119-HJRES-139 Journalist Public Summary
119 · HJRES 139 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the Federal Government.
Plain‑language overview of H.J.Res. 139, a proposed constitutional amendment to require the federal government to balance its budget by capping annual spending to a rolling three‑year average of revenues (adjusted for population and inflation), with limited override options, a two‑thirds vote to raise taxes, and a five‑year delay before taking effect if ratified.
Headline Summary
A constitutional amendment to cap yearly federal spending to what the government collected (on average) over the past three years—adjusted for population and inflation—with only narrow, high‑bar exceptions.
What It Does
H.J.Res. 139 would amend the Constitution to require that total federal expenditures in a year do not exceed the average annual revenues from the prior three years, adjusted for changes in the citizen population and inflation. Debt service is excluded from the spending cap, and borrowed money does not count as “revenue.” Congress could approve specific spending above the cap only with a two‑thirds roll‑call vote in each chamber, or by a roll‑call vote during a formally declared war. Any new tax or tax‑rate increase would need a two‑thirds roll‑call vote of the whole membership in both chambers. If ratified, the amendment would take effect in the fifth fiscal year after ratification.
Who’s For It
- Sponsor: Rep. Andy Biggs (R–Arizona).
- Fiscal conservatives who argue Washington needs a hard cap to curb chronic deficits and debt growth.
- Advocates who believe supermajority votes for tax hikes will force lawmakers to prioritize spending and pursue economic growth over higher taxes.
Who’s Against It
- Many Democrats and some budget analysts who warn a rigid cap could force deep, across‑the‑board cuts to programs (from Social Security and Medicare to defense and education) unless taxes are raised—something the supermajority requirement makes harder.
- Economists who caution that tying spending to past revenues can worsen recessions: when revenues fall, the cap tightens just as families and the economy may need more support.
- Opponents who say emergencies short of a formal war (natural disasters, pandemics, financial crises) may still require swift, large responses that could be constrained by the cap.
What’s Next
Status as of January 9, 2026: Introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Next potential steps include committee hearings/markup, House floor consideration (requiring a two‑thirds vote because it’s a constitutional amendment), then the Senate (also two‑thirds). If it clears Congress, it would go to the states, where 38 legislatures must ratify it.
Discussion