H. Rpt. 119-520 addresses "Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Requiring a Balanced Budget for the Federal Govern- Ment". It was prepared by the Judiciary Committee as part of the committee's legislative and oversight work. Committee reports are among the most important primary sources in the legislative process. They explain what legislation does, why the committee believes it is necessary, what amendments were adopted, how much it costs, and what the committee's majority and minority members think. Courts and agencies refer to these reports for decades after enactment when interpreting how laws should be applied.
Official report text. Use Ctrl+F / Cmd+F to search within the document.
House Report 119-520 - PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRING A BALANCED BUDGET FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERN- MENT
[House Report 119-520]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 119-520
======================================================================
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES REQUIRING A BALANCED BUDGET FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERN-
MENT
_______
February 25, 2026.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Jordan, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.J. Res. 139]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 139) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget
for the Federal Government, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the
joint resolution do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 10
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 10
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 10
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects.......................... 10
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 10
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 10
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 11
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 11
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 11
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 11
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 11
Dissenting Views................................................. 12
Purpose and Summary
H.J. Res. 139, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), would
amend the U.S. Constitution to balance the budget of the
federal government. This amendment would cap yearly federal
expenditures at the average of the previous three years'
receipts, adjusted for inflation and the population of U.S.
citizens. The amendment would also provide two mechanisms by
which Congress can authorize additional expenditures in an
emergency: (1) by a simple majority vote after a declaration of
war; or (2) by a two-thirds majority in each house for any
emergency (e.g., a natural disaster relief package). The
amendment would further require a two-thirds vote of both
houses to raise taxes. Finally, the amendment would authorize
Congress to pass implementing legislation to enforce the
amendment and would take effect five years after ratification.
Background and Need for the Legislation
The debate over the need to establish a constitutional
limit on spending or debt is not new.\1\ Scholars frequently
cite Thomas Jefferson as the leading Founding Father on this
issue ``because of his distrust of government debt'' and his
advocacy that ``the way to cure what he felt was extravagant
spending by the Administration of John Adams was a
constitutional amendment that took away the power of the
federal government to incur debt.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\James V. Saturno & Megan S. Lynch, Cong. Rsch. Serv. No. R41907,
A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Background and
Congressional Options (2019).
\2\Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, a balanced budget mandate for Congress continues to
receive broad public support as well as support from the Trump
Administration.\3\ A balanced budget would advance three major
objectives: (1) ending the perverse practice of saddling future
generations with a large national debt; (2) improving the
economy by lowering the deficit; and (3) increasing citizens'
trust in America's political institutions.\4\ During his first
term, President Donald Trump publicly supported a balanced
budget.\5\ During his second term, President Trump has
indicated that he still supports a balanced budget, declaring
in a joint address to Congress that he would ``do what has not
been done in 24 years: balance the federal budget.''\6\
President Trump also signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into
law on July 4, 2025, which reduces the projected debt-to-GDP
ratio, is projected to flip primary deficits into surpluses by
2034, and, factoring in forecasted economic growth, reduces the
U.S. deficit by about $4.5 trillion relative to the policy
baseline prior to enactment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See e.g., Andrew Crosby & Allyson L. Holbrook, Public Support
for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Trends and
Predictors, 39 Pub. Budgeting & Fin. 44 (2019).
\4\Saturno, supra note 1, at 4.
\5\Exec. Office of the President, Statement of Administration
Policy: H.J. Res. 2--Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States (Apr. 11, 2018).
\6\President Donald J. Trump, Address Before a Joint Session of the
Congress (Mar. 4, 2025).
\7\The One Big Beautiful Bill Drives Deficit Reduction, S. Comm. on
Fin. (Aug. 18, 2025); The One Big Beautiful Bill Slashes Deficits,
National Debt While Unleashing Economic Growth, The White House (June
30, 2025). Primary deficits exclude borrowing costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A balanced budget amendment also has widespread support
among the states. Several governors, such as Governor Greg
Gianforte (R-MT), Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL), and Governor
Brad Little (R-ID), have called on Congress to pass a balanced
budget amendment.\8\ Currently, 28 states have submitted
petitions calling for a constitutional convention to propose a
balanced budget amendment.\9\ Thirty-four petitions are
required to organize a convention of the states, but Congress
has the authority to propose an amendment itself.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Press Release, Gov. Brad Little, Gov. Little Hosts Florida Gov.
