correctly. Flynn, Stone, and Manafort, who are some of the 
others I might have forgotten?
    Mr. Spaulding. There was a number, I won't opine off the 
top of my head, but as he was out the door, a number of 
pardons. Including for major donors--
    Mr. Cohen. Anybody else in the panel remember any of the 
people that Trump pardoned that were kind of part of his team, 
want to offer anything? Mr.--is it Tomboulides?
    Mr. Tomboulides. Close enough.
    Mr. Cohen. I'm sorry, I listened to your testimony, and you 
said some Member of Congress, I think you said it was a Member 
of Congress, put out these pamphlets, and you said he spent a 
million dollars. I'd like to have his MRA, who was that Member 
of Congress that you said spent a million dollars?
    Mr. Tomboulides. Well, that was my estimate based on the 
size of our district and the number of mailers that were sent 
out. That was my Congressman Bill Posey who did that, but it's 
a practice that's all too common here in Congress. It's a way 
that incumbents are able to--
    Mr. Cohen. When was Bill Posey a Member of Congress?
    Mr. Tomboulides. I'm sorry, sir?
    Mr. Cohen. Is Bill Posey a Member of Congress now?
    Mr. Tomboulides. Yes, correct, he's a Member of Congress 
from Florida.
    Mr. Cohen. Is he a freshman?
    Mr. Tomboulides. No.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, he's like DeSantis, he hasn't done 
anything yet. Some of the former Congressmen, you don't know 
they're on the Committee until they run for Governor, and then 
you find out they're on the Committee. A million dollars is 
much more than anybody could have in their MRA to spend that 
money, they'd have to have no staff, because you pay your staff 
out of that, your transportation, your travel, et cetera, 
you're exaggerating?
    Mr. Tomboulides. Well, it's a series of mailers that have 
been sent to my house for years, and years, and years, sir. So, 
I was referring to the aggregate spending on that.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Mr. Spaulding, what about pardoning 
Members of a President's family, whether it's Hunter Biden, or 
whether it's whoever, the daughter that had the Chinese patents 
or copyrights?
    Mr. Spaulding. I think that would be an abuse of the pardon 
power.
    Mr. Cohen. It should be limited. I proposed it, and I 
propose it again, and I think if it's good for one, it's good 
for the other. I don't think there should be pardoning of 
family members. That would certainly--if you think that the 
President did something involved with his son, this would be a 
way to make sure, let the son know that if he's going to do 
something like that he's not going to get any benefit on the 
back end, so I think that would help a lot. Let me ask, also--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Cohen. That was quick.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, now it's has been expired 
for a while.
    Mr. Cohen. I'm sorry, thank you for giving me that extra 
time.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohen. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Gentleman yields time he has not. 
So, the Chair will yield next to the gentlelady from Wyoming. I 
would just point out Congressman Bill Posey is Florida's Eight 
Congressional District, seven term Congressman. So, you need to 
go to more cocktail parties.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, thank you, and thank you for being here, 
gentlemen. I always love having a discussion about the 
Constitution. I want to State right up front, I am opposed to 
term limits, and not for any self-serving reason, but because I 
think they are a bad idea in terms of the future of our 
republic. I also believe that the intent of the framers must 
remain a dominant force, and should guide the current 
discussion.
    The finality of the qualifications clause for Congressional 
Members is settled through the text of the Constitution itself. 
They debated term limits, and some of the framers, even 
supported them in the Articles of Confederation, but after 
debate they were dropped. That doesn't mean that term limits 
don't exist, they certainly do, which is why the American 
people go to the ballot every two years for the Members of the 
U.S. House, and every six years to select their U.S. Senators.
    In addition, legislative supremacy is something the 
Founders clearly established in the long list of enumerated and 
implied powers granted to Congress. As compared to the brevity 
of powers granted to the President in Article II. What does 
that mean? That the drafters of our Constitution intended the 
Legislative Branch, the one directly elected and accountable to 
the voters, to be the most robust, and strongest of the three 
branches.
    I believe that term limits would not only undermine that 
intent, but substantially alter our relationship with our 
elected officials. Again, what do I mean by that? For years I 
have been railing against the expansion and growth of the 
Administrative State. Those unelected bureaucrats who have 
taken on the role of legislating in violation of the separation 
of powers provisions in our Constitution.
    The annual regulatory burden in this country is 2.1 
trillion dollars. That is the cost of the rules, regulations, 
and guidance documents issued by agencies such as the USDA, 
EPA, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 
Forestry Service, et cetera, et cetera. Yet, of all these 
agencies, all of them are totally unaccountable to the American 
people.
    I believe we need to strengthen the Legislative Branch, not 
weaken it. Yet, that is ultimately what will happen if we have 
term limits. I ran on a platform of empowering the people over 
the bureaucracy, which means that it is our Legislative Branch 
that needs to reclaim its rightful place of making the law. 
Term limits in Congress will not solve the problem that you 
have identified.
    Now, more than ever, our Congressional Representatives need 
to stand strong, and requiring a routine cycling of elected 
officials seems to me to be a distraction from where the real 
issues in Washington, DC, lie. While I am opposed to any kind 
of an amendment for term limits, I appreciate my colleague from 
South Carolina's focus on the need for reform in this broken 
town.
    To that extent, one area where I am willing to meet my 
colleague in the middle to advance reform is in imposing term 
limits on bureaucrats that make up the administrative State. 
Those bureaucrats who are nearly impossible to remove and are 
encouraged to become career officials through benefits such as 
pensions are in DC, for generations, and have never been 
approved or voted on by the American people.
    This is the real danger to our society, these officials 
make policies with no constituencies, and cannot be held 
accountable if they do something which goes against the needs 
of the American people, which they routinely do. An example 
being the radical war on affordable energy being waged by the 
Biden bureaucracy. I also want to say that as a freshman Member 
of Congress, I think that it is a problem to underestimate the 
importance of institutional knowledge.
    How can a Member be here for six years, and effectively 
take on a career official who has been here for 35 years? Is 
Washington, DC, broken? Absolutely, and the odds are stacked 
against the American people in a government which has grown too 
powerful and big to control, and instead it now controls us. It 
controls us because of the unelected bureaucrats, not because 
of your elected officials here in Washington, DC.
    Reform is necessary, and it should come from the people who 
are actually elected by the American people. The only directly 
elected officials in town should not become the target, it 
should be those who are unaccountable. This Congress needs to 
unify and hold accountable those officials who spend their 
entire lives in DC, without taking a single vote, yet impose 
trillions of dollars of hidden taxes against us.
    I want to close by reiterating that term limits already 
exist through elections, but limiting ballot choices doesn't 
fix problems, it only creates more.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the witnesses for their 
presence here today, and for the hearing that we had. It's 
important, Mr. Spaulding, I'm going to focus on trying not to 
be redundant but deliberate more with you on this process. 
First, I'm glad that the founding fathers added Article V to at 
least acknowledge as a democracy, we should be prepared in 
times of absolute need, or change, or maybe crisis, to 
effectively maneuver a process with two-thirds and three-
quarters that might work on a serious need for change.
    I heard one Member make an important point, I don't think 
it is a Constitutional change, but what the Supreme Court does 
is it interprets the Constitution, and by its interpretation, 
which I know that I have had extensive disagreement with the 
Supreme Court of recent years. One could say that they've 
altered Constitutional law, or decisions that were premised on 
Constitutional law.
    What comes to mind of course is the Shelby case, it 
literally destroyed the Voting Rights Act that was grounded in 
the Fourteenth Amendment, equal protection, possibly the 
Fifteenth Amendment, and then of course, due process. How they 
got to their decision of just eliminating voting protections, 
and of course we have deteriorated and gone further down.
    I think the issue of a Constitutional Convention is 
clearly--should be perceived from the perspective of the 
representation of the American people. First, by way of States, 
and we have the Tenth Amendment, what is not left to the 
Federal Government is left to the States. Then cities, and 
hamlets, and counties that have different jurisdictions as 
well.
    So, my first question is because of the system that we 
have, our States, our cities, counties, and hamlets, villages 
are dependent on the Federal Government. The government does 
major work from interState highways, from the railroads, now 
we've gotten into more modern issues of climate change. We see 
that crime is an issue across America, cities and States are 
looking to have a partner in the Federal Government in how you 
work to bring down crime.
