H.J. Res. 139 (119th)Bill Overview

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the Federal Government.

Economics and Public Finance|Budget deficits and national debtBudget process
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Jan 9, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageFloor

On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 211 - 207 (Roll no. 95).

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

This joint resolution proposes a Constitutional amendment requiring federal annual expenditures not to exceed the average annual receipts of the prior three years, adjusted for population and inflation.

Expenditures exclude debt payments and receipts exclude borrowing.

Overrides to exceed the limit require two-thirds roll call votes of each House for specific expenditures; a separate clause permits exceeding limits during years a declaration of war is in effect.

Passage8/100

Historic difficulty of amendments plus contentious fiscal effects and ambiguity reduce knockout prospects.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this proposed constitutional amendment clearly establishes a concise substantive rule (a balanced‑budget requirement) and includes several concrete elements (calculation method, exclusions, override thresholds, effective date). However, it leaves many operational, definitional, enforcement, and integration details unspecified, delegating implementation to future congressional legislation.

Contention78/100

Left emphasizes harm to safety net and countercyclical policy

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Federal agenciesFederal agencies
Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesCould reduce long‑run federal deficits and slow debt accumulation by enforcing spending limits.
  • Federal agenciesMay lower federal interest costs over time if deficits and debt growth decline.
  • Targeted stakeholdersCreates clearer fiscal rules that supporters say improve legislative discipline and budget predictability.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesMay force cuts to federal programs, reducing services and public‑sector employment during fiscal shortfalls.
  • Targeted stakeholdersImposes rigid fiscal constraints that could limit countercyclical spending during recessions.
  • Targeted stakeholdersTwo‑thirds requirement for tax increases makes revenue adjustments politically and procedurally difficult.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Left emphasizes harm to safety net and countercyclical policy
Progressive15%

Generally opposed.

Views the amendment as a rigid fiscal constraint that risks cutting social programs and hampering crisis responses.

Concerned the two-thirds tax rule blocks progressive revenue options needed for public investments.

Likely resistant
Centrist50%

Mixed.

Appreciates emphasis on fiscal responsibility but worries about legal rigidity and economic inflexibility.

Wants clearer emergency exceptions and implementation details before endorsing.

Split reaction
Conservative85%

Generally supportive.

Sees the amendment as a structural fix to limit federal spending growth and protect taxpayers.

Values the two-thirds tax rule and high bar for spending overrides.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Reached or meaningfully advanced

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood8/100

Historic difficulty of amendments plus contentious fiscal effects and ambiguity reduce knockout prospects.

Scope and complexity
86%
Scopesweeping
86%
Complexityhigh
Why this could stall
  • How 'citizen population' is to be measured
  • Treatment of recessions and economic stabilizers
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Left emphasizes harm to safety net and countercyclical policy

Historic difficulty of amendments plus contentious fiscal effects and ambiguity reduce knockout prospects.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this proposed constitutional amendment clearly establishes a concise substantive rule (a balanced‑budget requirement) and includes several concrete elements (calculation method…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis