CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Il|||llWI|°fllMimi iuu‘iI° '"I1iii"]Iv nu 01 0-103860957 ~ ~;~;.;,~,«, U,Wemy sovsnnn3uT%sP3NDI1is, CAI.IPORNIA'S PRAOPOSITIONS 13 (1973) Am) 9 (1980), % %conG3Ess1:oNn. PROPOSALS, AND A CONSTITUTIONAL convmrrxon 1'0 BALANCE THE BUDGET Issur: BRIEF RUBBER IB78059 ‘ AU'1.‘HOR: Durbin, Thomas 1!. American. Law Division THE LIBRARY or coucmzss coucmassxonan REEARCHSERVICE HAJOR ISSUES sxs-mu DAEIE ORIGINATED‘ Q6g(_)_(_‘Z§ DATE UPDATED 9_§_4g1;§_9_ FOR ADDITIONAL INFORHBTI OR CALL 287-5700 043) CR5-~ 1 A p IB78059 UPDATE-05/01/80 .’I.§§P.§-2§£11ll.-.3.;Q. on June 6, 1978, the voters of the state of California adopted by almost a two to one nargin Proposition 13, coanonlycalled the Jarvis-Gann Initiative, which provided for a state constitutional amendment to establish a limit on ‘ local property‘ taxation and change the voting requirements for increases in other sources of government revenue in California. On June 3, 1980, the-electorate in California will vote on Proposition 9, an initiative measure which would (1) provide for a 50%) reduction in state annual income taxes, (2) limit any increases in incone taxes to those reflecting increases in the California consuner price index, and (3) abolish property taxes on business inventories. Proposition 9 is also commonly known as Jarvis II or Jaws II, and. recent polls show that voters favor the proposal. If Proposition 9 passes and becomes law, it would be effective July 1, 1980 for FY81. similar movements for such reductions are underway in Alaska and Montana. ’ At issue are: (1) What is the impact of Proposition 13 (1978) and Proposition 9 (1980) on other states which have initiative measures and would similar proposals be the proper subject (matter for a national initiative should a constitutional anendnent be adopted providing for a national initiative? (2) What is the inpact of Proposition‘ 13 on the state of California and its federal revenue-sharing funds and its federally funded rograns? (3) What arethe legal problems of Proposition 13? (Li) ilhat has een the congrssional response to balance the federal budget? And (5) should a constitutional convention be called to consider a balanced budget anendnent? j T §1C_lS§'§9.!!!P..A!Q ..£.’QL.l§.Y...QALY5I§ PROPOSITION 13 Lunch of the revenue that local govemnents in California, and in other states, receive is from property taxes; whereas the state governments receive the bulk of their revenues from personal income taxes, sales taxes, and corporate taxes. In 1978 local governmental units in California would have collected approximately $10.3 billion in property taxes, which represented about 27% of the total incone for cities, 40% for counties, 117% for school districts, and 90% for fire districts. However, the Jarvis-Gann Initiative (Proposition 13) would reduce propertytaxes by an average of approximately 60% and reduce funds for ‘local governments andschools by approximately $7 billion beginning July 1, 1978. 9 The main provisions of the Jarvis-Gann Initiative (Proposition 13) are as follows: u ~ w _ ) (1) The ad. valoren real property taxes would be limited to 1% of the -e r ket value except to pay any bonded indebtedness approved‘ by the voters prior to July 1, 1978. (2) Property values would be based <11 assessments of mar.’ 1, 1975, an.d subsequent increases in assessed valuations would be limited to 2% annually. cns-2 o IB78059 UPDATE-05/O1/80 (3) Reassessments could only be made upon transfer or sale of ownership or upon completion of new construction. K (ii) any new taxes voted by the state legislature must be approved by\ a, two-thirds vote and not by the present simple majority, and the legislature would be prohibited from enacting any ad valorem taxes upon real property. (5) The revenues from property taxes are to be apportioned "according to the law to the districts within the counties." (6) Local governmental units would be able to impose "special taxes ," but only by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors; however, they may not impose taxes on real property. . (7) If any section of the initiative is found to be unconstitutional by the state supreme court, the remaining sections of the amendment would remain in effect. a ' . (8) The effective date was July 1, 1978,Vex'cept for the two-thirds vote requirement for the legislature in enacting any new taxes, which would go ‘ into eff ect immediately. Supporters of Proposition 13 argued that state government spending at all levels had nushroomed out of proportion andthat drastic steps were needed to bring such spending under control. Supporters noted that the amount of money lost by loml governmental units could be absorbed _by state and local government without any curtailment