    Education has a component of the Federal Government. So, 
what would, first, could you emphasize that dependency, and 
that a Balanced Budget Amendment, though well intentioned, is 
distinctive from a city that balances a budget? Which people 
want to constantly say my city balances a budget, and how does 
that in any way argue favorably for the national government to 
have that obligation?
    Mr. Spaulding. I agree with you, Ms. Jackson Lee, 
wholeheartedly, that many States, local jurisdictions depend on 
resources from the Federal Government to carry out their 
activities. One important point we've heard about States having 
balanced budget requirements, States generally have an 
operating budget which may be balanced, and then they also have 
a capital budget, which may include borrowing.
    Which may include needing to dip into reserves that weren't 
raised that year. So, I think there is some nuance there when 
we're talking about States abiding by balanced budgets, because 
in general there's two. So, that's a point that I appreciate 
having the opportunity to make.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, we can make the argument that local 
governments, State governments that balance their budget, there 
may be some unique focus that doesn't equate to a massive 
budget that the Federal Government has to utilize.
    Mr. Spaulding. That's right.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Based on the needs of the American people. 
Last, very quickly, two of my colleagues were eloquent on this 
whole question of term limits. I think it is important to point 
out that the founding fathers rejected it. Give me your worst-
case scenario for the Federal Government, institutional memory 
gone, the massiveness of the government, the ability to have 
elected persons in the people's house be able to reflect what 
the people want as the government is guided by the Executive.
    How important is the maintenance of the ability to elect 
who you choose, and not have term limits?
    Mr. Spaulding. It is incredibly important to have that 
continuity, and that institutional memory. It's also important 
to acknowledge people are frustrated. They expect a democracy 
that is representative, reflective, and responsive. The 
challenge in my view, and in Common Cause's view is not the 
length of a term, because there's tremendous wisdom and 
experience that comes with those who are closest to the people 
being chosen by the people.
    The challenge is the attacks on the freedom to vote, 
extreme gerrymandering, and the influence of money in politics 
that has distorted representative democracy. We've got to fix 
those challenges, it's not term limits. To your ultimate point, 
completely agree that term limits can increase the power of 
lobbyists and folks on K Street who are here a very long time 
as people rotate in and off of Capitol Hill.
    It undermines accountability, because Members who aren't 
facing reelection may take other votes potentially, but 
ultimately I think it undermines the freedom to vote. 
Ultimately, the people to choose who they would like to 
represent them in the halls of the legislature.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for your 
indulgence, I just want to make one last sentence on the 
record. Mr. Spaulding, you said it, ``it undermines the 
people's ability to run their government as they choose.'' We 
have to fix it, and make it work, but it undermines the people. 
I'm standing with the people. From cities, to hamlets, to 
villages, and to States. Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me 
to introduce that statement, and to the Ranking Member as well.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair recognizes myself for five minutes. We've got to 
answer some of this, Mr. Tomboulides.
    Mr. Tomboulides. Let's do it.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, you noted that Gallup says 83 
percent of Americans believe in term limits now, there's good 
reasons for that.
    Mr. Tomboulides. Correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. One of the difficult questions 
that's been brought up today, and that we get often, is about 
the unintended consequences. So, how do you answer the 
objection that if we impose term limits in Congress, the 
professional staff, who have long careers here, will be the 
ones with all the institutional knowledge, and they'll 
effectively become the unaccountable ruling class? What's the 
answer to that?
    Mr. Tomboulides. Well, first, I do find it very ironic that 
the point has been made here that representatives will be 
choosing the people over term limits, when it's actually 83 
percent of the people who want term limits. So, I think the 
people don't just have a limited right to elect their 
representatives, they absolutely have a right to decide the 
parameters around elected office.
    Senator Mark Warner had a good quote, he called ``the U.S. 
Federal bureaucracy the largest in the world.'' Over the last 
hundred years, the bureaucracy in this Nation has gone from 2.5 
percent of GDP to 25 percent of GDP. According to the Federal 
Register, we have over 400 different departments, agencies, and 
subagencies, over 100,000 different Federal Rules and 
Regulations.
