Bill Huizenga (R-MI)
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should reduce and maintain the Federal unified budget deficit at or below 3 percent of gross domestic product.
A Republican resolution with 10 Democratic cosponsors · See all 20 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States needs to reduce and maintain the Federal unified budget deficit at or below 3 percent of gross domestic product. It aims to have the deficit meet this target as soon as possible and no later than the end of fiscal year 2030. Once the target is reached, the goal is to continue reducing the deficit to achieve a balanced Federal budget. The resolution calls for the President to submit budgets that create a path toward this target. It also directs various House committees to recommend enforcement options and rule changes to ensure the target is met.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +8
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The resolution calls for a specific target of a 3 percent deficit and a path toward a balanced budget to increase government flexibility.
- Scored +7
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill expresses the sense that the deficit should be reduced to 3 percent of GDP to stabilize the national debt.
- Scored +5
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The resolution directs that efforts to meet the target should examine changes to discretionary appropriations and direct spending.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive?
The resolution targets reductions in discretionary appropriations which could include defense spending.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Economic and National Security Stability: The text notes that rising deficits and debt represent a threat to national security and economic growth, and that reducing them can safeguard future generations (Whereas clauses).
-
Lower Living Costs: The resolution states that rising deficits threaten to increase interest rates and the cost of living; therefore, targeting a lower deficit could mitigate these risks (Whereas clauses).
-
Increased Government Flexibility: Reducing the deficit is intended to increase the government's flexibility to respond to fiscal emergencies (Whereas clauses).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are explicitly stated in the text.
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.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The resolution calls for a specific target of a 3 percent deficit and a path toward a balanced budget to increase government flexibility. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill expresses the sense that the deficit should be reduced to 3 percent of GDP to stabilize the national debt. Is this likely to grow the economy? — The resolution states that reducing deficits can promote long-term economic growth. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The resolution directs that efforts to meet the target should examine changes to discretionary appropriations and direct spending. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — The text argues that reducing rising deficits can mitigate the risk of increased interest rates and cost of living.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — The text states that reducing deficits will safeguard future generations. Would retired people be better off under this? — Stabilizing the national debt is presented as a way to safeguard future generations, including those approaching retirement. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The resolution aims to stabilize the national debt to ensure long-term fiscal stability for future generations. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The resolution argues that deficit reduction can help mitigate rising interest rates and costs of living. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Reducing the deficit is intended to mitigate risks to the cost of living for households.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The resolution calls for the CBO to include statements on how legislation affects deficit targets.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — The resolution targets reductions in discretionary appropriations which could include defense spending.
- 5/21/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 3/2/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 2/12/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 1/7/2026
- Submitted in House
- Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 14 Cosponsors added.
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jodey ArringtonRepublican · Texas
Donald BeyerDemocrat · Virginia
Ed CaseDemocrat · Hawaii
Jim CostaDemocrat · California
Chuck EdwardsRepublican · North Carolina
Ron EstesRepublican · Kansas
Randy FeenstraRepublican · Iowa
Jared GoldenDemocrat · Maine
Marie PerezDemocrat · Washington
Chrissy HoulahanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Erin HouchinRepublican · Indiana
Dusty JohnsonRepublican · South Dakota
Blake MooreRepublican · Utah
Scott PetersDemocrat · California
Jimmy PanettaDemocrat · California
Mike QuigleyDemocrat · Illinois
David SchweikertRepublican · Arizona
Lloyd SmuckerRepublican · Pennsylvania
Thomas SuozziDemocrat · New York
Steve WomackRepublican · Arkansas