Andy Biggs (R-AZ)
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the Federal Government.
H.J.Res. 139 · House resolution Economics and Public Finance
A Republican resolution with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 211 - 207 (Roll no. 95).
Failed
Came to a vote and did not get the votes it needed.
Usually nothing. A measure can be brought back, but one that failed on the floor rarely returns in the same Congress.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Failed 211–207, needed two-thirds
What this bill would do
This joint resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget. It limits annual total expenditures to the average receipts of the previous three years, adjusted for inflation and population changes. Congress can exceed these limits through a two-thirds roll call vote in each House or during a declared war. Additionally, any new taxes or tax increases would require a two-thirds roll call vote approval. The amendment would take effect five years after ratification.
Yes· 3 of 18
- Scored +10
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The amendment imposes a constitutional mandate for fiscal discipline and balanced budgeting.
- Scored +9
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill mandates that expenditures cannot exceed a three-year average of receipts, effectively capping government spending.
- Scored +8
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Extremely high barriers to tax increases directly benefit the wealthiest individuals.
The opposite· 3 of 56
- Scored -7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Low-income households rely most on the social services and subsidies that would likely be cut under this bill.
- Scored -7
Would retired people be better off under this?
Directly threatened by potential cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
- Scored -7
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill significantly restricts the federal government's power to spend and tax.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: a fast-track vote, needing two-thirds to pass The House sets aside its normal procedure to move quickly: no amendments, little debate, and a two-thirds bar instead of a simple majority. It is used for measures expected to be uncontroversial, so a bill that fails here failed despite broad expectations that it would not. Short of two-thirds 211 yes · 207 no
03/18/2026 · Roll call 95 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Spending Limits: Section 1 limits total expenditures to the average annual receipts of the three prior years, adjusted for inflation and population. This aims to keep government spending in line with actual revenue.
-
Tax Protections: Section 4 requires a two-thirds roll call vote of each House for any bill that levies a new tax or increases an existing tax rate. This makes it more difficult for the government to increase taxes on the people.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Spending Restrictions: Section 1 restricts expenditures, which may limit the government's ability to spend funds unless a two-thirds roll call vote is achieved under Section 2 or a war is declared under Section 3.
-
Difficulty in Passing Legislation: Section 4 requires a high threshold of two-thirds of the whole number of each House for new or increased taxes, which could make it harder for the government to raise revenue for public needs.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Healthcare
- Does this strengthen the Affordable Care Act? — Expenditure limits would make it difficult to maintain or expand ACA subsidies. Does this put more money into Medicaid, the health coverage for people on low incomes? — Spending limits would likely restrict the growth or availability of Medicaid funding. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — Strict spending caps may lead to funding cuts for large entitlement programs like Medicare. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Budgetary constraints on federal receipts would likely reduce public funding for healthcare access programs. Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak? — Capping expenditures limits the ability to mobilize rapid, large-scale funding for public health emergencies. Does this put more money into medical research? — Budget constraints would likely lead to cuts in federal scientific and medical research grants. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Limited federal spending typically results in reduced funding for public health initiatives and mental health services. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Funding for crisis response programs would be subject to the overall expenditure cap. Does this help veterans get medical care? — Federal spending caps could limit the budget available for VA healthcare services.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would billionaires be better off under this? — The two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases effectively protects billionaire wealth from legislative changes. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Extremely high barriers to tax increases directly benefit the wealthiest individuals. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Strong protections against wealth or income tax increases provide significant benefit. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income earners benefit significantly from the extreme difficulty of passing new or increased taxes. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners benefit from the protections against tax increases and a focus on fiscal restraint. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Benefits from tax protections, although some may lose access to certain federal services. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged taxpayers may benefit from the restrictions on tax increases. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General benefit from fiscal restraint and tax protections, though varies by income level. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households rely most on the social services and subsidies that would likely be cut under this bill. Would retired people be better off under this? — Directly threatened by potential cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors are heavily reliant on Social Security and Medicare, both of which would be threatened by spending caps. Would students be better off under this? — Directly harmed by reductions in student aid and college funding. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Spending caps would likely reduce funding for disability services and accessibility programs. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Federal funding for tribal services and rural development would be constrained. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Loss of funding for public transit and urban development projects. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Funding for VA services would likely be reduced under strict spending limits. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately affected by cuts to social safety nets and public health programs. Would children be better off under this? — Cuts to education and child welfare programs would negatively impact children. Would farmers be better off under this? — Agricultural subsidies and rural development funding would be curtailed. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately affected by cuts to social safety nets and public health programs. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Reduced federal funding for integration and legal services. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Loss of funding for rural infrastructure and development. Would union members be better off under this? — Cuts to public infrastructure projects often reduce high-paying union construction jobs. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reduced funding for college affordability and student loans harms young adults. Would women be better off under this? — Cuts to childcare and healthcare services often disproportionately affect women.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — The bill severely limits the government's ability to spend beyond receipts, which is critical during unforeseen disasters. Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport? — Federal grants for public transit would likely be reduced to meet spending caps. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — Large-scale infrastructure projects would be difficult to fund under a strict balanced budget mandate. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — The bill would make it harder to pass new spending bills for renewable energy investments. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Budgetary constraints would likely reduce the funding and staffing of environmental regulatory agencies. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Funding for the management of national parks and forests would be subject to the overall spending cap. Does this invest in rural communities? — Budgetary restrictions would limit funding for rural development grants and programs. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Spending caps would limit funding for green energy subsidies and environmental protection programs.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The amendment imposes a constitutional mandate for fiscal discipline and balanced budgeting. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill mandates that expenditures cannot exceed a three-year average of receipts, effectively capping government spending. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — By constitutionally requiring a balanced budget and limiting expenditures to receipts, the bill directly targets the reduction of deficit spending. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — Reduced government spending and deficit reduction are generally associated with lower inflationary pressure. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Fiscal discipline and lower taxes may stimulate investment, though spending cuts could dampen demand. Does this cut taxes for middle-income families? — The requirement for a two-thirds majority to increase taxes makes future tax hikes for the middle class significantly more difficult. Does this cut taxes for small businesses? — Similar to middle-class taxes, the barrier to increasing taxes protects small businesses from new tax burdens. Does this increase support for people who lose their jobs? — Spending caps on total expenditures may lead to reductions in social safety net programs like unemployment benefits. Does this raise the taxes companies pay? — The high voting threshold creates a strong barrier against any potential increase in corporate taxes. Does this raise taxes on the highest earners? — The two-thirds vote requirement prevents the easier implementation of tax increases on high-income earners.
- Education And Technology
- Does this reduce what student borrowers owe or repay? — Debt forgiveness or relief programs would be nearly impossible to fund under these budgetary restrictions. Does this make college cost less? — Spending caps would likely lead to a reduction in federal Pell Grants and other college subsidies. Does this put more money into scientific research? — Budget caps would likely lead to significant cuts in funding for agencies like the NIH and NSF. Does this put more into space exploration? — NASA's budget would be restricted by the overall federal expenditure limit. Does this get reliable internet to more people? — Federal initiatives to expand broadband in rural areas would face funding shortages. Does this put more money into public schools? — Federal contributions to public education would be limited by the spending caps.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this strengthen Social Security? — Spending limits would put significant pressure on the funding and long-term solvency of Social Security payments. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Reductions in government spending generally lead to fewer resources for poverty alleviation programs. Does this make housing cost less? — Federal housing assistance programs would be restricted by the balanced budget mandate. Does this make child care cost less? — The bill would make it harder to fund federal childcare subsidies due to expenditure caps. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Spending caps would likely reduce funding for homeless shelters and supportive housing programs. Does this tighten control of the border? — Budget caps may limit the funds available for border security infrastructure and personnel.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this reduce what is spent on the military? — The balanced budget mandate would force a reduction in military spending unless a war is declared. Does this send more money or help to other countries? — Foreign aid is often one of the first areas cut during strict federal spending restrictions. Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Capping expenditures would likely lead to budget cuts for veterans' benefits and services. Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — Budget caps may limit the ability to invest in new and evolving cybersecurity technologies. Does this put more money into stopping terrorism? — Expenditure limits would constrain the budget for counter-terrorism operations. Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — Budgetary constraints may limit the funding for diplomatic missions and state department operations. Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — Reduced foreign aid and military spending could weaken diplomatic leverage and alliance commitments.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — By limiting federal spending and power, the bill indirectly shifts more responsibility and authority back to the states. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The requirement for roll call votes for taxes and spending overrides increases transparency in legislative decision-making. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill significantly restricts the federal government's power to spend and tax.
- 3/18/2026
- Failed 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).
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 211 - 207 (Roll no. 95).
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2583-2584)
- At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
- DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1115, the House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 139
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2560-2568; text: CR H2560-2561)
- Mr. Biggs (AZ) moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution.
- 2/25/2026
- Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-520.
- Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 63.
- 2/3/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 10.
- 1/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/9/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in House
Josh BrecheenRepublican · Oklahoma
Andrew ClydeRepublican · Georgia