    This is the biggest bureaucracy, and yet puzzlingly, 
Congress has never had term limits. So, therefore we are left 
to conclude that this entire bureaucracy that everyone has a 
problem with, that has become so unaccountable, and so 
undemocratic, that was created by career politicians, it wasn't 
created by term limits. Career politicians created the enabling 
laws, they sustained it, they perpetuated it, and they supplied 
it with a limitless stream of funding.
    So, if the charge is creating bureaucracy, I must say we 
are putting the wrong defendant on trial. It is career 
politicians over and over again who blow up bureaucracy, not 
term limits. I will tell you, Representative, there is a 
relationship between term limits and bureaucracy, term limits 
reduce bureaucracy. We know this because it happens at the 
State level. There was a paper by Professor Randy Holcomb, 
Florida State University.
    He found that States with term limits reduce the size of 
their bureaucracy. There was an analysis done by the National 
Taxpayers Union which found that the longest serving Members of 
Congress vote to spend the most money on bureaucracy. Then 
there was another paper that just came out last year by an NYU 
Professor Mona Vakilifathi, who found that in States with term 
limits, the legislators actually give bureaucrats a more 
confined mandate, and less discretion with respect to what they 
can do.
    So, the laws are written to bureaucrats, you must implement 
our law this way, other than you may implement our law this 
way. That is a tremendous difference, because it means that 
those legislators, those democratically elected legislators 
will have their policy wishes carried out into the next 
generation. As opposed to letting unelected bureaucrats decide 
the rules of the game.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Got it. In the amendment process, 
Mr. Jipping, in the amendment process, can a State Legislature 
alter or amend the language of a proposed Constitutional 
Amendment after it has been transmitted to them for 
ratification?
    Mr. Jipping. Not in any substantive way, no. There are 
different States that will ratify or not ratify, but they'll 
make their ratification decision in somewhat different ways. 
When a Constitutional Amendment is proposed, the States 
consider ratifying that Constitutional Amendment.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That specific language, so 
there's not a danger that it goes off the rails at that point. 
Can Congress set a time limit for States to ratify a proposed 
amendment?
    Mr. Jipping. Absolutely they can, and they've done it many, 
many times. As I said, the validity, or whether a time limit is 
valid and binding, depends on Congress' authority, not whether 
Congress puts it here or here on the page of a joint 
resolution. They've done both, States have ratified both, and 
certainly Congress throughout history, from Representative 
Martha Griffiths in 1972 would not have put that ratification 
deadline in the joint resolutions proposing clause saying that 
doing so would increase support for the amendment if it wasn't 
valid.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. As the ERA, right?
    Mr. Jipping. That's right.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes. So, we know that one lapsed, 
by the way, because we have that debate here all the time, it's 
clearly the ERA's time limit is lapsed.
    Mr. Jipping. It died more than 40 years ago. Everyone knew 
that it died, everyone knew that the deadline was valid. In 
1986, Gloria Steinem was on Oprah Winfrey, and an audience 
member asked her, ``What was the status of the ERA?'' She said, 
``it ran out of time, it has to start over and go through the 
process again.'' I don't find myself in agreement with Gloria 
Steinem about many things, but she was right.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. All right, unfortunately I'm out 
of time.
    So, I will now recognize the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, Ms. Scanlon for five minutes.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. So, as we've explored these issues 
around amending or revising the Constitution pursuant to either 
process authorized by Article V, we've had some interesting 
conversations, which expose just how complicated issues of 
Constitutional change can be, and why we should proceed with 
caution. I've been heartened to find areas of agreement with 
some of our colleagues across the aisle, including issues of 
term limits and Balanced Budget Amendments. I was interested in 
your observation, Mr. Spaulding, that the influx of dark money 
in politics is probably more corrosive to our democracy than 
the absence of term limits, I would agree with that. So, here 
we are, we've just returned from the House floor, where, yet 
again, an attempt to fund the government, a poor Constitutional 
duty for Congress, has been thwarted by an extremist, 
antigovernment minority.
    Not even a majority, a minority. So, I'm listening with 
trepidation to these suggestions that we should impose 
additional burdens, whether a Balanced Budget Amendment, or 
some kind of super majority requirement on our budgetary 
process when we can't even seem to get it done right now with 
what we have. I understand many people are frustrated by the 
difficulty and pace of confirming Constitutional amendments.
    Mr. Cohen mentioned his amendment, which would limit the 
ability of a President to pardon him or herself. I've been 
waiting my entire adult life for final acknowledgment, 
enrollment, or resurrection of the equal rights amendment, 
depending on what side of that debate you want to come down on. 
In the past month I've had constituents advocate for 
amendments, many of which have been adopted by various States, 
including amendments to guarantee access to reproductive 
healthcare, including abortion care.
    To overturn the Citizens United decision, which has allowed 
a flood of dark money in our politics. To guarantee the right 
of labor to organize and collectively bargain. To protect and 
improve a healthy environment for current and future 
generations. A right to a thorough and efficient public 
education, and the possibility of advising or repealing the 
second amendment.
    So, these are all ideas that have merit, and deserve 
Congressional consideration. Recently, former Senator Russ 
Feingold, Constitutional scholar Peter Prindiville published an 
interesting analysis of the purpose and history of Article V. 
It's entitled, ``The Constitution in Jeopardy,'' probably too 
long to enter in the record, but it examines many of these open 
questions, and the pitfalls in the current Article V.
    Suggesting that maybe we should consider streamlining, or 
somehow managing this process so that we could have a more 
fluid Constitutional Amendment process without denigrating the 
really touchstone that the Constitution is supposed to be. 
Keeping it above the fray of ordinary politics and 
factionalism. Mr. Spaulding, do you have anything to comment on 
that idea?
    Mr. Spaulding. Thank you, Ranking Member Scanlon. It's a 
terrific book, and I highly recommend it as well. I think it 
grapples with all the unanswered questions that we've been 
talking about today. All the risks that a Constitutional 
Convention would put our civil rights and civil liberties up 
for grab. We're living in a time right now where there's a 
fever among some States to ban books, and directly attack the 
First Amendment.
    So, would that be issue A at a Constitutional Convention? 
One of the proposals that Senator Feingold and Mr. Prindiville 
have in that book is to have, in this very room, have Congress 
explore an amendment to Article V that would answer some of 
these questions, but would proceed through the stable, 
transparent route that we've followed 27 times before, that 
would allow open debate, that would allow us to explore answers 
to those questions.
    It's a provocative and interesting proposal that does merit 
review. What's most important is it both preserves, and 
empowers people, but it also recognizes the important stability 
that is provided by Congressional review.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK, thank you. I would seek unanimous consent 
to include the following items in the record.
    First, is an article written by former Senator Russ 
Feingold, now President of the American Constitution Society 
titled, ``Warning a Convention of States is Practicing to 
Rewrite the Constitution,'' published in The Nation, July 14, 
2023.
    A September 2022 The New York Times article entitled, ``A 
Second Constitutional Convention some Republicans Want to Force 
One.''
    An extensive piece by Professor David Super of Georgetown 
University Law Center dated October 2021 titled, ``A Dangerous 
Adventure: No Safeguard Would Protect Basic Liberties from an 
Article V Convention.''
    An article from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
``Five Reasons to Reject any Constitutional Balanced Budget 
Amendment.''
    An article from the Center for American Progress entitled, 
``Tax Cuts are Primarily Responsible for the Increasing Debt 
Ratio.''
    Two more. An article from the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities entitled, ``Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment 
Poses Serious Risks.''
    A Washington Post article dated September 16, 2023, 
entitled, ``What Term Limits for Congress Would Actually do to 
Senate and House.''
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Seeing my time is expired, I would 
yield back.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back. This 
will conclude today's hearing, and we want to sincerely thank 
our witnesses again for appearing today, and for your 
flexibility and your patience, it means a lot to us. Without 
objection, all Members will have five legislative days to 
submit additional written questions for the witnesses, or 
additional materials for the record.
    Given that big load there, I'll probably have to do that to 
balance the record. Without objection, the hearing is 
adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 4:48 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent 
.aspx?EventID=116370.

                             [all]