of vital services and that the property‘ taxes provided for by Proposition 13 were more than enough to pay for police, fire and other services which were directly related to property. some supporters further argued that tax rate reductions of Proposition 13 would eventually produce increased tax revenues because of the resulting. stimulation of the economy. Opponents of Proposition 13 argued that the reduction in property taxes would lead to economic and governmental chaos in California. They also noted that property taxes were locally collected and spent and-that any reduction in them would make local governmental units increasingly dependent on the state and federal governments. Consequently, opponents argued, the Initiative would diminish the traditional home rule of local governmental units since they would become more dependent on state and federal funds and would also be controlled by a mass of state and federal laws and regulations. One of the strongest arguments that opponents made was that, unless new taxes were imposed, there was no way the local governmental units could maintain their police, fire, and school programsat current levels. Also it was noted that if police and fire services were cut back, home owners would have to pay higher rates for fire insurance and other types of liability insurance. Opponents pointed out that there was no direct benefit to renters from Proposition 13 and that renters were doubly jeopardized because they would have to bear the full burden of any new inane and sales taxes that would be enacted to offset the property tax losses. P Opponents also argued that Proposition 13 was an unequal tax law that results in unequal assessments; for example, it was argued, that,‘ since business properties infrequen"y changed hands, they would he rarely « reassessed, while the properties cf homeowners would more frequently change hands and would result in the latter paying a higher proportion of property tare- cns-P3 w IB78059 aroma-05/01/so . l3,§EM.Z1_QI.. B0P.Q§£2I0E..13. 1 jjjj 12 1; \ Estimates of the total loss‘ to California local governments due to the /lspact of Proposition 13 ranged from a low» of $5 billion to a high T of $8 billion. However, the loss of property-tax deductions would raise state and .federal income. tax revenues by approximately $2 billion. Horeover, Proposition 13 would also reduce the amount of federal revenue-sharing funds that would have been available to local governmental units sincs ythe revenue-sharing formula is based inpart on local taxation. Thus, if the ‘state revenuesdecline, then the federal matching payments decline. Also, ‘ Proposition 13 may have an effect on the hard-core unemployed working in u the federally funded Comprehensive Employment and Traininghct (CETA) program in California. Under this Act, there is a special provision that bars state and local governmental units from substituting CBTA employees for state and local employees. Consequently, if a state employee’ is laid off and a CETA employee has the same job description and is doing the same job, then i the CETA . employee must also be laid off. Since California has already begun laying ’ off government employees, CETA employee may also be laid off. The adoption of Proposition ‘ 13 and resultant reduction in revenues T directly reduced the revenues of local governments in the state and also had an indirect effect on programs under various federal statutes. Proposition 13 may have an impact on the development of new: subdivisions, requiring immense capital outlaysifor streets, lighting, water and sewer lines, schools, police andydfire stations. Because of the Proposition 13-like restrictions on property, there would not be enough money to support these services and the costs would then be shifted to developers, which may result L in a virtual freejze on new subdivision building. ~ 9.1'..!!.3?-'.l3.-<_3Q!§§S2Ql3.§S3.l3.§_Q2.;PEQ2.i9§-$I° 1 .._¥....... §§_Q§_I_.j§__1_ __t_a_g§;_i._9_1_1. Property taxes paid may he deductedfrom income “under the Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, , for taxpayers who itemize their deductionshthe reduction of property taxeswill result Kin an increase in federal income tax liability. p ‘ §g_x;_e__1;g1._§_g_v_g_1g_e_§l_1g;_:_i;1_g. iRevenue-sharing funds are distributed among the states under a formula which includes "general tax effort" as one of the factors. The reduction in property taxes will affect this factor and therefore the amounts received under the general revenue sharing formula. §a_i1_1__1_:_§_ni§_1_;_1_<__;_e__ 9_§_i__efforj:_- P Hany P federal grant-in-aid statutes contain provisions designedto ensure; that the federal aid A increases the amount ; expended for the program and to prevent the substitution of federal funds for p ; stateor local funds. If Proposition 13 results in a reduction of effort in a program covered by’ such a federal, grant-in-aid statute, the continuation of ' such grants may be in question. §_1;_a__1_:__e_~ _o;__ ;._og_a_;__ gatc_h_gg. hany federal grant statutes require a p non-federal contribution of a certain percentage of the federal grant or the federal grants is determined as a ipercentage of the state or local kpenditures. Reduction of state or local expenditures in such cases may result in the reduction orelimination of federal grants. , L§y9f_f__’__9_f__ gx_n_p]_.