We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting total federal expenditures for a year from exceeding the average annual federal receipts collected in the three prior years, adjusted for changes in the population of U.S. citizens and inflation. Expenditures for payment of debt and receipts derived from borrowing are excluded.
Under the amendment, Congress may authorize specific expenditures in excess of the limit with (1) a roll call vote of two-thirds of each chamber, or (2) a roll call vote for any year in which a declaration of war is in effect.
The amendment also prohibits any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax from becoming law unless it has been approved by a roll call vote of two-thirds of the whole number of each chamber of Congress.
The requirements take effect in the fifth year beginning after ratification of the amendment.
House floor actionsMr. Biggs (AZ) moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution.
Library of CongressFailed of passage/not agreed to in House On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 211 - 207 (Roll no. 95).
Floor Vote
Failed in the House
House floor actionsReported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-520.
House committee actionsCommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Library of CongressIntroduced in House
House floor actionsReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced
Committee
Comments
Comments with insults, hate speech or personal information are removed.
What Congress Said
Members who spoke about this bill on the floor, in their own words from the Congressional Record.
Republicans8 spoke
There are two choices: spend a lot less on the future or spend a little less starting today. I choose the second option. That is why I support the balanced budget amendment. It is the only way to cement our commitment to long-term fiscal stability.
If we can't concede to the fact that this body politic does not have the political will to address it, to rein in the spending that is driving this unsustainable debt trajectory that will bankrupt our country and our children's future, then we must support this forcing mechanism.
As much as we have spent, and there are many in this room who have fought against this spending, I can't imagine how much worse it would be if we had to go to the Democrats for a vote. That is the problem.
I missed votes in order to attend the dignified transfer of six fallen U.S. Service members. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 92, AYE on Roll Call No. 93, YEA on Roll Call No. 94, and YEA on Roll Call No. 95.
I rise to oppose H.J. Res. 139, a feeble attempt by the President's budget-busting, blank-check enablers in Congress to distract America from their own staggering and historic fiscal irresponsibility.
Then some, particularly those who are claiming we made a deal and we are keeping it to get this constitutional amendment on the floor--what was the deal for? The deal was to vote for the big, bad bill, which created $4.7 trillion of additional deficit.
From the same folks who brought us $4.7 trillion in additional Federal debt and who worship the ``king of debt,'' Donald Trump, as he describes himself, they present this unbalanced budget amendment.
It is fundamentally undemocratic because it bakes in policy choices that should be the decision of future Congresses. Each Congress, elected by the people, should decide the contours of its own budget, but this resolution requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes but only a simple majority to cut taxes.
Comments
Comments with insults, hate speech or personal information are removed.