Ron DeSantis to Push for Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution (Mar. 24, 2025); Press Release, State of Montana Newsroom,
Governors Gianforte, DeSantis Promote Balanced Budget Amendment to U.S.
Constitution (Mar. 24, 2025).
\9\Mason Brighton, Florida's governor backs Kentucky push for
balanced-budget amendment, Spectrum News (Feb. 18, 2026).
\10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has considered several variations of a Balanced
Budget Amendment to the Constitution since the founding. In the
118th Congress, for example, at least five Balanced Budget
Amendments were introduced in the House.\11\ H.J. Res. 139
builds from this foundation by incorporating the best
components from previous amendment proposals in order to ensure
fiscal discipline while providing necessary flexibility to
address emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\See, e.g., H.J. Res. 9, 118th Cong. (2023); H.J. Res. 15, 118th
Cong. (2023); H.J. Res. 19, 118th Cong. (2023); H.J. Res. 80, 118th
Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceptions for War, National Security, or Natural Disasters
Opponents of a balanced budget amendment have expressed
concern that a rigid balanced budget requirement would harm the
federal government's ability to spend at levels necessary to
win a war or respond to an emergency. H.J. Res. 139 addresses
this concern by authorizing exceptions for Congress to run a
deficit during times of war or emergency, if the proper
thresholds are met (a declaration of war requires only a
majority vote and any other emergency requires a two-thirds
vote in each chamber).
Congress has not declared war since 1942,\12\ but the
United States has engaged in many foreign conflicts since then.
The provision in H.J. Res. 139 would require a declaration of
war to deficit spend, incentivizing Congress to either declare
war or not authorize armed conflict due to limited resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\H.J. Res. 321, 77th Cong. (1942).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of an emergency other than a declared war,
Congress would need a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber
to waive the balanced budget requirement and deficit spend.
This is a reasonable threshold, as it is the same threshold
required by the Constitution for other extraordinary
legislative acts (e.g., expulsion, impeachment conviction, and
the ratification of treaties).\13\ This heightened threshold
ensures broad consensus in Congress, preventing abuse of this
exception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See generally U.S. Const. Art I, Sec. 3, 5, 7; Art II, Sec. 2;
Art. V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaying the Amendment's Effective Date
H.J. Res. 139's five-year effective date is a reasonable
measure that gives Congress time to adjust to a balanced budget
after decades of deficit spending. This allows Congress to get
our fiscal house in order gradually, rather than making drastic
cuts immediately, while maintaining an aggressive timeline for
balance. This provision is consistent with previous proposals,
which also postponed the amendment from taking effect for a
certain period of time after three-fourths of states ratify the
amendment (i.e., the date of the amendment's official
incorporation into the Constitution).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., H.J. Res. 6, 119th Cong. (2025); H.J. Res. 10,
119th Cong. (2025); H.J. Res. 17, 119th Cong. (2025); H.J. Res. 110,
119th Cong. (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of Receipts
For the purposes of H.J. Res. 139, the ``total receipts''
against which the budget expenditures must be balanced is
calculated by averaging the receipts of the previous three
years with adjustments based on inflation and the population of
U.S. citizens. The average of three years should provide a
large enough sample size to reduce the effects of any outlier
years with extraordinarily high or low receipts. It will also
make the ``total receipts'' figure more predictable year-to-
year, providing certainty for Congress and the country.
Incentivizing Congress to Ensure a More Limited
Federal Government
H.J. Res. 139 requires tax increases to be approved by a
two-thirds vote in each chamber. This guardrail would ensure
that efforts to balance the federal budget would focus on
reducing excessive spending rather than raising revenue through
exorbitant tax increases on Americans.
Hearings
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII,
the following hearing was used to develop H.J. Res. 139:
``Balancing the Federal Budget: Examining Proposals for a
Balanced Budget Amendment,'' a hearing held on December 3,
2025, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
Government of the Judiciary Committee.\15\ The subcommittee
heard testimony from the following witnesses:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Balancing the Federal Budget: Examining Proposals for a
Balanced Budget Amendment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Const.
and Limited Gov't of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 119th Cong. (Dec.
3, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Walker, Former Comptroller General of
the United States;
Kurt Couchman, Senior Fellow, Americans for
Prosperity;
Brittany Madni, Executive Vice President,
Economic Policy Innovation Center; and
Brendan Duke, Senior Director for Federal Fiscal
Policy, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
The hearing focused on the need for the federal government
to balance its budget and begin to control its fiscal crisis
brought on by prolonged deficit spending and ballooning debt.
Committee Consideration
On February 3, 2026, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.J. Res. 139, favorably reported by a roll
call vote of 16-10, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.J. Res. 139:
1. Vote on Amendment #1 to H.J. Res. 139, offered by Ms.
Jayapal--failed 8 ayes to 9 nays.
2. Vote on Amendments #2 & #3 (considered en bloc) to
H.J. Res. 139, offered by Ms. Scanlon--failed 9 ayes to 13
nays.
3. Vote on tabling the motion to appeal the ruling of the
chair (germaneness with respect to Amendment #4, offered by Ms.
Kamlager-Dove)--agreed to 14 ayes to 9 nays.
4. Vote on favorably reporting H.J. Res. 139--passed 16
ayes to 10 nays.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office. The Committee has
requested but not received from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill
contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax
expenditures. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such
estimate and statement to be printed in the Congressional
Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a cost
estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant
to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not
made available to the Committee in time for the filing of this
report. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such estimate
to be printed in the Congressional Record upon its receipt by
the Committee.
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(d)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision
of H.J. Res. 139 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
House rule XIII, H.J. Res. 139 would amend the Constitution of
the United States to require a balanced budget for the federal
government.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.J. Res.
139 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget office pursuant to section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman
of the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Pub. L. 104-
1).
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section. 1. Total expenditures for a year shall not exceed the average
annual receipts collected in the three prior years, adjusted in
proportion to the changes in the population of citizens of the
United States and inflation. Total expenditures shall include
all expenditures of the United States except those for payment
of debt, and receipts shall include all receipts of the United
States except those derived from borrowing
This section caps annual federal expenditures at the
average of the last three years' federal receipts. It adjusts
this receipts cap based on population growth and inflation over
the previous three years.
This section excludes debt servicing from the ``expenses''
side of the balancing equation and prohibits Congress from
counting money borrowed as receipts.
Section 2. Congress may by a roll call vote of two-thirds of each House
provide by law for specific expenditures in excess of the limit
in section 1
This section allows for additional spending in the case of
a national emergency, like a financial crisis or major natural
disaster. Approval of the excess spending would require two-
thirds of each house of Congress.
Section 3. Congress may by a roll call vote provide by law for specific
expenditures in excess of the limit in section 1 for any year
in which a declaration of war is in effect
This section allows Congress to approve spending over the
balanced budget cap if a war has been declared by Congress.
Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or to increase the rate of any
tax shall not become law unless approved by two-thirds of the
whole number of each House of Congress by a roll call vote
This section requires a two-thirds vote in each House of
Congress to raise taxes or levy a new tax.
Section 5. Congress shall enforce and implement this article by
appropriate legislation
This section authorizes Congress to implement the amendment
through legislation, for example by prescribing the means by
which receipts are adjusted for inflation and changes in
population.
Section 6. This article shall take effect with the fifth year beginning
after ratification
The amendment would take effect five years after
ratification to give Congress and the Executive Branch time to
adjust to the new limits.
Dissenting Views
Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Requiring a Balanced Budget for the Federal Government
H.J. Res. 139 provides some needed comic relief from all
the tragedy that has occurred recently in Minnesota at the
hands of an out-of-control Department of Homeland Security. It
is perhaps the funniest legislative initiative of this
Congress: a Republican constitutional amendment to address a
problem that Republicans created and that Republicans have
refused to address even with all the necessary legislative
tools at their disposal.
I refer, of course, to gigantic runaway federal budget
deficits that result from out-of-control Republican spending
and stupendously reckless Republican tax cuts for billionaires
and giant corporations. Our colleague Representative Chip Roy
(R-TX) described the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) as
``garbage'' prior to the House vote, saying: ``If we're going
to do the tax policy, at least do the spending policy. Have the
courage and the fortitude to do what you campaign on when
you're talking about balancing the dang budget.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dan Katz, Texas Rep. Chip Roy calls GOP megabill `garbage',
Texas Public Radio (July 2, 2025), https://www.tpr.org/government-
politics/2025-07-02/why-texas-rep-chip-roy-broke-with-trump-on-the-
gops-mega-bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Roy is correct. Republicans currently control the
House. Republicans control the Senate. Republicans control the
White House. Republicans effectively control the Supreme Court.
Yet, they have not once balanced the federal budget or even
tried to present a balanced budget for legislative
consideration this Congress.
So to cover up for their pathetic capitulation to Donald
Trump--who has six Chapter 11 bankruptcies to his name, which
is more bankruptcies than impeachments, although fewer
bankruptcies than criminal convictions--and to coverup for
their unceasing giveaways to the Jeffrey Epstein and Elon Musk
class of financial and sexual predators, Republicans now want
to start finger-painting all over the U.S. Constitution.
Republicans want us to use our Constitution to make them do
what they claim to want to do, at a time when they already
possess the complete power to do it. And in the process,
Republicans will put our government into a fiscal straitjacket
for all time so responsible leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt
won't have the flexibility to deal with real economic crises
created by Republicans like Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge and
Donald Trump.
The simple truth is that we don't need a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget or have responsible fiscal
policies. With one-party control of the White House, the
Senate, and the House of Representatives and nonstop blather
about the importance of balancing budgets, Republicans could
simply do it right now if they wanted to during the 119th
Congress. But billionaire ripoff artists like Elon Musk or
Peter Thiel or Donald Trump don't get rich off balanced
budgets--they get rich when the MAGA gangster state opens the
spigots of taxpayer money in federal contracts and giveaways
for billionaires and the high-flying rent-seeking corporate
class.
Republicans have run up historic corrupt deficits this
Congress and have never once submitted a single balanced
budget. We don't need a constitutional amendment to force this
Majority to do the right thing. That's hopeless. We just need a
new Majority.
Republicans may as well introduce a constitutional
amendment saying that federal agents shouldn't shoot American
citizens in the face for exercising their First Amendment
rights, like Rene Good of Minnesota, or a constitutional
amendment saying that federal agents shouldn't strip firearms
from people lawfully carrying them under state law and the
Second Amendment and then shoot them ten times for disagreeing
with the President and Stephen Miller, like Alex Pretti, also
of Minnesota.
You don't need a constitutional amendment to comply with
the law or do the right thing. Just do it.
History proves we don't need a constitutional amendment to
budget responsibly. It also shows that, nearly every time a
Democratic administration has put our fiscal house in order,
Republicans have taken it as an opportunity to pass giant
giveaways for corporations and billionaires and blown massive
holes in our budget.
In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, worked
with a Republican-controlled Congress to eliminate the deficit,
and the federal government ran a huge surplus without the aid
of a contrived balanced budget constitutional amendment.
President Clinton bequeathed to his successor, George W.
Bush, a $236 billion budget surplus, which he and his GOP
Congress squandered on tax cuts for the wealthy and the
staggeringly costly forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2017, President Trump and a Republican Congress passed a
so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a law that increased the
federal deficit by $1.9 trillion. At the time, no President had
ever added more to the deficit.
But then last year, Republicans passed the Obscenely Ugly
Profligate Law, which will add a jaw dropping $4 trillion to
the national debt because of its obscene giveaways to
billionaires and corporations with the MAGA seal of approval.
They paid for a small fraction of their profligacy by
cavalierly stripping health insurance and food assistance from
tens of millions of working-class Americans who are now living
with these Marie Antoinette policies that came out of the Trump
White House.
I will only support a constitutional amendment compelling
Republicans to finally balance a budget if it also compels them
to stop throwing money at billionaires, to crack down on record
corruption and profit-taking by their incorrigible President
and to get their private army in U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to start complying with the Constitution, including
the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the Fifth
Amendment.
Maybe we should consider a constitutional amendment to
compel President Trump to respect the Constitution? Though
perhaps that would be as equal a waste of congressional time as
considering H.J. Res. 139 on the House Floor. I urge Members to
oppose this legislation.
Jamie Raskin,
Ranking Member.
[all]