<_>ygg§- T The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act prohibits the use of federal funds under that Act to hire an employee if any CRS- 4 i IB78059 UPDATE-05/O1/8.0 other employee is on layoff from the sale or sinilar position and, by regulation, reguires the layoff or trarsfer of any federally-funded employee if any other employee is laid off from such a position. A reduction. in stat" or locally funded y positions ‘may thus result in a reduction on. federally-funded jobs. a §2é.'1'§ 13 IT;IA5;3.|.3.‘!_E§.-lN .Q...T§13;....E§...B°5 EQJRT ION RLIEITIATIEE Presently 23 states and the District of Colunbia have adopted initiative processes, which are by constitutional initiative and/or by the statute initiative- The states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Haine, Hassachusetts, Michigan, nissouri, Hontana, nliebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington , and Wyoming. some of these: provisions ‘in 'cerain. states provide for various restrictions on the initiative. For exanple, the initiative provision in Alaska provides that the initiative shal. not be applicable to revenue measures; consequently, it say be argued that an initiative neasure such as Proposition 13 may not be allowed in Alaska. The District of Columbia initiative law would not allow voters to enact laws in the area of budget matters such as property taxes. bothers initiative povisions in certain states restrict the initiative hfron appropriation Ieasuresg (Alaska, nassachusetts, uissouri, Montana, Nevada, and Wyowing). moreover, the Wyoming initiative is not: allowed to dedicate revenues. Generally. .the restrictions that have been placed on the initiative processes in zost of the states would not affect.neasures such as Proposition 13, which provides fr‘ liwitations on property tax. In the general election on Nov. 7, 1978, many states had tax-cutting and spending-limitation proposals on the ballot, and the results were: Alabana: Voters approved a proposal to lower assessment rates on most classes of property. A Arizona: Voters approved an amendment to the state that would linit state spending to 7% of personal income in the state. Arkansas: Voters rejected a nasure that would exempt food and drugs from the 3% sales tax. ‘ Colorado: Voters rejected a proposal to tie the growth in state spending to increases in theconsuner price index. Hawaii: Voters approved an anendwent to the state constitution that wmld keep spending in line with econonic growth with assurances of taxpayer refunds if the state runs a 5% surplus for two-years in a row. Illinois: Voters approved an advisory measure requesting the state legislature to set property tax and spending ceilings. CRS- 5 IB78059 UPDATE-05/01/8'0 nassachusetts: Voters authorized classification for ~ different kinds of property by the legislature that would permit lower rates for residential property. Voters also provided homeowners with a $5,000 houestead exemption . v nichigan: Voters approved Proposal 13,, aconstitutional amendment that would limit the increase in state spending to the increase in the state's personal income. Voters rejected Proposal H, which would have switched school financing away from its property tax base. And voters rejected Proposal J, a "Proposition 13" proposal, which would have reduced local property tax by 50% and limited annual increases in assessment to 2.5%- Missouri: Voters approved a measure allowing the legislature to lower property tax rates if the courts call for reappraisals. Nebraska: Voters rejected a measure that would have placed a constitutional limit on spending increases. by local units of government. Revadaz Voters approved a measure that would limit property tax to 1% of the current market value and reduce property valuation to the 1975 level; however, ‘this neasure can only take effect if the voters approve an amendment to the state constitution to provide for such reduction in 1980. v North Dakota: Voters approved a neasurethat would reduce individual state inmme taxes 37%. s Oregon: Voters rejected both Heasure 6, a Proposition 13 loo-k-alike, and measure ‘31, an emergency measure passed bythe legislature to deflate ueasure 6. Both of these would have provided for certain limitations on property tax. Southnakota: Voters approved a proposal that would require a two-thirds vote by the legislature or a referendum for incrases in state taxes. Texas: Voters approved a measure that would give 0 0 homeowners , the elderly, the disabled, and owners of ranch, farm, and timber lands various tax relief in the for: of either exemptions fron some school taxes or lower tax valuations. y a . l-..§§AL....é.!2_.<29!§;'1i.E1?§!_T;Q!1.1é.L.£;!Q§L§§§_Q13..-2.$;.EQ§l1£l.9..11..1§. Court challenges to the constitutionality oi‘: Proposition 13 under the California constitution have been comencnd by such affected groups as teachers‘ unions and state and local government employees’ unions. One of the provisions of Proposition 13 in anticipation Of a court challenge provides that if any section of the initiative were. to be declared cns- 5 2 1373059 UPDATE,-O 5/o1/no unconstitutional, all of the remaining sections would remain in effect- This clause would allow the remainder of the measure to take effect even if certain sections were found unconstitutional. However, the courts may hold the whole measure unconstitutional if they find constitutional problems with the major provisions of the measure. Some of the legal and constitutional issues that ha.ve been raised by Proposition 13 that may have to be decided by the courts are as follows: (1) How are property tax revenues to be divided when the initiative provides for division "according to law" and there is no law and the local governmental body refuses to pass such a law? (2) How are the tax assessors going to evaluate properties that decrease in value after the base date of Mar. 1, 1975? (3) Is there an equal protection violation when the Initiative measure places a 2% limitation on annual increases in value for properties that do not , change hands, especially those properties held by businesses and corporations, which infrequently change hands, while the Initiative allows full reassessment of those properties that are sold, which consequently would affect homeowners more than businesses and corporations? Under the Amendment, recently-sold houses would be taxed at a stepped up value relative to others that would only increase a maximum of 2% annually; in light of this, should similar houses be taxed differently and would this unequal taxation be an equal protection violation? (it) What does the term "qualified electors" mean in the Initiative measure, which provides pthat loca.l governmental units may impose special taxes only by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors; does this mean those registered to vote or those who are of voting age and otherwise qualified to vote? (5) what is meant by “new construction“, since reassessments could be made upon the completion of new construction? iould new construction include a major renovation of a hous" or a substantial addition to a house? (6) fioulda change from a joint t single ownership of property mean that a change of ownership has occurred, which would allow a full reassessment for property tax purposes? And, (7) how are local governmental units going to retire bonds that are often used to finance redevelopment projects and that are often repaid from funds resulting from the growth in property tax revenue generated from the redeveloped land? On June 7, 1978, one of the first suits was filed against Proposition 13 by the California Teachers‘ Association (one of the state's largest teachers‘ groups, which fears that Proposition 13 will cost the group thousands of jobs due to layoffs and closings of schools) and by the Service Employees International Union, as wellas a group of taxpayers in San Francisco and Santa Clara County. In this suit, an "extraordinary writ" was filed with the California Supreme Court, alleging that the Initiative is too broad to meet the state's constitutional definition of an amendment and violates the constitutional limit on the scope of initiative measures since it concerns more than one subject. The suit also alleges that a statewide convention is mandated whenever a substantial reform of the tax system is sought. Another suit has been filed by the California Teachers’ Association asserting that the implementation of Proposition 13 will have the immediate effect of destroying public education in violation of Article IX, Section 1 of the State Constitution. i on June 23, 1978, the California Supreme Court agreed to consider thr =. challenges to Proposition 13, but refused to delay the implementation of t..e law- The Court agreed to consider one petition filed by 29 school districts, a second by seven counties, and a third by the City and County of San Francisco. The Court ordered all briefs to be filed by July 21, 1978, and heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 13 on ens- 7o IB78059 UPDATE-O5/01/80 Aug- 11, 1978. on Sept. 22, 1978, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 13. The Court ruled igtg;_ alga that the selection of th 1975-1976 fiscal year asia base for taxation was valid and that the tax changes mandated by Propositi 13 were narrow enough that the initiative process was a proper way of changing the state's tax law. PROPOSITION 9 Proposition 9, which.is on California's prinary ballot on June 3, T1980, would reduce personal income tax rates in California to a range of’ 0.5% to 5.5%; this reduction is 50% of then present rates if approved by the electorate. Polls indicate that voters*wi1l approve the proposal. Estimates show that the income tax cut would reduce revenues by $fl.8 hbillion in FY81 and by $u.2 billion in FY82. Proponents argue that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy whilei opponents argue that the measure would (1) force sharp ‘cutbacks in state programs, (2) reduce subsidies to local governments, and (3) reduce various government services. In 1979 one of the predominant issues facing State legislatures’ was that of trimming taxes. uany States did enat laws that would cut taxes, but many of these were only modest cuts in general and not extreme "proposition 13“ type reductions. Utah and Nevada adopted overall spending limits in 1979. new Hexico approved a $40 income tax rebate. Montana approved a modest income tax reduction which would also allow the governor ton provide for a further reduction if the State surplus was larger than expected. Indiana approved a one-time 15% income tax credit. and Vermont cut its income taxes for one year only. While many States trimmedy their income taxes, others enacted measures\to trim sales taxes and property taxes. Kansas, Haryland, South Carolina, and Missouri eliminated theesales tax from utility bills. Colorado and vnevada eliminated the sales tax on food. And Illinois eliminated the sales tax on food and medicine. Also, Kansas, Maryland, south Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Texas, and Wyoming decreased property taxes for low income, elderly or disabled persons- New York, and Delaware reduced income taxes for the higher-income brackets.on the. grounds that it would induce major corporations to keep their corporate headquarters within those istates. §.eder____a1-Le9iele’2i2I.z. The effect of the overwhelming approval of Proposition 13 by almost a two to one vote by the California electorate was felt by the 0.5. Congress- The y95th and 96th Congresses considered reductions in the budgets of certain governmental departzents.p These reductions have been associated with the effect of Proposition 13 and the so-called “taxpayers' revolt." Partly as a cns— 8 n 1378059 UPDATE-05/01/80 result of the passage of Proposition ~ 13, certain federal legislation; was introduced that would put limitations <11 appropriations. g\;1_>l'c_;aws -: Ba;agg_d Bgdgej; P.L. 95-#35 (H.R. 921%) Amends Breton Woods Agreement Act to authorize the United states to participate in Witteveen Supplementary Financing Facility to International Honetary Fund. Mandates that the United states balance its budget by FY81. Signed into law Oct. 10, 1.978. Amends Second Liberty Bond Act to increase the temporary public debt limit- Directslthe Budget Committees to report balanced budgets for FY81 and FY82 along with economic impact statemmts. Requires the President, if he recommends a budget which would result in a deficit in either FY81 or FY82, to submit an alternative budget which is in _ balance. Alternative budgets shall include a clear and understandable explanation of: specific differences (between the budget and alternative budget proposals- .Signed into law Apr. 13, 1979. 2§£h-Q2ngres§-::;Le9i§las;9n In the first session of the 96th Congress, the Kemp-Roth spendin_ limitation proposals that were introduced in the 95th Congress were reintroduced in the House (H.R. 1597, Kemp et al., Jan. 29, 1979) and the Senate (S. 311, Roth et al., Jan. 15, 1979). (These proposals would provide for spending limitations in the calendar years 1979 through 1982 by requiring thatthetotal amount of federal outlays shall not exceed, unless waived by a 8 two-«thirds vote in each House of Congress, the following percent of the projected grossnational product: 21% in fiscal year 1980; 20% in fiscal xyear 1951; 19% in fiscal year 1982; and 18% in fiscal year 1983. Also introduced was H.R. 1598 (Kemp et al., Jan. 29, 1979) which would provide for permanent tax rate reductions on the average of 33.3% for individual taxpayers. Almost 200 (hills and joint resoluticns have been introduced in the first and second sessions of the 96th Congres relating to balancing the budget and controlling federal spending. Generally, the bills would accomplish such goals by statute, and the joint resolutions would amend the constitution to do so. The approaches that these bills and joint resolutions take include: (1) requiring that the budget must be balanced, or deficit spending must be p prohibited, except under certain emergency circumstances; (2) limiting federal expenditures, or increases in slch expenditures, to no more than a specified percentage of national income or Gross National Product (GNP); (3) limiting the taxing authority of the federal government; (ll) amending the existing 5 congressional budget process to require consideration of budget balancing alternatives; and (5) redefining the federal budget to provide 1‘ *: separate capital and operating budgets. 11.13. 76061 was introduced in the House by Budget Committee Chairman Robert 9 H. csiaimo on Dec. ll, 1979, and referred to the Committee on Rules. This bill would limit Federal spending in FY81 to 28.5% of the GNP, in FY82 to 28% of cns—. 9 1373059 UPDATE‘-O5/01/801, the GNP, and in FY83Fto.27.5% of the GNP.. The current Federal spending level is 28.u% of the GNP.. , 1 ) The Senate cn Mar. 27, 1979, ‘added amendments to H.R.~ 2534:, which would increase the public debt limit, to establish a procedure whereby Congress: can“ vote on a balanced budget for FY31 and F! 82. The Budget committees would he; required to sulnit balanced budgets for FY81 -and FY82 by Apr. 15, 1979, and to explain the consequences of each budget on each budget function and on the-1 economy, setting forth the effects: on revenues, spending, employment, inflation, and national security. on Apr- 2, 1979, the House agreed ‘to the Senate aaendaents, and»H.R. 2534» was approved by the President on Apr- 2, 1979, beconing»Pe.I... 95-6- ' 9 1 1 p h on Jan- 3, 1980, the Senate’ Conmittee on the Budget concluded hearings on legislative proposals to litit Federal spending. And, on Mar. 19, 1980, the Senate Judiciary Connittee failed by as 9-8 vote to report a proposed constitutional amendment, S. J.Res- 126, that would require Congress to balance the budget- 1 ~ an Ear. 101: 1980. President ‘Carter announced that he 'UOIlld’ send to Congress a balanced budget for FY81. ‘ilhe House and Senate Committees’ an the A Budget are considering ways in which to have a; balanced budget for FY81. geeringe A Hearings have been ‘held by the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate . u diciary Committee on various proposals to amend the constitution to linit Federal spending and» to require a balanced budget, such as S-J.Res. 2, 9 S-J.lies- ll, S.J.Res., 5,. S.J.Res. 6, S.J.Res. 7, S.J.Res. 9, S.J.Res. 10,- wS.J.Res. 11, S.J.Res. 16, S.J.Res. 18, S..J.Res., 38, S.J.Res. 1:5 and S.J.Res. #6 on mar. 12, Bay 23, July 25, Oct. 4, 11, and Nov. 1, 1979;~ on Har. 12, A 1979 hearings were also held on S.J.Res. 5, s.J.Res. 6,9 S.J.Res. 18, and 9 S.J-Res. 38. he Senate Budget committee held. hearings on S.Res. 1&7 on Bar. 22, 1979, w-hich provides for a reduction in‘ the Federal budget for FY80“. some of the joint resolutions relating to federal spending are summarized 9 as follows: a 1 9 ‘ H-J.Res- 2 (Colenan et al.) Br joint resolution proposping any anendnent to the 9 constitution of the United States to provide that appropriations rade by the United States shall not exceed its revenues, except in time of war or national emergency; and to providejfor the systenaticwpayingu back of the national debt. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979 ; referred to House Judiciary. Comnittee. Hj.J.Res- 1!! ‘(Balfalis et al.) h joint resolution proposing an anendment to the Constitution that the i »United States shall not exceed its revenues, except tine of war or 1' tional exergency; and to provide for the systematic ‘paying back of the .. tional debt. Introduced Jan. 9 15, 1979: referred to House Judiciary Committee. s 9 V n— r 9 . H.J.Res. 39 (Granm et al.) cns- 10 In78o59 UPDA']:B-05/01/80 A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which prohibits the Congress from making any law which causes the total amount of money expended by the United States in any fiscal year to exceed the total amount of revenue of the United States received during than‘ fiscal year. Intro-duced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to House Judiciary Committee. ' 9 9 9 H.J.Res. 73 (Hoorhead et al.) A joint resolution proposing an ametudment to the constitution of the United States to provide that appropriations made by the United states‘ shall not exceed its revenues, except in time of war or national emergency. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to House Judiciary Committee. S.Res. 47 (Both et al.) Expresses the sense of the Senate that the first concurrent resolution on the budget for FY80 reported by the Committee on the Budget should set an appropriate level of total budget outlays which is at least $10 billion less than the total budget outlays proposed in the budget submitted by the President for such fiscal year, and an appropriate level of total new budget authority- Introduced Jan. 31, 1979; referred to Senate Budget Committee. » Hearings held on mar. 22, 1979. S.J.Res. ll (Lugar et al.) A joint resolution proposing an anendment to the Constitutiony to require that congressional resolutions setting forth levels of total budget outlays and federal revenues must he agreed to by two-thirds vote of both Houses to the Congress if the level of outlays exceeds the level of revenues. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. Hearings held on May 23 and July 25, 1979. S.J.Res. 5 (Dole) A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution to provide that expenditures of the government may not exceed the revenues of the government during any fiscal year, and for limits on federal spending and taxing. Prohibits total government expenditures from exceeding tota.l revenues during any fiscal year unless a concurrent resolution permitting such an excess be approved by a. two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress. States that any such concurrent resolution on the budget will be considered out of order if the budget was not balanced in more than three of the preceding eight fiscal years. ‘ Limits any annual increase in ‘total expenditures and revenues to 18% of the estimated gross national product for that fiscal year. Makes an 1 exception to such limitation upon approval of two-thirds of the Hembers of both Houses of Congress. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee and to Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hearings held Mar. 12, Bay 23, and July 25, 1979 . s.J.Res- 6 (Stennis et al.) Proposes a constitutional amendment to require the federal government to ' end deficitiiinancing. Requires the President to review government revenues and expenditures at specified times and to determine a surtax rate when expenditures exceed revenues to insure that receipts will equal outlays. CBS-119 IB78059 UPDATE-OS/01/80 Authorizes a suspension of such measures in the casen of a graves national emergency declared by Congress. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979. Referred to senate Judiciary Committee and to Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hearings leld Mar. 12, may 23, and July 25, 1979. 1 s.J.Res- 18 (Thurnond et al.) A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution of ‘the v”United States relative to balancing of the budget and reducing the ~public debt. Introduced Jan- 18, 1979; referred to Senate Judiciary Committee and etc Subcommittee on the Constitution. earings held nar. 12, day 23, and July 25, 1979. S.J.Res. 38 (Byrd of Va- et al.) Proposes a constitutional amendment to nandate a balanced budget. Directs the Congress to assure that total federal outlays do note exceedy total receipts in any fiscal year. Excludes fro: such requirement all outlays and receipts derived from the redemption or issuance of bonds, notes, and other obligations of the United States.‘ Authrizes suspension of such reguirenent in tire of national emergency upon the concurrence of two—thirds of the Members of both Houses of Congress. Introduced Mar. 8, 1979; referred to Senate Judiciary "Committee and Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hearings held Mar. 12, may 23, and July 25, 1979. n S.J.Res. 126 (Deconcini et al.) Proposes an amendment to the Constitution that would promoted fiscal esponsibility and would prevent any appropriation bill.fron becoming law if it would cause an unbalanced federal budget.in any fiscal year. Introduced Dec. 1u, 1979; referred to. Committee don the Judiciary; approved by Subcomnittee on the Constitution Dec. 19, 1979; full committee failed to report Bar. 18, 1980- Q9n§*_=i1=nti.-nel.§9nzent.i_0n Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, congress is required “to call a Convention for proposing Amendments" upon application of ‘too-thirds of the 9 states. Thirty state legislatures haveeso far applied to Congress for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment to balance the federal budget. Thirty-four statesy -- four snore» -- are needed before such a convention can be called. Any amendments ‘which would be proposed by a iconstitutional convention would become‘ part of~ the. Constitution if subsequently ratified by threeefourths of the states. On Nov. 29, 1979, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of 9the Senate Judiciary connittee held hearings on legislation regarding procedures to be followed by constitutional conventions. 9 u should the »legislatures nof an states petition 1 Congress for a ,constitutional convention, Congress would have to call such a convention. “hat is not;clear is what wouldy be the~subject latter of such a convention. ,e Philadelphia Convention nor 1787 (the Federal Convention), when it proposed Article V, did not clarify whether a constitutional convention could be limited by either the states or by Congress. The Philadelphia Convention implied that only Congress and such a convention could propose amendments to the constitution. Thus, if the states that have submitted applications cns--12 ‘ I117 80 59 UPDA'.l.'E-05/01/80 calling for a. convention have restricted the subject matter of the convention, it is arguable that the applications may be invalid since in effect the proposal power would then be transferred from Congress to th‘ states contrary to Article V. Many of the petitions calling for a convention to balance the budget have accordingly restricted the subject matter of the convention and may be considered invalid in light of the intent and purpose behind Article 17, since it is arguable that such a convention would have the ultimate determination of the subject mtter and the nature and scope of any amendments that would be proposed. .5. Congras. Senate. ‘Committee on‘ the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session, on S.J.Res. 2-7, 9-11, 13, 16, 18, 36, 38, £15, 46, 56, 76, 79, 86, and 93. (Not yet printed.) 3§29.2z§_;.;«.p.._9.9y§a§§§.:;9.uA.L-299n£n1§ £1.15. Congress. House. Committee on the Budget- Toward a balanced budget; report pursuant to P.I.. 96-5. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 102 p. 9 Allan, John H. California's tax vote will affectits bonds. New You: tines, June 5, 1978: ’D 3. California's "tax revolt" dilemma. Business week, no. 2537, June 5, 1978: 51. 9 American Enterprise Institute. Proposals for a constitutional convention to require a balanced federal budget. Legislative Analysis No. 3, 96th Congress, 1st Session (1979). Black, "Amendment by National Constitutional Convention: A Letter to a senator," 32 oklahcua Law Review 626 (1979). Cameron, Juan. A reluctant Congress puts a clanp on spending. Fortune, v. 99, July 2, 1979: 411-115. Castlenan, flichael- California's tax revolt: The Jarvis-Gann tea party. The Nation, v. 226, June 3, 1978: 655-657. -----° Hutinyin California. The New republic, v. 178, Junet3, Eocera, Joseph. 1 Surprise: The property tax could be good for -you. The Washington monthly, v. 10, Hay 1978: 11-17. Salznan, Ed. Stretching the initiative. California journal, v- 9, February 1978: 38. -'-- sound and fury over taxes. Time, v. 111, no. 25, June 19, 1978: 12-_-21. cns-13 1373059 DEBATE-05/O1/80 Tribe, Laurence . Issues raised by’ requesting Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose a balanced budget anendmalt. Pacific law journal, 17. 10, 1979: 1627. 0.5. Library of Congress. Congressional Research service. An economic analysis of the Kemp/Roth tax cut hill, H.R. 8333: A description, an explanation of its rationale, and estimates of its economic effects [by] Donalrl W. Kierer. July 31, 1973. 79 p. 9 CR5 Report 78-1598 Van llstyne, William 3., “Does Article V Restrict the States to Calling Unlimited Conventions mly?—-A Letter to a Colleague.“ 1978 Duke Law Journal 1295 (1978). ’ Van Alstyne, "The 'I.inited' Constitutional Conventicn--The Recurring Answer“, 1979 Duke Law Journal985. Voegler, "Anending the Constitution by the Article 7 Convention Hethod", 55 North Dakota Law Review 355 (1979). iarfielé, Polly. Why it's needed. Los Angeles free press. Bar. 9, 1978: 7. 9‘ A Wong, William. Taxes boil over in California- Theliall Street journal, Feb. 27,1978: 111. 7 LIBRARY 0.== WA3Hii7+.!GTON UNlVEF¥S£TY ___s‘r. LO_LJS_!S - M0. MU Libraries University of Missouri——Columbia Digitization Information for Congressional Research Service Digitization Project Local identifier CRSIB Source information Format Content type Notes Capture information Date captured Scanner manufacturer Scanner model Scanning system software Optical resolution Color settings File types Derivatives — Access copy Compression Editing software Resolution Color File types Notes Book Text Cover has cut—out to show title on title Page Stamped with property stamp for Washington University including deaccession stamp Some have labels on front page Some have black out markings on front page SuDoc numbers handwritten on front page Some items have very light print Some front pages have colored backgrounds Items not added to University of Missouri collection 20l7 April Ricoh MP C4503 600 dpi grayscale tiff Group 4 600 dpi bitonal tiff